reerc
Member
Good post - and gives me more reason to want one - so all those holsters from my now gone 442 won't go to waste.
Ruger LCR.......
- Thread starter CAJUNLAWYER
- Start date
Good post - and gives me more reason to want one - so all those holsters from my now gone 442 won't go to waste.
Andy Griffith
Member
Am I the only one that thinks this gun is just too large?
Yes, it is smooth.
Yes, it is light.
Yes, it is a bit more affordable, but is still too high for what it is, IMHO.
But the biggest drawback is it is just too big in the frame area, that the grip is too long, but no other boot or service grips interchange with it as yet, correct?
A 3" K-frame with a boot grip seems to be nearly as concealable in size, albeit heavier.
That, and the faux "church-steeple" style of the cylinder looks better on the Webley WG's where it originated, or on an early Colt 1860 Army with deep flutes. It's kinda like putting Cadillac fins on a new Ford F-150.
Yes, it is smooth.
Yes, it is light.
Yes, it is a bit more affordable, but is still too high for what it is, IMHO.
But the biggest drawback is it is just too big in the frame area, that the grip is too long, but no other boot or service grips interchange with it as yet, correct?
A 3" K-frame with a boot grip seems to be nearly as concealable in size, albeit heavier.
That, and the faux "church-steeple" style of the cylinder looks better on the Webley WG's where it originated, or on an early Colt 1860 Army with deep flutes. It's kinda like putting Cadillac fins on a new Ford F-150.
reerc
Member
Without looking up the stats, I bet the 3" K-frame weighs ~ 50% more than the LCR, and weight can be a large factor in choosing a carry gun.
OP
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Uhhh....you ARE from the South aren't you??????????Am I the only one that thinks this gun is just too large?
Yes, it is smooth.
Yes, it is light.
Yes, it is a bit more affordable, but is still too high for what it is, IMHO.
But the biggest drawback is it is just too big in the frame area, that the grip is too long, but no other boot or service grips interchange with it as yet, correct?
A 3" K-frame with a boot grip seems to be nearly as concealable in size, albeit heavier.
That, and the faux "church-steeple" style of the cylinder looks better on the Webley WG's where it originated, or on an early Colt 1860 Army with deep flutes. It's kinda like putting Cadillac fins on a new Ford F-150.
sipowicz
Member
On my "longer list", but wouldn't mind having one some day.
Variety is the spice of life, Sip ... besides, we know you carrry a Ruger SP101.
who told?!
Electraclyde
Member
I owned an LCR for about 1 week. I had the same problem with the trigger return. I went to the range with the LCR and a 442 and a 340 M&P. I don't have any problems with the S&W triggers. I sold the LCR after just one week and less than 50 rounds thru it. I did not perceive any difference in recoil between the LCR and the 442.
I examined one at the NRA convention in May, and while I marveled at the radical design, it offended my delicate and refined aesthetic sensibilities, and I didn't think much of the trigger, either... Life's too short to tolerate stuff built down to a price, not up to a standard, and that was my first impression of this gun... If it were actually inexpensive, then I suppose it would have a market niche, but I didn't add one to my wish list.
Pitdog02
Member
"Life's too short to tolerate stuff built down to a price, not up to a standard."
I love that, If I may? I am going to use that when someone is moaning about a bid I give them.
I love that, If I may? I am going to use that when someone is moaning about a bid I give them.
Bullseye 2620
Member
They were offering a free roll of caps and gold-toned Junior Marshal's badge with each one sold at my local pusher's.
Based on their superb understanding of the investment casting process, Ruger has contributed a lot of mass market innovations over the years -- the Mark II and Mark III .22 autopistols, and the Blackhawk/Redhawk heavy caliber revolvers, among them.
This piece of shinola isn't one of them.
When I go out on the street, I appreciate the confidence that comes from knowing that an honest-to-God gunsmith built the piece I am carrying with the understanding that someday, someone might have to defend his life with it.
And, it is uglier than homemade sin. Sorry, but with so many other better choices out there for equivalent money, I just don't get the point. . .unless it was for Ruger to put a lot of cheap-looking and feeling crapola out on the street. I really didn't like it.
Bullseye
Based on their superb understanding of the investment casting process, Ruger has contributed a lot of mass market innovations over the years -- the Mark II and Mark III .22 autopistols, and the Blackhawk/Redhawk heavy caliber revolvers, among them.
This piece of shinola isn't one of them.
When I go out on the street, I appreciate the confidence that comes from knowing that an honest-to-God gunsmith built the piece I am carrying with the understanding that someday, someone might have to defend his life with it.
And, it is uglier than homemade sin. Sorry, but with so many other better choices out there for equivalent money, I just don't get the point. . .unless it was for Ruger to put a lot of cheap-looking and feeling crapola out on the street. I really didn't like it.
Bullseye
You may. However, the fact that someone is "taking bids" is generally a good indication that, price, first and foremost, will be the deciding factor in their purchasing decision. Exceptions, of course, include bid arrangements with rigid and exacting performance specs, and penalties for sub-spec performance, but these are the exception rather than the rule. Buyers who know exactly what they want almost always know precisely what its worth, and are happy to pay the price. Bid shoppers are usually hoping you've made a mistake, or are willing to deceive themselves into believing that the low bid actually was a bargain, which, of course, it seldom is...
Titan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 725
- Reaction score
- 92
Count me among those who don't see the point of building a plastic revolver that sells for the same or more than a quality steel gun.
.
.
Pitdog02
Member
If Im using a line like that Im probably not getting the job anyhow. I like it as a nice little parting statement that may linger and provoke thought, especially if the cheap bidder slaughters the job. I promise to use it judiciously.
Just to keep the thread on track the trigger guard turned me off when I handled the LCR. It just seemed really big and bothered me.
Just to keep the thread on track the trigger guard turned me off when I handled the LCR. It just seemed really big and bothered me.
Last edited:
cal_gunner
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
nice little gun but the "Rattle" of the Transfer bar will give you away every time your in a situation where you are maneuvering and need to be absolutely quiet.
HAWKEYE10
Member
I bought a S&W 637 two months ago for $420 andI bet the LCR cost $100 more. As time goes on I think
the S&W will be worth more. Don
mjr
Member
Let's see...if they made it in .357 with a 3" barrel...I still wouldn't buy one.
rock n roll kid
Member
well . about this little revolver.....
kinda of homely reminds me of an old sentinal ( sp) revolver that was put out by high standard.
good chunk of money for what it is.
and ...... although i havent shot one , i bet i would prefer the smith trigger. i too have had problems on trigger re-set with my sp101 which i love dearly .
not as bad since ruger factory has worked on it , but i have NEVER had this problem with a smith & wesson product ..
my 02
kinda of homely reminds me of an old sentinal ( sp) revolver that was put out by high standard.
good chunk of money for what it is.
and ...... although i havent shot one , i bet i would prefer the smith trigger. i too have had problems on trigger re-set with my sp101 which i love dearly .
not as bad since ruger factory has worked on it , but i have NEVER had this problem with a smith & wesson product ..
my 02
Stainz
Member
mm6mm6,
How'd you get someone to stand in front of a loaded LCR to take that picture?
Now, my general bias against things Ruger... Last fall found my last Ruger handgun, a MKII Gov Comp, leave to fund my new 4" 617. I'd owned BHs, SBH, Vaqueros, SSM, SS and even SP101, RH, and SRH examples - almost all bought new - with bunches of QC problems, some cosmetic, most altered the operation. The over-sized chamber IDs of the .32 & .45 Colts weren't fixable. I live, quite happily now, in S&W-land - MIM parts & ILs included.
Now - what do I think of the LCR? It has to be larger than the designed originally for .38s SP101s, as it's plastic frame is weaker, per given size, than the cast steel frame. The cast steel frame has to be larger than a hammer-forged steel frame, too. Of course, at .38 levels - Al works! I'll stay with my 642 - whose trigger is fine for the application - protecting your bacon. It isn't designed as a plinker.
Of course, I could 'eat my words' if I tried one and liked it... $399 locally.
Stainz
How'd you get someone to stand in front of a loaded LCR to take that picture?
Now, my general bias against things Ruger... Last fall found my last Ruger handgun, a MKII Gov Comp, leave to fund my new 4" 617. I'd owned BHs, SBH, Vaqueros, SSM, SS and even SP101, RH, and SRH examples - almost all bought new - with bunches of QC problems, some cosmetic, most altered the operation. The over-sized chamber IDs of the .32 & .45 Colts weren't fixable. I live, quite happily now, in S&W-land - MIM parts & ILs included.
Now - what do I think of the LCR? It has to be larger than the designed originally for .38s SP101s, as it's plastic frame is weaker, per given size, than the cast steel frame. The cast steel frame has to be larger than a hammer-forged steel frame, too. Of course, at .38 levels - Al works! I'll stay with my 642 - whose trigger is fine for the application - protecting your bacon. It isn't designed as a plinker.
Of course, I could 'eat my words' if I tried one and liked it... $399 locally.
Stainz
