What is S&W's answer to the Ruger LCR?

[Cristiano]

Looking for a "deep concealed" revolver with the prestige of a S&W trademark. Ladies and gentlemen, what are your thoughts?
Thanks,
ric

 

[photoman]

Airweight J frame. Ruger is about 50 years late to the race.

 

[s&wchad]

 

[Fulton722]

S&W 442 38+P, w/o Integrated Lock, about $425...

 

[panamajack310]

I am going to go out on a limb here. BUT S&W has no reason to answer for the Ruger LCR. I think the 642/442 is as close as you can get to it.
The S&W will always out sell the Ruger because 1 its ugly 2 its plastic 3 S&W is proven...

 

[gunsmith11]

I for one have turned to my Model 60 for over 30 years, I think it is a keeper

 

[Burley]

I looked at the LCR and bought this instead.

 

[RightWinger]

Even with Ruger making the LCR, its still heavier than the 340/342 by 1.5 Oz if I'm not mistaken. Why would you want a plastic gun that is heavier than a metal gun? I've felt the trigger on the LCR and it feels like a toy, I'm not sold on it. I don't think S&W needs to answer to Ruger on this because Ruger isn't competing with the J frames, in order to do that they would have to have a product that is much better in my mind.

 

[Beemerguy53]

About 13 or 14 years ago, I bought a S&W Performance Center 640 Carry Comp. Over the years, I installed Spegal Boot grips, had an XS Big Dot tritium sight installed on it, and I had the cylinder beveled by S&W.

The 640 Carry Comp is all-stainless, rated for .38+P, and has S&W's proprietary "Power Port" compensator. It's an easy gun to carry and to shoot well, light enough that it doesn't bother me to carry it, heavy enough to absorb the recoil of a +P load.

These come up for sale from time to time, and I would highly recommend it over any other contemporary small-framed revolver.

In the LCR, Ruger has created a technological marvel, but I don't really see it as a true rival to the J-frame....

 

[shawn mccarver]

Looking for a "deep concealed" revolver with the prestige of a S&W trademark. Ladies and gentlemen, what are your thoughts?
Thanks,
ric

I believe you are asking the wrong question. In my opinion, it is Ruger who is answering the need in its line for a light weight 38 special revolver. The SP101 is a fine revolver, but way too heavy for the intended use. S&W has had the Airweight J frames for 50 or so years, give or take.

The Ruger is great competition for the Taurus or Rossi lines for those who cannot afford S&W quality but do not want to compromise with an abominable Taurus.

Cheap is not the best criteria where a life saving tool is concerned.

 

[ranger7]

Looking for a "deep concealed" revolver with the prestige of a S&W trademark. Ladies and gentlemen, what are your thoughts?
Thanks,
ric

I've always been a J frame fan. Had a 442 and 2 642s before I tried the LCR. My wife has weak hands and has trouble with almost all revolver double action trigger pulls. My 442 averages about 11.75 #. I could tune it lower at the risk of losing reliability. Tried an LCR - 9.25 # out of the box. My wife can shoot it without problems. Got her an LCR and another for my daughter.

I like the trigger pull on the LCR too. More of constant pull, no stacking. I believe the LCR finish(es) will stand up better than on the S&Ws. (Sent a recent 642 back twice for clear coat replacement.) The Hogue "Tamer" grip absorbs recoil on the light revolver very well and the ergonomics of the grip is very comfortable. I'm keeping a least one 442, but LCRs are replacing most of my J frames.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

My Model 37 Airweight Chief Special has been with me for 30 years. It is not the choice for +P loads, and it is not the primary weapon that I would select for going into known danger zones. But it reliably shoots to point of aim, standard velocity loads are easily handled, it is very lightweight and easily concealed.

I will never feel unarmed with the Model 37 in my hand.

I looked at a Ruger LCR recently and my first reaction was exactly the same as the day I was first issued a M16 rifle in Vietnam (after using the M14 extensively): "You can tell it's Mattel, it's swell!"

 

[M29since14]

...Ruger is about 50 years late to the race.

That's what I was thinking.

Any 42/442/642/342/340PD, etc., etc. and that is just limiting oneself to the "hammerless" design. The current state of the art, IMHO ( ), is the 340PD.

 

[Aussie44]

I am going to go out on a limb here. BUT S&W has no reason to answer for the Ruger LCR. I think the 642/442 is as close as you can get to it.
The S&W will always out sell the Ruger because 1 its ugly 2 its plastic 3 S&W is proven...

Well said..


Ken

 

[James NM]

What is S&W's answer to the Ruger LCR?

I should think it would be the same as Glock's answer to the SR9:

"What the hell took you so long?", or maybe just "ho hum".

 

[sipowicz]

Life's too short to buy ugly guns...yeah, I know...it's a life saving piece of equipment and it doesn't matter...but most gun aficionados, are not just into function and ergonomics as can be attested to by the thousands of threads here that start with "look at my beautiful model #-#... So unless someonc can prove it does something much better than the classic 442/642...I'll pass.

 

[Kenneth L. Walters]

This Ruger is just hype

Airweight J frame. Ruger is about 50 years late to the race.

I had one. Bigger than I expected. Nothing Smith couldn't do better. AND when you went to close the cylinder it didn't always lock up properly. Didn't try shooting it that way but you could have. I was REALLY unimpressed!

 

[cal_gunner]

The S&W will always out sell the Ruger because 1 its ugly 2 its plastic 3 S&W is proven...

and the S&W does'nt have a transfer bar that "rattles"..

 

[Cristiano]

Thanks Guys!!!

Appreciate the feedback. Interested in S&WChad's gun.

ric

 

[Vulcan Bob]

S&W been there done that!