Ruger Polymer-Framed Revolver

[jamstutz]

...When you look at what a skilled smith can do to a 1911 or all steel revelver and compare it to a polymer pistol there is a clear winner and a clear loser for looks.

Very true. I have a safe full of beautiful guns, a Glock on my belt and an LCR in my pocket.

 

[jamstutz]

imho there is right and wrong and he was wrong in this matter, to me anyway, and i choose not to spend my $$ on his products, of course its a free country and ya can do as ya wish but thats how i feel about it.

This is true and I agreed at one time, but now that the next generation at Ruger has embraced the idea of concealed carry and has put their money into designing products specifically for the concealed carry market (as well as releasing high capacity magazines for sale to civilians), I encourage the change in corporate attitude and am happy to buy Ruger products once again. We can hold our grudges against past betrayals, but I believe we accomplish more by encouraging Ruger to expand their interests in self-defense firearms for the civilian market.

 

[SIFU1A]

oh sure they have another attitude now but i wonder how much it has to do with economics vs how they feel about the 2nd amendment.

as far as hicap mags they dont give 'em away do they lol, i would imagine they make a good % profit on each and every one they sell.

i know i know give 'em a break, it just really pissed me off when back in '79 after i bought a mini with my hard earned money i found out ruger wouldnt sell ya the 20's and 30's (LEO only!) which meant to get dependable mags i would have to either buy some ruger brand LEO only ones (expensive) or i would have to try probably a dozen (maybe more)aftermarket brand ones to find 3 or 4 which actually worked, i was not happy lol and still arent really.

but hey the sins of the father huh?

 

[jon-a]

Here's my 2 cents. I bought one and I think it's great. Not quite as cools as my buddies Scandium .357 S&W...but it was 500 dollars cheaper at 445 and the difference will buy a lot of bullets.

As for recoil I have fired 55 rounds out of it with 50 being 148gr wadcutters and 5 being GDHP's in +P and I barely felt the recoil. At 270 pounds actual recoil versus perceived recoil may depend on the mass of the firer.

I love the synthetic stock on my Remington 870 and my FAL, I like G10 on my knives why would I snub my nose at a synthetic revolver...I sincerely doubt my revolver will take the punishment my FFBM takes and if it does shame on me.

Anyway just my 2 cents.

Cheers,

Jon

 

[STAGE 2]

Not quite sure what market ruger was trying to tap here. Its the same weight as several S&W snubbies but larger which is more of an issue with carry. Furthermore, this pistol does not have a polymer frame, but a polymer triggerguard. Thats not going to do anything for mitigating recoil.

 

[jamstutz]

Not quite sure what market ruger was trying to tap here. Its the same weight as several S&W snubbies but larger which is more of an issue with carry. Furthermore, this pistol does not have a polymer frame, but a polymer triggerguard. Thats not going to do anything for mitigating recoil.

The differences in size and weight between the S&W J frames and the Ruger LCR are so small as to not be a factor. The facts regarding the frame are that the shooter holds the grip, which holds the polymer fire control housing, which holds the aluminum sub-frame, which holds the cylinder and barrel. There IS polymer between the shooter and the action.

Whether it's the frame, the overall ergonomics, the new trigger system, whatever--there IS less perceived recoil and the gun is easier to shoot accurately than any of my S&W J frames. Perhaps Ruger borrowed some of the Keebler elves and put a little magic in the design, I don't know, I just know that whatever they did, it works. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[STAGE 2]

The differences in size and weight between the S&W J frames and the Ruger LCR are so small as to not be a factor.

The firearms industry and the gun buying public disagree with you. Smaller has been the goal for some years now. This pistol is larger, and noticably so, than current offerings. Thats a major drawback especially considering that in several cases there is no weight savings. From one gun rag review...

"Unfortunately, while the “Tamer” grip feels good and assists with controllability it is so large that it can be a hindrance to your ability to conceal the handgun in a pocket holster. The big advantage of these lightweight revolvers is the ability to slide them into the pocket holster of your choice, slip them in your pocket and go forth into the world. I am just afraid that the “Tamer” grip would print in your pocket and the tacky texture of the rubber material might catch and bind with your pocket material when you draw the revolver. If you are going to carry this revolver in some type of a belt holster then you are really not taking advantage of the light 13.3 ounce weight and go very easily with an all steel snub nose which would help dampen the recoil... If you are dying to have an LCR it isn’t a bad choice and I’m sure with practice you can probably handle it very well. However I find my S&W model 340 is easier to shoot and shoot well. "

The facts regarding the frame are that the shooter holds the grip, which holds the polymer fire control housing, which holds the aluminum sub-frame, which holds the cylinder and barrel. There IS polymer between the shooter and the action.

Whether it's the frame, the overall ergonomics, the new trigger system, whatever--there IS less perceived recoil and the gun is easier to shoot accurately than any of my S&W J frames. Perhaps Ruger borrowed some of the Keebler elves and put a little magic in the design, I don't know, I just know that whatever they did, it works. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Polymer between the shooter and the metal frame isn't the same as a polymer frame. The reason glocks absorb recoil is because the frame is allowed to flex. There isn't nearly enough polymer here, nor is it correctly placed to have the recoil reduction proeprties of a glock. All the great advertising in the world doesn't change the laws of physics.

The reason that there may be less percieved recoil (as results have varied which tells me its certianly not definitive and thus not revolutionary as ruger claims) than a S&W isn't Keebler elves. Its a far simpler reason that I've already given. The LCR is a bigger pistol. Bigger pistols in the same calibers have less percieved recoil than smaller pistols.

 

[jamstutz]

STAGE 2--I can't say that I agree with you, but whatever the reason, the LCR does the job, and does it better than any of my J frames.

I have a 640 in .357 Mag, a 442 and a 642 in .38 Special, and a 940 in 9mm. The 640 and the 642 have been completely reworked and tuned with new Wolff springs, and the 640 has been ported. The trigger on the LCR is as good as the 640 and better than the 642 right out of the box, while both of the Smiths have had the $200 trigger jobs.

As for size, your point's made about the grips. The standard Hogue grips are larger than many of the grips made for J frames. They are also somewhat "sticky" for pocket carry. The Crimson Trace laser grips are much thinner, 1/2 an ounce lighter, and have polymer sides rather than rubber sides for better pocket carry. I would say they are very similar to the LG-405 grips made for the J frames, and which I have on my 442 and my 642.

Other than the grips, the only other part that is a bit larger is the trigger guard which I welcome since I have to sometimes qualify in cold weather when I'm wearing gloves. The cylinder is the thickest part of any revolver, and the cylinder on the LCR is actually about .02" slimmer than the cylinder on my 642. I may be wrong here, but I doubt very much that the groups I shoot with my LCR are half the size of the groups I shoot with my 642 just because the trigger guard is a little bigger. I tend to think it might be the better trigger, the better sights, and the overall better ergonomics of the LCR.

Since we're quoting the gun scribes, did you catch the review in GUN TESTS?

The LCR represents the first steps forward in revolver construction since the introduction of the modern eight-round revolvers. Few small revolvers, or pistols for that matter, provide the hand with the proper index for rapid repeat fire. That the LCR achieves this among other timely innovations is perhaps the biggest gain. The LCR in combination with the Black Hills 125-grain JHP rounds produced the only pleasing accuracy throughout our tests.​

The LCR turned in the best groups for each of the shooters in the GUN TESTS team. Handguns tested were the LCR, the S&W 442, and the Charter Arms On Duty. Each were five shot .38 Special +P's weighing in at < 1 lb.

 

[jonconsiglio]

I carry a Kimber SIS Pro daily, but it gets so hot here in Corpus Christi I was actually considering something smaller for summer carry. Long story short, I just don't want to carry anything but 1911's.

When I was looking, I considered the small autos and the j frames. I shot the LCP and LCR. Of the two, I'd have gone with the LCP I guess for pocket carry, but the LCR was a nice gun. I've always though about getting the S&W airlight or airweight? The scandium is nice but expensive, so the LCR is a nice option.

I'll shell out $1,000 to $3,000 for a 1911, but even $550 to $800 for a .38 that I wouldn't shoot too much and carry on occasion seems too much? Strange how I can justify thousand on one but not even $550 on another - which I have no problem spending on a knife???

Nice gun for self defense, but not the best range gun of course!

Jonathan

 

[STAGE 2]

The trigger on the LCR is as good as the 640 and better than the 642 right out of the box, while both of the Smiths have had the $200 trigger jobs.

That may very well be the case, but thats not really what we are talking about. Don't get me wrong I'm all for a nice trigger, but action jobs can be had and pulls can be lightened and smoothed. Frames however cannot be shrunk.

Other than the grips, the only other part that is a bit larger is the trigger guard which I welcome since I have to sometimes qualify in cold weather when I'm wearing gloves.

And the frame itself. On one of the other firearms boards someone posted a size comparison pic between the two where a S&W was superimposed on the LCR and there was a noticable difference both in the grips and the frame. You are correct that the cylinder is smaller, but for pocket carry width is less of an issue than surface area. I'll try and dig it up.

The LCR turned in the best groups for each of the shooters in the GUN TESTS team. Handguns tested were the LCR, the S&W 442, and the Charter Arms On Duty. Each were five shot .38 Special +P's weighing in at < 1 lb.

Again, that may be the case, but it bears repeating that for a snubbie, concealibility and ease of carry are far more important than an extra inch smaller grouping.

If nothing else, given that every new ruger release has had major flaws and recalls I don't think I'd be knocking people out of the way to pick any ruger product especially one as untested as this one.

 

[jamstutz]

My point is that the size difference between the LCR and the 442 is minimal.

The 442 in front of the LCR:

And when it comes to recalls I believe S&W has Ruger beat.

Hey friend, I like S&W J frames and I would have no problem with anyone who wanted to carry one instead of the LCR--I just think the LCR is getting a bad rap on some of the boards from some folks who have never shot one, much less carried one. Maybe you have and you prefer the Smith--that's fine and I wish you well. But there are others who are "married" to a brand name and are threatened by any other manufacturer who invades their space. I guess that's sort of a pet peeve of mine. Different folks prefer different guns, just like we prefer different cars and different women.

 

[STAGE 2]

Hey friend, I like S&W J frames and I would have no problem with anyone who wanted to carry one instead of the LCR--I just think the LCR is getting a bad rap on some of the boards from some folks who have never shot one, much less carried one. Maybe you have and you prefer the Smith--that's fine and I wish you well. But there are others who are "married" to a brand name and are threatened by any other manufacturer who invades their space. I guess that's sort of a pet peeve of mine. Different folks prefer different guns, just like we prefer different cars and different women.

I own both rugers and smiths so brand loyalty isn't an issue at all. As far as size, S&W makes smaller snubbies than the 442.

Again, ruger markets this pistol as 1) the ultimate carry snubbie and 2) revolutionary. It falls short in both categories.

 

[jamstutz]

I own both rugers and smiths so brand loyalty isn't an issue at all. As far as size, S&W makes smaller snubbies than the 442.

Again, ruger markets this pistol as 1) the ultimate carry snubbie and 2) revolutionary. It falls short in both categories.

Maybe I'm having a brain freeze, but remind me--what S&W revolver is in current production that is smaller than the 442? Isn't the J frame the smallest of the S&W frame sizes? The Air-Lites had some additional milling done for lightening, but overall dimensions were the same.

As far as the LCR being the ultimate carry snubbie--I agree that is open to honest debate, but I certainly disagree that the LCR is not revolutionary.

 

[STAGE 2]

Maybe I'm having a brain freeze, but remind me--what S&W revolver is in current production that is smaller than the 442? Isn't the J frame the smallest of the S&W frame sizes? The Air-Lites had some additional milling done for lightening, but overall dimensions were the same.

It take us down the rabbit hole of exposed hammers and the propensity for snagging, but something with an exposed hammer such as the 337 is easier to fit in a pocket and prints far less than DAO revolvers with a shrouded hammer.

As far as the LCR being the ultimate carry snubbie--I agree that is open to honest debate, but I certainly disagree that the LCR is not revolutionary.

I suppose it depends on what one considers revolutionary. Is ruger the first to use polymers in handguns? No. Are they the first to use one in revolvers? AFAIK, yes. For some this is where debate ends. I suppose thats ok, but I'm more concerned with the elephant in the room that is the next question. Namely, is it markedly different or more effective than what else is out there.

Slapping plastic on a wheelgun may never have been done before, but if it doesn't have any appreciable results, I don't think its fair to call it revolutionary. Its merely different.

 

[SIFU1A]

My point is that the size difference between the LCR and the 442 is minimal.

The 442 in front of the LCR:

And when it comes to recalls I believe S&W has Ruger beat.

Hey friend, I like S&W J frames and I would have no problem with anyone who wanted to carry one instead of the LCR--I just think the LCR is getting a bad rap on some of the boards from some folks who have never shot one, much less carried one. Maybe you have and you prefer the Smith--that's fine and I wish you well. But there are others who are "married" to a brand name and are threatened by any other manufacturer who invades their space. I guess that's sort of a pet peeve of mine. Different folks prefer different guns, just like we prefer different cars and different women.

and folks say glocks are ugly lol.

 

[Absintheur]

Are they the first to use one in revolvers? AFAIK, yes. For some this is where debate ends. I suppose thats ok, but I'm more concerned with the elephant in the room that is the next question. Namely, is it markedly different or more effective than what else is out there.

Slapping plastic on a wheelgun may never have been done before, but if it doesn't have any appreciable results, I don't think its fair to call it revolutionary. Its merely different.

Actually Ruger is not the first to make a polymer framed revolver. The Russians did it years ago with an eye on the American concealed carry market but the importation ban killed the project before any were imported.

The Soviet made MP-412-1 was a polymer framed, breaktop revolver in 38/357 and I think would have done well in this country.

As for the Ruger....with the company's recent history of recalls and letting their customers perform the quality testing on their new firearms I would be more comfortable waiting a year or so for them to make sure all the kinks are worked out of the design.

 

[STAGE 2]

Actually Ruger is not the first to make a polymer framed revolver. The Russians did it years ago with an eye on the American concealed carry market but the importation ban killed the project before any were imported.

Well, that kind of takes the wind out of the revolutionary argument, especially since the lcr doesn't have a polymer frame.

As for the Ruger....with the company's recent history of recalls and letting their customers perform the quality testing on their new firearms I would be more comfortable waiting a year or so for them to make sure all the kinks are worked out of the design.

Yup. I love my blackhawk and 10/22. That's rugers bread and butter. The last several releases (I can only wonder what problems their AR is going to have) have clearly shown that straying into foreign waters (military/defense weapons) is better left to more refined companies.

 

[Absintheur]

OK...I just used a common phrase but I will be more specific, Ruger is not the first to use a polymer subassembly to create a partially synthetic revolver platform.

 

[jamstutz]

Well, that kind of takes the wind out of the revolutionary argument, especially since the lcr doesn't have a polymer frame...
Yup. I love my blackhawk and 10/22. That's rugers bread and butter. The last several releases (I can only wonder what problems their AR is going to have) have clearly shown that straying into foreign waters (military/defense weapons) is better left to more refined companies.

I'd read about the Russian revolver some weeks ago. If I remember correctly it never went into production beyond the prototype stage, but I may be wrong. Like I said, it was some weeks ago.

To me, the revolutionary aspect of the LCR is not so much the polymer components as the unique trigger system and the ergonomic design that makes the LCR so much easier to shoot well. I apologize if I was not clear in my earlier posts. To me, a small, lightweight .38 Special +P snub revolver that's a pleasure to shoot, points naturally, and is accurate to boot is revolutionary.

 

[powernoodle]

This new Ruger weighs 13.5 OZ unloaded, my S&W Airweight is about the same.

My 442 is 1.5 oz heavier than the Ruger, which I suspect I would not notice in my pocket. And its a proven design.

I commend Ruger for pushing the technology. But I'll let let some other folks do a few years of field testing on this one before I would consider a polymer revolver for myself.