HSMITH Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Holy Christmas that is ugly, surprisingly ugly even for Ruger and that is saying something! I'm picky enough I don't like the Smith's that start with a 6, I'd be embarrassed to pull that out of a tackle box, no way I'd have it in my pocket. I'll stick to my 36's and 37's and 38's and 40's. Ruger has made some tremendously good guns and I own some Rugers that I really like, but this one is hideous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 The little Ruger's saving grace would be cost, $ per oz. If it's HALF of some of the smith's I listed it would be worth to look at. Bingo. If the thing works right, it might just be affordable enough to have one for each front pocket! Yup. - aluminum J's (15oz) $561 - Ruger (13-13.5oz...depending on laser grip or not) $525 - scandium J's (12oz) Plastic will prove to be cheaper than scandium by quite a margin. Really though...they seem to be better priced and lighter than the aluminum "airweight" J's...and include a changeable front sight. Should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasond Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I threw up a little into my mouth. I do dig the cylinder, it looks like they used only as much metal as needed. Maybe that's why it's two ounces lighter than my 642? Changeable front sights are better than my 642's as well. It sure looked snappy compared to the Smith in Micheal Bane's video! The shooter had to stop for two seconds to fix his grip between shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadHunter Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Unfortunately, no speedloaders fit it. Apparently no one at Ruger thought about it. The Product Manager told me they had tried and "it took the 'speed' out of speedloader." Speed Strips only or a New York Reload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Maybe it's me, but I never use speedloaders with any of the 5-shot belly guns. If you're willing to tolerate the bulk of a speedloader in your pocket, you might as well carry a second gun there instead. Or so it seems to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSMITH Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Mike, you say that like a second J-frame in another pocket is a bad thing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revopop Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Maybe it's me, but I never use speedloaders with any of the 5-shot belly guns. If you're willing to tolerate the bulk of a speedloader in your pocket, you might as well carry a second gun there instead. Or so it seems to me. +1 A speed strip takes up virtually no space in the pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinMike Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Interesting little gun. I've already got a 360 Scandium though that I carry daily. I bought my Scandium when I saw it in the used case at a local shop. Think it was like $475, but like new with traces of factory grease on it still. I bet someone fired one round of .357 mag and screamed "OWWWWW" and brought it back. With .38 +P, it ain't so bad. I'll be looking for the LCR around town. I'm curious about how that trigger feels. No "lawyer lock" on it either, it looks like? That's my chief complaint with the S&Ws. Good to see someone thinking outside the box on revolvers. J-frame size guns are the way to go for carry in my book. I forget I'm wearing mine on my hip and speed strips are real easy to carry in pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wooddog Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Maybe it's me, but I never use speedloaders with any of the 5-shot belly guns. If you're willing to tolerate the bulk of a speedloader in your pocket, you might as well carry a second gun there instead. Or so it seems to me. That makes the most sense to me too with a small frame revolver. As they say... if your gonna carry a gun, might as well carry two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Mike, you say that like a second J-frame in another pocket is a bad thing..... No, I definitely didn't mean it to sound that way! I remember years ago debating over beers about whether a person would be better armed with two J-frames or one full-sized carry gun. I usually took the side of the two J-frames, although I think it's pretty close to a wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chp5 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Any update on these? They seem to be all over Gunbroker now. Anyone buy one? Some give us a review Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 They're listed on my distributor's website, but currently out of stock. With a wholesale price of $350+, I'm not as interested in this whole concept as I once was. I was really hoping they would have a dealer price less than three bills. Ah well, nothing's cheap anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirpy Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Anyone know if it has the dreaded lock and what kind? Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cas Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 It has an internal main spring lock like all new Ruger revolvers. http://www.Gunblast.com/Ruger-LCR2.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I have played with one. Almost bought it on the spot, but don't NEED it. Trigger is nice. Truly. Weight is about right for pocket carry, but the trigger guard looks a little odd. Its a nice gun. If its still there on thursday...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chp5 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I have played with one. Trigger is nice. Truly. I really want to try the trigger. Interesting design concept. Mike - have you felt the trigger on one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I have played with one. Trigger is nice. Truly. I really want to try the trigger. Interesting design concept. Mike - have you felt the trigger on one? Nope, I haven't seen one yet in person. If my distributor had them in stock, I'd probably go ahead and order one in, just to mess around with. We have a fairly big gun show coming up here in a couple weeks, so I'm sure I'll have a chance to handle one then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
41mag Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I handled one and was pleased with the trigger pull. The grip is big, making the felt recoil of the little 38's practically non existent I'm sure but will hender the concealed carry. Not much of a sight picture unless I look through the bifocals. The sight picture is better on my SP 101. If I could get a smaller grip like the one on the SP I might get one, but the way it stands now I think the SP makes a better carry gun. I like the enclosed hammer as well also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) I just read that Ruger decided to put the following instruction in the owners manual: "Always fully return the trigger to its forward position between shots." I guess we should be glad they didn't stamp it on the side of the frickin' barrel, huh? In factory configuration, it looks like maybe the laser-grip thingy might be the way to go, as opposed to trying to stuff that big old rubber Hogue grip into a front pocket. And I'm sure there will be other grip options available shortly--the actual grip frame of the gun is pretty small and would appear to lend itself to lots of options. Of course, I'm still just going off internet pics of the gun, having not yet handled one. I am intrigued that everybody seems to really like the stock trigger pull on the LCR--that would be a real plus over the typical Smith J-frame action. Edited April 16, 2009 by Carmoney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Mike, The trigger pull is what I would describe as staged. Kind of like a Para LDA, but heavier. S> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Model19 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) I got to handle several of them at SHOT too, and the trigger is very different from any of my Smith's. Not necessarily bad, just different. Staged may indeed be the best way to put it. You could sort of feel several mechanical bits doing their thing in order as the trigger was pulled. If you were just ripping off a cylinder full in a rush I doubt you would notice. If you were pulling the trigger slowly and feeling for when it will break you would notice the little bumps. IMHO the overall feel is kind of cheap and plasticy, but that that's half the point, the plastic part I mean. It aint cheap! And as others have pointed out, it's no revelation in lightness. You can get all metal pieces that weight less for not much more $$. Heck, I paid $250 for a well cared for early '70's Airweight that spec'd 12.5 oz. Yeah, it's not even +P rated, but it will handle them long enough to empty several cylinders worth in an emergency. Anyways, back to the topic, if you can get your hands on one, try it. You might like it. Ford vs. Chevy, etc etc, and to each his own! Edited April 16, 2009 by Model19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chp5 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Heck, I paid $250 for a well cared for early '70's Airweight that spec'd 12.5 oz. Which model is that? The J Frame Airweights with an aluminum frame and a steel cylinder and barrel weigh 15 oz. Some of the newer ones with Scandium and Titanium get down to 12 oz though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Model19 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Heck, I paid $250 for a well cared for early '70's Airweight that spec'd 12.5 oz. Which model is that? The J Frame Airweights with an aluminum frame and a steel cylinder and barrel weigh 15 oz. Some of the newer ones with Scandium and Titanium get down to 12 oz though. It's a 37 square butt. I got that weight from an old Stoegers catalog in my collection. I just grabbed our postal scale and weighed it. Empty and with a big set of Pachmayr Grippers it showed a touch over 16 oz. The pachmayr site shows that grip as weighing 6oz, and I'm pretty sure that they are heavier than the stock wood grips it came with. I just swapped those over last week, now I wish it was stock so I could weigh it that way. I don't have a good screwdriver set here at work to remove the grip with so it will have to wait until tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Model19 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I rooted around and found a decent screwdriver. It weighs 13 oz with no grips at all on it. So add two oz. for the stock wood stuff and I'd say 15oz is accurate. That 12.5oz weight was probably factory figures akin to the HP ratings out of Detroit back in the day.. measured at the advertising writers pen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Shot one of these today, I shot the model with CT grips. I shot 2 cylinders of +P defense ammo though it and 5 cylinders of reloads. Accuracy was acceptable and the defense ammo grouped 3" at 10 yards. The reloads seemed to be out-of-step with this particular gun and didn't group well at all. I'll write that off to just having the wrong load for the gun after seeing the favorable groups I shot with the premium stuff. This thing is one ugly piece of crap and I don't see any way around that. I'm really trying to keep this in perspective of just looking at it as a tool, but I'm failing miserably. It's incredibly ugly. Yes you can swap grips as long as you like the CT grips or the Hogue model available for it. I can't see much else being available for it for years if it survives the initial onslaught of bad PR from being so ugly. Did I mention it's ugly? The trigger is pretty mushy and has plastic flex to it. Better accuracy would be obtainable if the trigger could be improved. The trigger isn't ever going to be great though unless you can somehow eliminate the flex from the plastic. No speed loaders available. I've gotten so used to my moonclipped S&W 649 that this is too much of a sacrifice for me. The cylinder release is novel, it's a button rather than a sliding catch. It's a bit more ergonomic than the Smith catch. I had several cylinder overruns, I believe 3 although it might've been 4. That is to say the cylinder rotated past it's stop and the revolver didn't go bang because the cylinder wasn't in battery. There was a firing pin strike on the edge of the case rim. I really did not like this revolver at all. It felt cheesy. It wasn't lighter than a Scandium gun. It didn't fire every time I pulled the trigger. It's uglier than I could've imagined. This wasn't my revolver, it belongs to a friend. It's on it's way back to Ruger for diagnosis of the overrun problem along with a few of the fired cases that had firing pin strikes on the rim of the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now