.005" cylinder end shake - should I return it?

Wow. Either you had a run of bad luck or there must be on going problems with this design.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of problems with the design of the Ruger LCR revolvers. However, it is very possible that they are having problems with quality control. If the revolvers leave the factory the way they are intended to, then they work fine.
 
^^^Ruger no longer has quality control thats the problem^^^
I've had to send 5 back in the last 4 years, I'm not buying any Ruger products anymore!
 
Tangolima is correct, which is why I said that those dimensions are not separate, but inter-related, as is wear and frame stretching (a more common problem than usually thought, especially with guns that have been fired a lot with hot loads).

A related issue that keeps cropping up is the idea of a top break revolver for cartridges like the .357, .44 Magnum, .454, etc. Because there is a need for some play to allow the gun to be opened, that play will allow battering that will eventually ruin the gun a lot sooner than a solid frame revolver. While a break top .454 may seem to be feasible, and even work OK for a while, the inevitable result will be disaster, and a lot sooner than a solid frame revolver.

Jim
 
I received the "repaired" replacement LCR yesterday. This was the second new replacement LCR they sent me, and I sent it back on account of the .005" end-shake. At first they weren't going to fix it, but they changed their minds.

The tech replaced the ejector. Now the b/c gap is around .005" (was .008"), and the end-shake is about .001-.002" (was .005"). Those are ballpark measurements instead of precision measurements.

I still haven't shot this one. When I got it I was kinda ticked and parked it on a shelf for a few days, then called, and called again, and sent it back.

Maybe I'm hard to get along with.
 
You're asking for Freedom Arms quality from a budget-class Ruger.
Lower your standards, or give up.

The only way you'll win is if you just happen to get lucky with the combination of parts that Ruger swaps in to try to appease you (unless they give up first).
 
You're asking for Freedom Arms quality from a budget-class Ruger.
Click to expand...

No, I'm asking for what I paid for. I expect the bore and charge holes to line up on a new revolver. I expect the cylinder on a new revolver to be somewhat tight instead of being looser than one with excessive wear. Seems reasonable to me.

I wouldn't have bought either one of the replacement LCR's at a LGS after looking at it in person.
 
Sorry to tell you, but these are the new Ruger standards. I've sent several back to the mother ship and not even been able to get the same model as a replacement.

I have an LCR 22 WMR that I sent back and it came back with the same problems. it's a safe queen what good is a defense weapon that cant be reloaded in a normal manner. you have to beat the spent cartridges out, and it doesnt matter what brand of ammo you use.

I'll probably get flamed for saying this, But the newer charter products are maintaining better quality control than Ruger.
 
You claim that this all started as an end-shake issue, then changed your mind and said it was a timing issue. Now you're back on end-shake.

Which is it?

If the timing issue has been solved, end-shake was reduced, and it met Ruger's standards, then there's nothing left to complain about. (Other than, perhaps, the manufacturing industry as a whole, and the overwhelming transition of firearms into consumer goods. ...But that's another subject.)

You're still pushing for perfection ... from a product that isn't intended to be perfect. Ruger doesn't build 'match-grade' LCRs.

And even with your latest round of complaints, you admit that you haven't even measured it. You approached the revolver with the preconception that Ruger sucks and they screwed you again, so you just shook the cylinder a bit, called it bad, and came back here to rant.
 
Now the b/c gap is around .005" (was .008"), and the end-shake is about .001-.002" (was .005"). Those are ballpark measurements instead of precision measurements.
Click to expand...
Unless you are a machinist with lots of experience measuring with a micrometer and feeler gauges, "about" and "...ballpark measurements", do not mean anything. In other words, if it is not measured with precesion measuring instruments, your numbers mean nothing.
 
You claim that this all started as an end-shake issue, then changed your mind and said it was a timing issue. Now you're back on end-shake.
Click to expand...

This episode has had THREE different LCR's at different times. Go back and read the thread if you don't believe me.

#1 had a cylinder that wouldn't rotate because the FP bushing crept forward enough to snag the cartridge rims and prevent the cylinder from advancing. I sent it to Ruger for repair. They couldn't repair it, so they sent me a new replacement, LCR...

#2 which had the timing issue, the holes wouldn't line up. I sent it back to Ruger for repair and they couldn't repair it, so they sent me a new replacement, LCR...

#3 which had the .005" end-shake. At this point I was getting fed up. Does anybody bother to look these guns over before they ship them out? I called them up to see about getting it fixed. Right here I'm leaving out part of the story. I sent it back, and Tuesday received LCR #3 with a new ejector and tighter clearances.

My measurements were within .001". I didn't see any need to get into half thousandths.

It's a huge improvement over the first time they sent me LCR #3.

Ruger did not earn it's reputation by putting out stuff like this.
 
Well agree or disagree I'm glad you posted your results so that we found out what happened.

It's irritating when some folk start a thread and then don't tell us how it came out.

Thanks for posting this information.
 
The summary in Post#31 was needed. I still don't understand if LCR#3"B" is being kept at this point or is it being sent back, yet, again.

I do thank this thread for, probably, stopping me from buying one of these revolvers. I'd heard how nice the triggers were and this model was recently been added to my LE agency's approved backup gun (BUG) list. For now, I'll stay with my S&W 642-1 (no lock), among other handguns I can also use for a BUG.
 
Thanks for posting this information.
Click to expand...

Sure. The big thing I learned was I'm not buying any more guns on the internet. It's like a box of chocolates...

I still don't understand if LCR#3"B" is being kept at this point or is it being sent back, yet, again.
Click to expand...

It's a keeper, no doubt. I'm tickled pink. Still haven't shot it, but have no reason to expect any problems.

I do thank this thread for, probably, stopping me from buying one of these revolvers.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hesitate to buy one I could check out in person, if I liked it.
But buying online? I'm done with that, too much monkey business.
 
A quick survey of some of my Ruger "Six" revolvers shows close to zero end-shake. None had anywhere close to .005. The thing about end-shake is that the powerful.357 round pushes the cylinder back rather forcibly. If there's much play to begin with, the magnum rounds will use that space to gain momentum and thus increase, or hammer, the cylinder back and actually increase that space over time.

In modern Ruger revolvers, I don't know if engineers have designed a "stop" into the guns that will keep that space from increasing as you shoot them. If they do, no worry. If they don't, shooting magnum loads will exasperate the situation. (I'd think your hand would give out before that, though.)

Why not simply call Ruger and ask them what the current tolerances are? I think they'd be pretty up front about it. And when you find out, let us know. But you'd need to speak to an engineer, though, not the customer service people. I'm sure the tolerances are published in their guides. Those smaller guns are bound to be pretty tough.
 
Last edited:
Judging from performance rather than from measurements is a truer test of if it's a keeper.
If it shoots great, or even real good, then it's a keeper, regardless of anything else.
Did you ever say how it actually did at the range?
I have an old revolver that, going by anything other than how it shoots, it would rightly go into the trash.
But it shoots great and it's not going anywhere.
 
I have 3 revolvers and have no idea of what the measurements and clearances of anything are. All I know is that they feel and shoot fine. I figure if they shoot well with no issues, they work as they should and I don't worry about it.
 
Did you ever say how it actually did at the range?
Click to expand...

It did fine at the range, and to be honest, if I "had" to pick a snub for pocket carry it would be a LCR with the little Bantam grip. That unassuming little nub is an engineering marvel. I did notice that the LCR seemed to shoot/hit higher than the 642.

It was the post-range performance where it failed. Leading of the barrel, big time, the worst leading I've ever encountered. Had to use Chore Boy or bronze wool a few times to get the lead out after each range session. That stuff worked, but it was a huge mess, and I doubt if I'd go shooting if I had to deal with that crap every time. That was with LCR #2, with the bad timing (I was unaware of the timing at this point, because I had no reason to doubt a new Ruger and never really inspected the gun). I studied/searched a lot on the causes of leading.

Fast Forward to an article which states, "If the haze is more than just a fine-grained, light gray haze, and amounts to more serious leading over the entire bore, it is most likely due to the cast bullets being undersized relative to groove diameter." It was the part in bold (my bold and underline) that got me to scrutinize the guns as well as the ammo (reloads with 158gr LSWC bullets), and to return LCR #2.

I returned LCR #3-A, unfired, due to the end-shake. Fast Forward some more. Enter LCR #3-B with the tightened cylinder, fired 75 rounds on two occasions (150 rounds in all), and required the Chore Boy routine both times. By this time I had learned about the bold/underlined part above, and decided to sell LCR #3-B, apply for reimbursement for the two extra FFL transfers, and be done with it.

Earlier this week I shot 95 of the 158gr LSWC reloads through a different revolver, and it was a breeze to clean. Almost enjoyable.

I think the LCR would be a fine CCW.

I know the LCR's I shot just plain suck as range toys with lead bullets.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top