.357 LCRx!!!!!

I actually might buy this- if it gets onto California's approved list
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that will ever happen. No micro stamping.
No new guns have been approved for over four years!
I.e. anything that is on the list is at least four years old in the industry.
All that is on the list are guns before the micro stamping requirement and are simply renewed each year.
 
jmstr said:
If I were to buy one, I'd get the .357 and plan on carrying with .38+P ammo in it.
Click to expand...
This. That's how I use my KLCR hammerless. I'd also like a 3" LCRx in 38spl on the steel frame, but a 3" LCRx 357 would be ok too. I really have no interest in a snubby LCRx anything.
 
jmstr said:
If I were to buy one, I'd get the .357 and plan on carrying with .38+P ammo in it.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about this recently and while the .38 is the lightest LCR Ruger makes, I think I'd rather get the .357 model too. The .357 is steel, the .38 is aluminum thus the .357 will hold up a lot better and last longer if only shooting .38's in it, not to mention be more comfortable.

roashooter said:
357 magnum out of a 17oz snub....NO THANK YOU!!
Click to expand...
Same here. Shot a full size .357 in a S&W with a hogue overgrip years ago, found even that had more recoil and blast than I'd prefer. Can't imagine it from a snubbie.

Slimjim9 said:
I really have no interest in a snubby LCRx anything.
Click to expand...
I think all the LCR's, with the exception of the 9mm, have some merits to being in a snub revolver with an exposed hammer. The rimfire .22's for sure, the extra hammer drop distance will improve ignition reliability while the centerfire models with heavier recoil will be able to be shot more accurately with the SA trigger.
 
Perhaps, but I suspect that the timeframe for release will depend on how the hammerless LCR models in those calibers are selling.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I don't see why the .22's wouldn't prove to be popular like you mentioned. My point was since this is a .357 Magnum LCRx, it means that the LCRx line is not limited to .38+P power levels. Someone on this forum had mentioned that the LCRx models lack a pin where the exposed hammer is and that it weakens the gun to where it wouldn't be able to handle the hotter stuff.

With the .357 LCRx, this has proven to be a non-issue.


Based on past Ruger releases, they may skip straight to 4.2" barrels for Canadian commercial sale. New-made .32-caliber handguns may not be lawfully sold in Canada, but Ruger is selling a 4.2" .327 SP101 anyway, probably something to do with sharing tooling with the .357-caliber models.
Click to expand...
It'd be better for Canadian sales if they stick with the 4 inch barrels and personally, I'd prefer the .22 and .327 Magnum LCRx's be in 4 inch barrels. The velocity for those, and the .357, will benefit more over the heavier .38+P stuff.

However, if the 3 inch barrels were all that were available, I'd still take them over the SP101.
 
My friend has a 357 LCR. I have shot magnum loads out of it plenty of times. It didn't bother me. I liked it so much that when a used 38 special LCR showed up at the LGS I bought it. I had a hard time shooting it. It being a few ounces lighter made a huge difference. I bought a pair of the LCRx grips, which are larger, and now I can shoot it just fine.

For me, anyway, I would think the LCRx in 357 would be fairly easy to shoot. It would have the heavier steel frame, the larger grips, and the longer barrel. That's just me, YMMV.
 
I pestered the folks in Ruger's booth at SHOT this year about a 3" LCRx in .22 (with adj sights) and they said they had no plans to build one... instead pushing the SP101.

I told them they had customers waiting for the lighter weight pistol, but not sure it made a difference. Still, I tried. :D
 
I pestered the folks in Ruger's booth at SHOT this year about a 3" LCRx in .22 (with adj sights) and they said they had no plans to build one... instead pushing the SP101.
Click to expand...
I would love to know, when comparing apples to apples, which Ruger makes more money off of: The LCR or the SP101? The SP101 requires a lot more machining time while the LCR looks like it probably costs them $200 total to make.
 
I picked up the 3" .38 and mentioned that it used the same frame, and they already make a .22LR cylinder and 2" barrel... and while the folks there agreed it shouldn't take too much engineering effort, they were still suggesting the SP101 instead.

I pointed out the weight difference and what an awesome woods gun the LCRx would be instead. Maybe they'll carry word back to the PTBs, but for now... :(
 
I just don't see what benefit the folks at Ruger see that the .22 SP101 has over a 3 or even 4 inch .22 LCRx, other than they currently have them available for sale to the public (>_<)

I have no doubt that there have been discussions inside Ruger about adding longer barreled LCRx revovlers. I'm sure the question that gets brought up when it's discussed is: What happens to the SP101 then?

I say just stop making the SP101's that aren't in .357 Magnum. I can understand that the SP is built way stronger than the LCR is and for .357 that's great, but for .22, .327, .38+P... you don't need that tank like design.
 
Truthtellers I was the one who suggested that perhaps the LCRx line couldn't handle 357 mag pressures because of the lack of that upper pin. I am very glad that I have been proven wrong. :)
 
.357 Magnum means you can load up 35,000 PSI. It doesn't mean you HAVE to.

.35 spl +P is 18,500 PSI. That leaves a lot to play with in between.

There's a full wadcutter I like to load using magnum cases. The Lee manual has the data. It's a stout thumper but very manageable.
 
TruthTellers said:
I just don't see what benefit the folks at Ruger see that the .22 SP101 has over a 3 or even 4 inch .22 LCRx...
Click to expand...
Prodigious weight equals minimal recoil, and the SP101 has more traditional styling and a more substantial feel. These factors could be more important to folks who intend to use it primarily for plinking or teaching new shooters. Additionally, it can serve as a low-recoil trainer for a centerfire SP101.

Case in point: A 3"-4" .22LR LCRx (or S&W Model 317 or 43) isn't going to replace my S&W Model 18.

While I stand by my earlier assertion than a .22 LCRx would outsell the .22 SP101, I doubt it will make .22 SP101 sales shrink to insignificance.
TruthTellers said:
I say just stop making the SP101's that aren't in .357 Magnum.
Click to expand...
People are still going to want .22 SP101s as low-recoil plinkers and trainers, and the .327Mag cartridge is no pussycat; the latter will be a good deal more pleasant to shoot in the heavier SP101 platform. Additionally, .32 S&W Long can be handloaded cheaper than .38Spl since the bullets are smaller, which makes the .327 version attractive as a plinker.
 
Prodigious weight equals minimal recoil, and the SP101 has more traditional styling and a more substantial feel.
Click to expand...
I have a NAA MiniMaster that weighs about 13 oz. Shooting .22 in it feels no different than shooting .22 in a heavier revolver with a full grip.

When it comes to shooting .22, weight has little to do with recoil because there's no recoil to notice.
 
This is my first post so be gentle. I love Ruger handguns. I own 5 of them. I love 4 of them and like the other very well. BUT, Ruger often misses the mark when it comes to the handgun of my dreams. Like many of you have said, I would have purchases a LCRx in a 3" barrel IF it had adjustable rear sight, or at the very least "driftable" rear sights. Like others, I emailed Ruger about my desires and got the pat response "we have no plans of producing that firearm."

I "settled" for a SP101 Wiley Clap, 357 mag with a 2.25" barrel. I'm extremely happy with this revolver. I carry it daily. My 5th cylinder full, I shot two 10's, two 9's and a 6 (which I knew was left and low at the trigger pull). That was at 7 yards. I love this gun.

As far as a .22 cal in an LCR with a 3 inch barrel is concerned, I see the appeal, but I'm extremely happy with the Mark III that I've owned for 35+ years. I've probably taken more game with that pistol than I have with all the other non-shotgun firearms I own, combined. It lives in my glove box.

Now if Ruger made a LCRx in a .22 magnum they'd have my attention.
 
Some people just don't want an auto loading .22 and I'm one of them. I'll take the revolver with the 8 round cylinder, which is close enough to the standard 10 rounds.

Yes, I know there are aftermarket stuff to make the SR22 a 15 rd magazine. Still, don't care for autoloading .22's.

As for the .22 Mag LCRx, Ruger can make that tomorrow if they wanted to, it's built on the Aluminum frame, so the 3 inch aluminum shroud on the LCRx would work fine, Ruger would just need the barrel liner made.

I suggest if you really want it, tell the above stuff to them and that they're losing money not making it.

Again, doesn't make sense that Ruger doesn't make it because the only other DA .22 Mag revolver they make is the LCR.
 
Never was interested in the LCR because it lacked a hammer. Now, I may be talked into a light weight .38 spl, knock about, snub nosed revolver. forget .357 in a revolver this light.
 
Prodigious weight equals minimal recoil, and the SP101 has more traditional styling and a more substantial feel. These factors could be more important to folks who intend to use it primarily for plinking or teaching new shooters.
Click to expand...

An inordinately heavy gun is not helpful in teaching new shooters many of whom are younger or of smaller stature. The heavier a firearm is the more it taxes the muscles. Granted you still need balance but weight for the sake of weight is no good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top