LCR .38 trigger vs. all the others?

L

Leejack

New member
I've read so many good things about the LCR .38+P trigger with regards to the smoothness and pull weight. I haven't had the opportunity to shoot one yet.

Having said that, for those who have, how does it compare to a J frame in DA, ie. 642/442 or perhaps an M85 Taurus in DA? I'm very familiar with both of these.

Thanks!
 
It is comparable to a J-Frame, but lighter, at least compared to the J-frame factory pull. Ruger "borrowed" the S&W anti-stacking design, which makes the little gun very usable in DA firing.

Jim
 
I declined to buy an LCR in .38 after trying it; I found the trigger to feel gritty and no comparison to my Taurus 85 or my since-departed 637 j-frame ... I do have an LCR in .22mag which I love, tho it has the same slightly gritty feel ... like unlubricated metal sliding together, tho it has been lubed several times ... doesn't have a lot of rounds through it yet, so maybe that will smooth out with time ...
 
I found the trigger to feel gritty and no comparison to my Taurus 85
Click to expand...

As you noted, how many rounds through the 85, vs the brand new LCR? Metal rubbing against metal will polish things smooth with time.
 
Leejack said:
I've read so many good things about the LCR .38+P trigger with regards to the smoothness and pull weight. I haven't had the opportunity to shoot one yet.

Having said that, for those who have, how does it compare to a J frame in DA, ie. 642/442 or perhaps an M85 Taurus in DA? I'm very familiar with both of these.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I have shot the 642 and m85 and the lcrs trigger is hands down better. What I like about the lcr also is that the trigger gets even better with more use. IE dry firing/range time/oil.
 
I appreciate the responses guys, keep them coming please!

I'm considering the LCR but I'm not quite sure if I want a DOA, it is quite tempting though.
 
My family bought into the LCR design and a number of them own them in .38 and .357.

Several have told me that for some reason the .357 seems to have noticeably less recoil then .357 fired from a S&W "J" frame.
Whether this is due to the frame and grip shape design or whether the plastic grip frame absorbs the recoil better they're not sure.
They also report that the trigger gets smoother with use.
 
LCR vs J-frame

I was down to these two choices as well. From all the reviews that I read, I thought for sure the LCR was in my future. Then I went to a range that rented both guns. Much to my surprise, the S&W felt much better in hand and to shoot. Perceived recoil was less with the S&W. The final straw was the grips. Both stock grips are 2-fingered, leaving your pinky with nothing to hang on to. The S&W has plenty of 3-finger aftermarket replacements, whereas the LCR did not. As for trigger pull, I think that's something that can be blown out of proportion a bit. You've read enough reviews touting the LCR trigger to surmise that it's probably/arguably better out of the box. However, IMHO, you get used to your gun and how it shoots...so smooth or not, gritty or not, practice with it enough and you'll get used to it. This is especially true when you're not planning on buying multiple guns and having to adjust to differences among them. I bought a S&W 442 and have no regret whatsoever. Good luck with your choice.
 
While it is probably the ugliest of the snubnose revolvers - it makes up for it by having the best trigger IMO. Not so much better that I would trade my J frame Smiths for one, but it is enough to notice.
 
Has anyone tried the Taurus poly protector .38 special. Looks like an interesting gun as well and has SA capability? No need to bash, just asking.
 
As you noted, how many rounds through the 85, vs the brand new LCR? Metal rubbing against metal will polish things smooth with time.
Click to expand...
My Taurus 85 came with a good trigger. I have not done anything to it. On the other hand, I bought a S&W 36 that did not have a smooth trigger (and had a heavy), pull. On such guns with a strut/coil mainspring, I remove the spring and polish the strut. However, my point is, the 85 needed no trigger work, did not need to wear-in, was ready to go, out of the box with a trigger that superior to any coiled mainspring without after sale work.
 
Last edited:
I really liked the trigger on the LCR. I found it very smooth and actually sold my J frame to get one. However I found the difference in size to be a drawback for pocket carry as the LCR is slightly bigger. The reason I went back to a J frame is I never could get past the short stroking of the trigger. That said the few Taurus I have shot had super smooth triggers and felt good enough in my hand I have considered getting a set of Taurus grips to go on my J frame.
 
Several have told me that for some reason the .357 seems to have noticeably less recoil then .357 fired from a S&W "J" frame.
Whether this is due to the frame and grip shape design or whether the plastic grip frame absorbs the recoil better they're not sure.
Click to expand...

I've read that a lot. It seems to make sense considering the polymer frame and the grip design.


As for the trigger: best revolver trigger I've ever pulled. I'm seriously considering selling/trading my SP101 to get an LCR. I know the SP101 has the beauty and will have the longevity, but the LCR is just so practical.
 
Ruger "borrowed" the S&W anti-stacking design...
Click to expand...
You mean the new friction reducing cam design that Ruger has patented? How could they patent it if they "borrowed" it from another company?

And if S&W has the design, why haven't they incorporated it into their own small revolvers? I've tried the triggers on both, and they don't feel or behave remotely similar.
 
I don't know, but it sure looks the same to me. Check the guns. And S&W has incorporated that into all their revolvers for many decades.

Edited after checking. Ruger apparently got around S&W's patents by making the top of the trigger a separate piece rather than incorporating both cams into the trigger itself. It works the same way to give a non-stacking pull by altering the leverage part way back.

Jim
 
Last edited:
...making the top of the trigger a separate piece rather than incorporating both cams into the trigger itself.
Click to expand...
I'm not really following you. The LCR trigger is a one piece design and the diagrams of the trigger/hammer relationship don't show any separate piece involved in their interaction. What separate piece are you referring to?

https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/lcr.pdf

http://www.gunblast.com/images/Ruger-LCR/DSC06152.JPG

I've got to say that if they're really the same then S&W's implementation certainly needs a lot of work. Whatever "borrowing" process Ruger used seems to have improved their implementation considerably. It's definitely lighter and smoother and stacks much less. The only downside I've noticed to the LCR trigger compared to that of most other small revolvers is that it requires noticeably longer reset travel.
 
My error on the separate part of the trigger.

Now, look at the hammers of both guns. They both have a part (S&W calls it the DA sear, Ruger doesn't show it as a separate part) that the trigger pushes up on to move the hammer back.

The trigger has a "shelf" on top that pushes up on the "DA sear" to cock the hammer and release it. If that were all that is involved, we would have the Colt, older Ruger, and zillions of other DA revolver systems.

But below that trigger part on both S&Ws and the Ruger LCR, there is a sort of triangular projection. As the trigger moves back, that projection moves under the part of the hammer that has the SA sear notch on the DA/SA S&W (no notch on the LCR or DAO S&Ws). That projection or cam then takes over the job of moving the hammer from the DA sear. That changes the geometry of the system, altering the leverage and freeing the DA sear completely from the trigger. Since stacking is caused by the DA sear moving parallel to the trigger cam, stacking is eliminated.

Both systems work exactly the same way. Any S&W patents would have long since expired; I don't know what Ruger's patent claims were.

Jim
 
Ruger doesn't show it as a separate part...
Click to expand...
Interesting. I don't know why they chose to do that in the LCR. In the GP100 manual they call it out as a separate part designated the "Hammer Dog".
Both systems work exactly the same way.
Click to expand...
They clearly have some superficial similarities, but given that everyone agrees that the LCR trigger is much smoother/lighter than other small revolver triggers it's hard to support a claim that they "work exactly the same way". There's clearly something very different about it once you get down into the details. Something different enough that the patent office agrees it's patentable.

http://www.ruger.com/products/lcr/extras.html

Use the slider bar on the small video screen over on the right side of the screen and select the video titled "LCR trigger". Just past the midway point of the video, there is a plot comparing the trigger weight vs time plot of the LCR with other designs. The plot demonstrates how differently the trigger operates, particularly in terms of providing a much lighter pull (by about half) early in the trigger pull when shooter's leverage is poorest due to the extension of the trigger finger.
 
This really is an interesting discussion. I can't begin to tell you guys how many reviews I've dug up saying the LCR blows away all the other DA trigger pulls (snubbies). I realize that these are opinions, but they have really caught my attention, can't wait to shoot one. I don't form conclusions from reading on the internet or watching youtube but it's undeniable that the LCR fans are growing by leaps and bounds. The last DAO snub I shot was the sexy 642 and that trigger was quite heavy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top