Lightweight Pocket Snubbie Shootout?

BeornLS said:
Tough call on this. I have both of these revolvers as well as an LCR in .357 so I can speak from experience. These are both well made revolvers and either one will suit you well I'm sure.

From my experience the 642 will carry easier in the pocket. I attribute this to the fact the factory grips on the 642 are a bit less tacky than the LCR grips as well as I think they are a bit more narrow. I can slide the 642 into a shorts pocket or my dress slacks pocket and it's no problem at all.
Click to expand...

I quite dislike the (current) factory grips that came with my 642. They look like an Uncle Mike's boot grip, but aren't.

I'm picky about revolver grips. I don't much care for the soft rubber Hogues either, though if I can't find something more to my liking I will use them.
 
Thanx for all of the responses Guys!

Most of the preferences seem to "revolve" (pun intended) around the trigger and/or grips.

About the triggers:
- the LCR has a good reputation for smoothness out of the box.
- while S&W makes a few different versions of their 642.
This particular PC 642 has this: https://youtu.be/9KpsZMLZd-w

As for the grips:
I may replace either original set with a Crimson Trace Lasergrips.
The LCR is actually offered as a Talo Exclusive with CT's already installed:
https://ruger.com/products/lcr/specSheets/5424.html

Decisions . . . . decisions . . . . .
 
The LCR is actually 13.1 ounces. They never updated the weight once they got rid of the lock under the grip. I've owned plenty of both and I say the LCR with the Hogue boot grip that makes it even lighter.
 
I quite dislike the (current) factory grips that came with my 642. They look like an Uncle Mike's boot grip, but aren't.
Click to expand...
Me, too. I like how they feel OK but HKS speedloaders have a tendency to hang up on them because they are not relieved enough. I replaced them with Hogue Bantams which are pretty good. The old Uncle Mikes rubber copies of Spegel boot grips were the best.
 
I think the LCR is one of the ugliest revolvers ever made but, compared to an average J-frame Smith, I much prefer the da pull on the Ruger. Too, though not a deal-breaker per se, I'm no fan of the S&W trigger lock.

But then, my choice for an edc snub-nose revolver is the one I carry daily: an older Colt Cobra. Weighs the same as a Smith Airweight, only slightly larger and carries 20% more ammunition. And, subjectively speaking, I don't think anyone has ever made a better looking snub-nose revolver.
 
There's a new boy on the block. Kimber K6s. 6 shot, compact, well made, good sights.
A little pricey, though, at @ 750$
 
I agree. The Kimber looks interesting but it's no light weight; not in the same league as the other revolvers under discussion.
 
Which one fits your hand better? The rest really doesn't matter if the thing doesn't fit.
"...The Ruger has a polymer frame..." Not according to their site. "7000 series aluminum" in .38 Special +P(13.5 oz.). SS in .357(17.1 oz.).
"...hold with support thumb over my shooting hand..." That wasn't invented by Jerry Miculek. People have been putting their thumbs there for eons.
 
both have built in locks unless you get one of the new 642s they've made without one.
the LCR center fire guns do have a smoother trigger in my opinion.
my choice for the J frame rests on grip and holster options which are far greater.
 
Last edited:
All I can say is that after 10 years of CCW, starting off with compacts, then subcompacts etc. I believe I have what for myself is the best CCW. I have to say, I really took to these two firearms. Both fun to shoot and totally reliable. The Ruger LCR9mm and the Pico 380.

The LCR9mm is easy to shoot, ammo abundant and not expensive, great ballistics. None of the flash and high recoil of the 357. I love the LCR, and I personally think it is actually a good looking firearm, not to mention a great trigger.
I am a firm believer in that what ever you decide to carry, you need dedicated and frequent practice and training. And that means you have to love to shoot what you carry. Both these guns are built for a lot of ammo down range and just plain fun to shoot. JMO

K2sPXEn.jpg
 
.The Ruger has a polymer frame..." Not according to their site. "7000 series aluminum" in .38 Special +P(13.5 oz.). SS in .357(17.1 oz.).
Click to expand...
the "frame" around the cylinder is aluminum, or stainless steel. The frame that holds the fire control system, and the shooter holds on to is polymer.
Patented polymer fire control housing holds all the fire control components in their proper dimensional relationships, reduces weight significantly and helps reduce recoil.
Click to expand...
Guess it depends on what the definition of is, is.:D
But to me saying the LCR has an aluminum frame is like saying a Glock is not a polymer pistol because the slide is made of steel
 
Last edited:
I think the 642 has a stainless cylinder, but the 442 is carbon.
Click to expand...
I don't know about the cylinder but the body is just painted silver over aluminum. I've just seen lots of pics of flaking paint from the rest of the gun on the 642. I used to have a 442 and it was a great little pocket gun.
 
He is correct on stainless/carbon cylinders on 642s/442s. To add to that, barrels on both are stainless, even though the 442 is black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top