Ruger LCR 9 mm

Revolvers bleed energy due to the cylinder gap.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, this is true. But it doesn't make all that much of a performance hit, in real life. The claim that a 2" barrel revolver will perform equivalently to a 3" barrel autoloader is pretty much true. The big difference is that autoloader barrels are measured from the breech and include the chamber, revolver barrels are measured from the forcing cone and do not include the chamber. IIRC, the gas lost in the cylinder gap is just a percent or 2, or just a few FPS at the muzzle, not enough to fuss about.
 
That's absolutely incorrect. Revolvers bleed energy due to the cylinder gap. You could fire the same 9mm load out of a 3" revolver and a 3" auto, and fired out of the 3" auto it will have more energy behind it.
Click to expand...

Can you provide evidence for that statement?

Once you get your LCR 9mm, and a good chronograph, you can make real world measurements of velocity using the same loads, then post some real data to go with your agenda. :D

Until then, maybe some reading here would help?

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/speer.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/corbon2.html
 
Dragline45,

You need to learn how to measure barrels before making incorrect statements as you did above.

Also, the 'energy bleed' is different depending on the barrel length. The longer the barrel, the more the 'energy bleed'. In the case of the LCR, as well as other snubnose revolvers, the loss is minimal.
 
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/gaptests.html

However insignificant it is, it's there. These tests show that with no cylinder gap it produces a higher FPS, thus more energy. Even in many cases showing the shorter auto barrel having a higher FPS than a longer revolver barrel, even with the chamber not being included in the revolvers it still holds true.
 
Last edited:
I think from a defense weapon perspective the 9mm makes sense. There are many short barrel defense loads available and 9mm has the most recent money and research behind it .Nobody is out there trying to build a better .38 round at this point, know what I mean?
Everyone says .357 is a waste out of a short barrel so the 9mm looks like the best option.
 
To answer an earlier question, the LCR is a very light revolver. There are a lot of reasons that people might prefer lighter recoil.

I've never shot 9mm from a revolver. I'm guessing it has a little more snap and hits a little harder than .38 special but how about .38 +p? Is this sort of a "middle choice" between .38 and .357? Why couldn't they just have made their new LCR a 6-shooter in .32 H&R or even .327 Federal?
 
Nobody is out there trying to build a better .38 round at this point, know what I mean?
Click to expand...
Not all that much new load development is being directed towards making a better .38 Spl round mainly because the current offerings get the job done just fine.

Everyone says .357 is a waste out of a short barrel...
Click to expand...
Not everybody says that. Personally, I'd rather not put up with the increased blast and recoil, and opt for .38 Spl instead. But there's no shortage of folks who carry short barrel .357 Mag.

...so the 9mm looks like the best option.
Click to expand...
Perhaps so, or perhaps not. Either way, I still prefer that round to be chambered in an autoloader.

Let's just take a look at the actual bullets used in the 2 roughly equivalent loads: .38 Spl and 9x19mm. They use bullets of about the same weight and within a couple of thousandths of an inch the same diameter. The 9mm gets a bit higher velocity in similar length barrels. But the .38 Spl has a couple of things in its favor. For the one, it is a significantly lower pressure round. This manifests itself as a round that seems (to me, at least) to have a less harsh recoil -- more "pushy" than "snappy". That is a fairly minor advantage unless you have arthritic hands like my wife has, and then it is quite significant. The other, greater advantage is that the 9mm is an autoloader round where the .38 is a revolver round. That means that the 9mm bullet has to be shaped so that it can reliably feed in a number of potentially picky handguns. This limits what can be done with the design of the bullet itself. It has to be robust enough to not deform on the feeding ramp, it can't have a great big mouth on its hollow point because that would hinder feeding, SWC designs might not feed well and expose too much soft lead, etc. .38 Spl, however, does not have this limitation. Thus, the bullets themselves can be optimized for terminal performance with little regards to such feeding issues. So, you can have soft lead SWC hollow points that just wouldn't be viable in an autoloader. You can have JHPs that are optimized for terminal performance without being concerned with feeding issues. There's just not as much compromise needed to make an effective SD round, and that was all hammered out decades ago.
 
I kind of agree with your statement.....I agree that JHP in 9mm needs to be able to feed in an auto-loader, and that could hinder it's performance. I don't see it though. where are these ballistically great .358 bullets that don't exist in 9mm? I think they ONLY advantage 38spl has is using greater bullet weights while keeping the pressure down. I personally don't see tests where the .358 expands to greater diameters than a .356, not saying they aren't there, I just need an example.

*edit....sorry, so used to lead, I should say .357 vs .355
 
Why couldn't they just have made their new LCR a 6-shooter in .32 H&R or even .327 Federal?
Click to expand...

I assume that they could. But there's a couple of reasons why they might have hesitated. First, while those are revolver rounds, they are on the long-ish side. And a longish round would require a longer cylinder and frame, and that increases weight and decreases concealability, you would be talking about lengthening the weapon about as much as would be required for .357 Mag.

The other is that those rounds still aren't all that common on the shelves. Part of the draw of 9mm and .38 Spl is that they are ubiquitous.

Not that I would mind one of those hotter .32s, it sounds like a good idea to me given proper bullet designs. But they haven't taken off in the marketplace all that well. Maybe if Ruger backed them seriously that might change. Maybe they'll give them a try next time around.
 
I don't see it though. where are these ballistically great .358 bullets that don't exist in 9mm?
Click to expand...

Ok, I've got examples of Speer Gold Dot factory rounds, both +p. .38 Spl 125 gr and 9mm 124 gr. That's about as good a comparison between apples and apples as I can come up with. I could take pics and upload them, but I don't have the time right now, maybe later. The main take-away is that the 9mm has a much more pronounced ogee (to aid feeding) and a noticeably smaller opening in the hollow point as compared to the equivalent .38 Spl bullet. That tells me that the .38 bullet is more likely to expand at lower velocities. It also tells me that the .38 bullet is less likely to clog with fibers if penetrating heavy clothing.

Also, you specifically ask about the great .358 bullets that don't exist in 9mm? There are a whole class of LHPs that fit the bill, including the old school "gold standard" soft lead 158 gr LSWC-HPs that just wouldn't work at all in an autoloader. They worked great back then, and they still do. What makes them work so well isn't so much the weight (there were some lighter weight designs, too) but the lack of a jacket to rupture as well as no need to be concerned about the bullet deforming on the feed ramp.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_lY5oDTEOs
9mm gold dot ^ .590

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dgkbBxW94
this is usually my experience with .38 from short barrel^, but ill find a better one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ENAbgq5bY
heres a little better

as I was saying, I understand what your saying that they have to model the bullets around being an auto-feeder, BUT I have yet to see a 38 out-perform a 9mm. also a wider mouth on the hollow-point usually equals MORE plugs, not less. and as for the old school LHP, okay, are those really out-perfomaning any modern 9mm JHP? I like lead HPs don't get me wrong, but hey don't have near the velocity of jacketed, therefore not going to perorm as well from an s/d standpoint.

I carry these, I can get them to expand from my snubbie just fine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5pWEU8qX7g
 
For those (Cheapshooter) who claim there is no advantage to the 9mm, you are just plain wrong. Ballistics By The Inch tested revolver and semi-auto rounds in a Thompson/Center Encore to eliminate the difference in the design of revolvers and semi-autos.

Looking at loads they tested from the same manufacturer in similar bullet weights from a two inch barrel, we find:

From a two inch barrel in Thompson/Center Encore

9mm -- 125 gr Cor Bon JHP +P = 1061 fps
.38 spl -- 125 gr. Cor Bon JHP = 723 fps

9mm - 124 gr Federal Hydra Shok JHP = 900 fps
.38 spl -- 125 gr. Federal Hydra Shok = 700 fps

9mm -- 124 gr. Gold Dot Short Barrel = 1074 fps
.38 spl -- 135 gr. Gold Dot = 756 fps

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html and http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html

Heck, if you look at similar .357 loads, you'll see 9mm compares very favorably (or even beats) .357 out of a two inch barrel. http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

Now, I know that if you reload you can get better results in .38 spl than those above. However, if someone doesn't reload (and many don't), then there is a definite advantage in 9mm over .38 spl. I'm not saying a 9mm revolver is a better choice than a .38 because there are other factors to consider. However, to say a 9mm revolver has no advantage is just plain wrong.
 
There may be an application here for getting this into states like Kalifornia that have the list of approved handguns (which the number of approved semi-autos decreases by the week). This is an option for those poor folks to have more economical ammo choices if they don't reload by having a 9mm and also getting good SD performance.
 
While the test barrel velocities shows an advantage of the 9MM over the 38+P, the many ballistic gel tests I have seen shows about the same performance with the 38 in a 2" barreled revolver, and the 9MM+P in a 3" barreled semi-auto.
I could not find any tests with a 9MM revolver which in theory would lose some performance due to a shorter barrel, and gas escaping via the cylinder gap.
But disregarding that, and just going by the 2" revolver in 38 vs the 3" semi-auto results, performance is equal, but the 357 sized revolver is heavier, and for similar performance with 9MM, a pocket auto would have the advantage of a couple additional rounds of equally performing ammo.
Again, considering those facts, I see no reason for a 9MM revolver other than it just being a trendy new thing.
 
The 9mm wheelguns get an interesting velocity boost from how the cylinder is laid out. Immediately after the shell you have a long-ish straight and bullet-width "smoothbore" area in the cylinder that has no blow-by at all, more or less. Bullet velocity in this area before the gap can be pretty significant, and that 1/2" or so of "smoothbore" equals a velocity bump somewhere near similar to an inch and a half of barrel.

I researched all this before converting Maurice from 357Mag to 9mmPara. I set my "long throat" width with a .3555" custom-ordered chucking reamer, so that it should be compatible with both .355" and .356" slugs. In hardcast the latter should be awesome, and as soon as I can get some decent pistol powder I intend to load some Penn Bullets .356" 100gr wadcutters with short OAL so I can fit 10 rounds in my long mags instead of 9 worth of conventional JHP.
 
RE Cheapshooterist: You said this or the effect of this multiple times now, "Again, considering those facts, I see no reason for a 9MM revolver other than it just being a trendy new thing."

But for a "boring" fixed-set caliber owner like myself, I won't touch a .38 SLP or a .357 for one reason: economics. .38 SLP and .357 are expensive. Yes, I have better carry options for 9mm in the two Kahrs I own (K9 Elite and P9). They are what ends up on my belt for daily carry. Yes, they are easier to reload, hold more bullets, etc...

But, a 9mm sub-nosed revolver still excites me because it gives me the opportunity to learn a new skill (snub-nosed revolver, DAO shooting), and that seems like fun. Likely, those skills that I would learn on a 9mm LCR could be effectively translated to shooting other DAO or DA/SA revolvers. For many people, shooting DA is much harder than shooting SA or striker fired guns. The LCR jazzes me because now it's in a caliber I own. If you think that's "trendy," then just look at the revolvers offered in 9mm... there aren't many in current production.
 
But, a 9mm sub-nosed revolver still excites me because it gives me the opportunity to learn a new skill (snub-nosed revolver, DAO shooting), and that seems like fun. Likely, those skills that I would learn on a 9mm LCR could be effectively translated to shooting other DAO or DA/SA revolvers.
Click to expand...

News flash!!!!!! Ruger chambers the LCR in 22 Long Rifle and 22 WMR. Both more economical than 9MM for even more practice with a snubbie.
So let's look again:
LCR 9MM....Same size, same weight, same price as the even more powerful 357 Magnum model.
LCR 9MM.....Same cartridge as a lighter, more conceivable semi-final that has a higher capacity.
LCR9MM.....Although not substantiated as of yet, recoil is probably more than a 357 model using light std. velocity 38 Spcl.
LCR 9MM.....Ammo cost sugnificantly higher than the rimfire model.
LCR 9MM.....Relies on breakable, loseable moon clips at an additional cost if you want more than the two it comes with.

Just a list of things off the top of my head why to me a 9MM chambered LCR doesn't have any advantage over the same gun chambered in traditional revolver loading.
I'm sure Ruger will sell a ton of them, but am still not convinced that if someone really compares it with existing models it would only be because it is something new, and different.
Now had they made it with a shorter frame taking advantage of the shorter 9MM Luger cartridge their might be as small advantage in concealability. But even that would be a minimal advantage.
 
The LCR 9mm comes with 3 moonclips. .22 LR and .22 WRM models have waaaaay worse triggers than their bigger centerfire brothers, necessitated by having to hit a rimfire primer. Rimfire guns are probably my least favorite because of the inherent flaws of rimfire construction (thin cases and reliability issues). Also, right now, rimfire ammunition is almost impossible to find. I could easily buy 9mm in the 1000's. I'd be lucky to find match Elley in .22 LR for the price of .45 ACP. 9mm is the cheapest centerfire cartridge period.

Your arguments about .38 & .357 being "better", Cheapshooter, may indeed be valid, but do not apply to me. I can buy cases of 9mm brass that will work in all of my guns. We can argue until we are blue in the face about preference, but at the end of the day, a 9mm revolver will appeal to others, not simply because of "trendiness" but straight up economics.
 
While the test barrel velocities shows an advantage of the 9MM over the 38+P, the many ballistic gel tests I have seen shows about the same performance with the 38 in a 2" barreled revolver, and the 9MM+P in a 3" barreled semi-auto.
I could not find any tests with a 9MM revolver which in theory would lose some performance due to a shorter barrel, and gas escaping via the cylinder gap.
Click to expand...
Why are you comparing a revolver to a semi-auto. Ballistics by the inch tested both in a fixed barrel of the same length. That's what you need to compare. Both calibers would have some theoretical loss due to the cylinder gap.

Maybe I ought to by a chrono and test my three inch .38 against my three inch 9mm. Donations to buy a chrono for testing purposes welcome. :)
 
Like I said, the things I pointed out are the reasons I am not all that excited about an LCR in 9MM. I already have one in 38 Spcl. +P, and it makes a very good Winter coat pocket revolver. I have a KAHR CM9 which is smaller, lighter, and holds an additional two rounds of +P 9MM. It is comfortably carried IWB, or in some cases in a front pocket. My third option is a Springer XD 40 Sub Compact with either 10, or 13 rounds of 40 S&W, and not that much more inconvenient than my LCR.
What would shake my cage would be a bit larger LCR in 44 Spcl., or one with a little more cylinder thickness to take the pressure of 327 Federal. The 44 has a slim chance, the 327 has about the same chance as Obama becoming the President.....of the NRA.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top