S&W scandium alloy frame vs Ruger LCR 38+P

A

Alan0354

New member
I am considering a snubby, I am comparing between S&W scandium alloy 357 like 340PD and Ruger LCR 38spc +P. If I change the grip of the LCR, both will be the same size. Both are about 12 to 13oz.

I started talking about this in the other thread, I don't want to hijack that thread, so I am starting my own. Bill DeShivs talked about the problem of frame cracking and Carmady provided this picture:

attachment.php


I had a S&W M37 J frame air weight, I was very concern with the exact area. I was so uncomfortable I sold it long time ago after only about 200 to 300 rounds. I still have 2 M36 which is steel J frame. I still a little concern as it's very thin in that area.

I have been looking at the construction between the 340PD and the LCR, so far, this is what I gathered, I conclude that LCR is still better, I want to hear other's that look into this to share their opinion. This is how I come to the conclusion:


1) 340PD, The frame design is the same as the old J frame where the barrel screw onto the frame and should have the same weak point as shown in the following:
attachment.php

attachment.php


You can see, the same weak area as the old J-frame, the difference is it is using scandium alloy that is supposed to be stronger. But does that make up the difference? Is it stronger than steel?



2)Here is the design of Ruger LCR. Notice the thread of the barrel is at the FRONT of the barrel. The outer barrel is actually part of the frame, there is no thin spot, at the critical area like S&W, in the red circle area, the whole area is taking the stress, not at one spot. This is very beefy, just as strong as the upper part of the frame.
attachment.php



I never have a chance to see the real gun in person, can only rely on the pictures I found online. Please put in your opinions.

Thanks
 

Attachments

  • S&W340PD barrel.jpg
    S&W340PD barrel.jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 603
  • S&W340PD cone.jpg
    S&W340PD cone.jpg
    34.6 KB · Views: 605
  • LCR barrel.jpg
    LCR barrel.jpg
    27.8 KB · Views: 600
The LCR is half the cost of the Smith, and probably 10 times easier to find new at a dealer in Calif. than the Smith in stock.
I've shot .38 special +P in all my .38 LCR and LCRX that were equivalent to the power of lower range factory .357 so I have no doubts to their durability.
Since you only plan to shoot .38 special +P max, I see no reason for the alloy .357 unless you just want the smith design and name. In CA you will have to get one with a lock, don't you?
 
I've got a M&P340 scandium frame. I don't shoot magnums much. It was expensive. But it is also very light and relatively thin in pocket (in most areas except the cylinder). The cylinder is steel which is not quite a light as titanium cylinder offerings so I would say it's *almost* the ultimate pocket carry piece above 380 ACP. But the steel cylinders won't erode with hot loads like the titanium ones.

It's the lightest double action carry gun I have.

If I was worried about durability in the spot you pointed out and didn't care about an ounce here or there, I'd go with the Ruger. Price is better than the Scandium frames too. I think the Ruger somehow reduced the double action trigger pull also, people say it's nicer than your typical J frame trigger pull.
However, if my current Scandium frame cracked, I'd probably call S&W and I think they'd make a good effort to fix it. If not, well I've carried this thing on and off for...10 years? 12 years?
 
Yeh, I think I read about the safety lock on the S&W and worst it can lock by itself when firing hot rounds.

I did not know M&P 340 has scandium frame and a bit cheaper. 13.8oz is like the LCR. Very comparable.

No, I am not stuck with S&W, I have 2 Rugers before, seems like Ruger is very conservative and beefy on the design. Frame of Ruger revolvers have both sides, not like S&W that one side is the removable side plate, the frame is actually one sided only to take the stress.

If I change the butt of the LCR to this one, the dimension will be the same as the S&W J-frame.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/78050-HOGUE-Rubber-BANTAM-Tamer-Boot-Grip-RUGER-LCR/333559356517

Thanks for both of your replies.
 
Purely subjective, but I didn't care for the bantam grip on my LCR. For some reason it made me feel like I couldn't get a good grasp in hand as if it would squeeze out. I went back to the standard finger groove grips.

I have the LCR in both the 38 and the 357, and an S&W 642. The 642 is smaller in the pocket than the LCR, the trigger is heavier but shorter pull. It feels like a higher-end product if that means anything, even though in normal times it's less to buy than the LCRs.

My personal opinion is if you are wanting the absolute lightest 5 shot snub you have to pay a lot more money to get it with the 340 series. With the LCR 38 it's only a tiny bit heavier but it will be slightly larger, but much less cash.

When I pocket a revolver, honestly it makes little difference, I tend to grab the 642 with a laser grip, but am just as happy with the LCR.

My numbers:
S&W 642 Airweight Speer Gold Dot 135 gr +p .38 Special 16.80 ounces
Ruger LCR 5401 Speer Gold Dot 135 gr +p .38 Special 15.60 ounces
 
You should know that you can grind rubber grips and come back out with good results. I used the full length grips that come with the 3" LCRX, cut them shorter to three finger length and then grind the width way down so that they are narrow. Finish off with a wood burner to restipple the grips. I've done this on the LCR and the Kimber grips and now they are perfect. Cushion for magnum loads, and narrow for AIWB carry.
 
I shot an early LCR 357 not long after they came out. We were shooting CCI Blazer 125 grain magnums and it was surprisingly easy to hit with out to about 20 paces. It managed recoil much better than expected, too.

My only complaints with the thing are that it's covered in plastic and ugly as hell- looks like it ought to take ring caps instead of live ammunition. But they do work and shoot pretty well, sorta like another ugly plastic gun I have around here somewhere...
 
I would love to have the lighter weight Smith Scandium frame. The lighter the better for carry. However, the cost is too much when I can carry the Smith 642 even though a few ounces more. I train Practice with the LCR9mm and the LCR22.
Grips are individual. I have a size large hand and wear a size Xtra lg. Glove. But the Bantam grips work great for me on the LCR's and the Stock Grip on the Smith works better for me as well. The Ruger 9mm and 357 are built tough. I have no fear of a crack and I shoot them a lot. Bought the 9mm when they first came out and still runs like a charm. I went through almost all the grips on the LCR's before setting on the Bantam. Plus they conceal better. I do not shoot the Smith as much because I believe a lot of rounds will result in a crack.
The LCR9mm has a much better trigger than the Stock Smith. I put on a after market trigger on the Smith, nice trigger but no where as nice as the LCR.
The Lock on the 642 has been discussed so often that my consensus is, nothing to worry about. The 642 is a nice lite firearm I love shooting it.
Nice to have the 22.cal for additional inexpensive shooting, plus it is my favorte plinker of all time.

0OPluvK.jpg
oxGOdN4.jpg
 
Hi Carl the Floor Walker, is the size of the LCR the same as the J-frame S&W after using the Bantam grip. I found that on ebay also for $28.
 
You can see, the same weak area as the old J-frame, the difference is it is using scandium alloy that is supposed to be stronger. But does that make up the difference? Is it stronger than steel?
Click to expand...
No, it's stronger than standard aluminum by a good deal, but it's not as strong as steel.
 
JohnKSa said:
No, it's stronger than standard aluminum by a good deal, but it's not as strong as steel.
Click to expand...

Then it's strange, my two Model 36 are all steel, from the design, that area in question that cracks on the 340PD is NOT any thicker than my old Model 36. It is governed by the diameter of the cylinder.( the size the cylinder govern how much distance between the center axis of the barrel to the axis of rotation of the cylinder. The smaller the cylinder, the smaller the distance. There is no way around it. So the area in question of the scandium 340PD can NOT be thicker than my Model 36 as long as the diameter of the cylinder is the same( which it is).

The question is why is my model 36 rated for standard 38spc only( not even +P), but the 340PD is rated for 357Magnum??!!

I believe what you said, I believe scandium alloy ( mostly aluminum) are stronger than aluminum alloy, but it's not as strong as steel. So one of the rating is wrong!! I have a suspicion they under rated the old model 36, but I think they really pushing the new 340PD.

I have to say from design point of view, I trust the Ruger LCR. It is a really ingenious design, bypass the restriction of the design of S&W. That's a real improvement.

Now that I have been studying up the new guns, the designs, the new guns really are a big improvement from the guns I own and know 30 years ago. Not just revolvers. I have not fire my Glock 26, but just looking at the design, it is so so much better than the old 1911A1, the S&W659 and the Walther PPK. Most of the new semi have much bigger ejector port so the casing is free to pop out. Now, the feed ramp and the chamber are one piece unlike the 1911A1 and Walther PPK that part of the feed ramp is the frame and part is the mouth of the chamber. The old design always have a discontinue at the transition from the frame to the barrel, unless it is perfectly matched, there will be a step when the round sliding up the feedramp. This definitely hurts the reliability of feeding of JHP rounds. I hope my Glock 26 is as good and reliable as people said it would be. I had to do a lot of work to make those three old ones reliable. The Gold Cup is still not completely reliable with the Blazer JHP, the profile is like the mouth of an ashtray, I have problem it got hung in feeding.
 
So one of the rating is wrong!!
Click to expand...
I would say it's far more likely that there's some other factor(s) involved that we don't understand.

For one thing, 'steel' is a misleading term. There are literally thousands of different steel alloys, all with different properties. And even one type of steel can often be heat-treated to a significant range of hardness/toughness values. There is also more than just one scandium aluminum alloy, presumably the different alloys also have different properties.

And, in addition to design, manufactured things also have issues with quality control.

Furthermore, strength is a complicated principle that incorporates properties like elasticity, toughness, hardness, and others. If one is more elastic, it might stand up to repeated stresses over time much better than another metal that is less elastic, but much harder.

So maybe the scandium isn't as strong as steel, but it is more elastic and so it tends to resist cracking better under that particular type of stress.

Or maybe there was a quality control issue with the steel revolver that cracked.

Or maybe although steel CAN be much stronger than scandium, that particular alloy wasn't nearly as strong as it could have been due to the properties of that particular alloy or the heat treatment it was given.

Or maybe the crack was due to a manufacturing process carried out incorrectly and had virtually nothing to do with the strength of the material or the design. Ruger had a problem some years back where the barrels were literally going downrange when the gun was fired. The steel was fine, the design was fine, the problem turned out to be the use of a lubricant that weakened the metal and caused the failure.

One thing that's important when studying something is to keep in mind that there is often much more to a problem than it might seem on the surface. Assuming that one fully understands the problem can lead to really badly wrong conclusions if the assumption is incorrect. Said another way, it's important to know things, but it is far more important to understand the limits of one's knowledge.
 
BTW, the crack was about the aluminum alloy air weight frame. This was brought up in the other thread. Nothing about the steel frame crack. This is a big distinction.

Well, I would assume S&W knows what steel it is using, that the quality is as good as their name. Is there any reason to question the steel in M36 is inferior than all their other steel frame guns they make, which is good steel.

Same as scandium alloy S&W is using, one can assume they make it the best. If you said steel is stronger than scandium alloy( and I trust you), common sense tells me that the steel frame of the M36 should be at least as strong as the scandium alloy 340PD given the same thickness, Correct?

From the picture I showed in the first post, the area in question of cracking definitely not any thicker than my M36. So the conclusion should be able to draw from that.

The scandium 340PD is rated 357Magnum, if it is rated 38spc+P only, I would not even question this. Maybe someone have more knowledge can explain this. I am all ears.
 
Last edited:
I’ve owned 3 LCRs. I moved to a jframe. It fit my carry needs better. Jframes are slightly smaller in the non published sizes. Height, weight, length they are the same. But width of the frame, size of trigger guard etc the jframe is smaller and easier to pocket carry.
The LCR has a much better trigger. But I found the non-tensioned two piece barrel of the LCR to not be very accurate at 25 yards. But plenty accurate for ten yards or so. LCR is definitely more comfortable to shoot.
You’ll really need to handle both and think about your intended uses before you decide which one you want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I owned 3 S&W J-frame, 2 M36 and a M37 I sold. The best I see is putting all onto a sheet of 8"X10" piece of paper at 25yds!!! A little worst is just going from worse to worst. I have Gold Cup, Colt Trouper 8" and Ruger Mark II for 25yds. Day and night difference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top