Sacrilege!

one man's heresy is another man's bowing to a higher wisdom.

No, not always. Abandoning the .45 acp for the 9mm? Sacrilege.
abandoning black powder for smokeless? higher wisdom.

The widespread abandoning of machined steel for injection molded plastic?

Well, the inquisition has not rendered final judgement, but my personal thoughts are that arranging the stakes and kindling may be a bit premature.
 
The work people have put in over the last few years continuing to refine and enhance the performance of the 9mm cartridge has surprised me, so I can see the attraction. I think you made an interesting choice.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the situation of bullet construction, the bullets have improved for both rounds to the point that they will both perform at about equal levels.

if you are referring to velocities, although the .38 has a significantly lower data range than the nine, once you factor in cylinder gap and and bullet weights, moving to real world comparisons, the two may be close enough to eliminate that as a valid concern.
 
The only reason I'm considering buying a LCR in 9mm is because Ruger doesn't make one in .45ACP......

.....if they did, I'd buy both.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
I wonder if one could be built that was stout enough to handle that larger diameter and charge. It would have to be only four round, possibly, or a redesigned and larger frame. I wonder if the thing could be made into a forty, but if it was going to be in a forty, maybe it would just be smarter to use the .357? I'm not familiar with the gun in question, is it a shorter cylinder that couldn't use the .357, only long enough to fit a 9mm?

I think that either way with the larger calibers, if you tried to use a four round cylinder to accommodate the larger bore diameter, you would have to completely redesign the system. that mechanism is meant to rotate six stations at sixty degrees per station.
 
I think Ruger could fit a larger metal frame onto the existing polymer fire-control mechanism that would allow a 5-shot .44SPL or .45ACP. The firing pin might be at a slight upward angle for proper primer engagement.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
The firing pin might be at a slight upward angle for proper primer engagement.
Click to expand...

Might that create a small risk if grit or gunk gets into the firing pin passage? the upward angle with the same straight strike of the hammer would create pressure against the hole that may absorb some of the momentum. Maybe not a problem, maybe a problem.

Other than that I see it as a possibility and maybe a good idea. Maybe 10 mm would be a possibility as well since it gives a distinct advantage over cylinder size.

We have to remember that moving a cylinder from a bore size of .357 to .450 will result in a very significant change in cylinder size, as it will not only have to be increased by .2 inches just to accommodate the added diameter, it will also require a bit heavier steel to accommodate the larger charge.

The .45 may not be possible given the current tooling.
 
Last edited:
There are several barge loads of rifles and shotguns with angled firing pins that seem to work OK.

I am kind of surprised that Ruger has not brought out a LMR with medium frame and six .38s or five .44 on that design. I guess they figure it would cut into sales for the GP100 which they likely paid for the equipment long ago.
 
rifles and shotguns are not tiny firing pins in pocket pistols with light weight hammers and light springs. Not comparable. The firing pin set up in any compact striker fired handgun can't be compared to the tent stake sized striker in some of the rifles that I have looked at. those create huge amounts of inertia.

Maybe pocket crud would be enough to interfere with the canted pin because of friction or not, but the hammer fired system of my bodyguard has failures to fire. Not going to happen on my m700.
 
You can only get the .44 calibers in the Smith L frame, the .45 calibers only fit in the N frame. As far as I can determine the LCR is about the size of the J frame smith. This thing probably couldn't accommodate anything larger than a .38 special without a complete redesign.

Still, a nice Idea.
 
Good points. Also, the amount of cylinder rotation needed to go from one chamber to the next would increase.

Might just be simpler to design a new gun.....

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
briandg said:
You can only get the .44 calibers in the Smith L frame, the .45 calibers only fit in the N frame. As far as I can determine the LCR is about the size of the J frame smith. This thing probably couldn't accommodate anything larger than a .38 special without a complete redesign.

Still, a nice Idea.
Click to expand...
I have a LCR in .357 magnun.
 
Smith says 44 Special won't work in a K-frame and requires the L-frame. Then they warn not to use heavy loads or bullets (they recommend 200g as max) in the 696.

Meanwhile Charter Arms manages to squeeze five 44 Specials into a gun the size of the D-frame Colt. And, for the most part it works.

Curiouser and curiouser!

Dave
 
Last edited:
I have a LCR in .357 magnun.
Click to expand...

My post was not about power, it was about size, and the .357 has almost identical dimensions as the .38 in all ways except length of brass.

The statement was that anything with a higher diameter cartridge case would require a larger cylinder, and since the cylinder would be too large to allow the barrel to line up with it, the entire frame would have to be remade.
 
Smith says 44 Special won't work in a K-frame and requires the L-frame.
Click to expand...
dave, Like I said above, it's probably not a matter of the strength of the gun. It's going to be because the K frame has a limited amount of space between the bore center and the axis of the cylinder.

It's pretty simple to put a .22 lr into a K frame, the cylinder is bored so that it matches the bore rather than boring it down where the larger round would fit. Just minor fitting after that. but you just can't fit a cylinder that is too large into a frame that is too small. Charter used a deeper frame opening than the K did.
 
briandg said:
My post was not about power, it was about size, and the .357 has almost identical dimensions as the .38 in all ways except length of brass.

The statement was that anything with a higher diameter cartridge case would require a larger cylinder, and since the cylinder would be too large to allow the barrel to line up with it, the entire frame would have to be remade.
Click to expand...
My bad... misunderstood your post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top