Looks like Ruger ruined the revolver

[Kuato]

Now fellas, before yall jump at my throat, this is just MY opinion. I happen to be a puritan when it comes to guns & don't particularly like plastic. I happen to work wood & enjoy the uniqueness of wood stocks for example. I can appreciate the use of "polymers" for certain reasons. But why, oh WHY, would they want to make a polymer revolver? I realize the frame is aluminum & the fire control assembly is housed in plastic. But in a j frame size gun, would the plastic really make THAT big a weight difference over aluminum? I don't think so :roll: . I'm not even going to mention the MSRP on this horrendous looking thing. Oh, & be sure to check out all the shnazzy words they use to describe it. :groner:

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/LCR/index.html

[oldhickory]

Yeah, I won't even own an alunimum frame revolver, let alone something like that. It's a far cry from my Colt New Service.

[nicholst55]

Yup, IMHO it's butt-ugly. I have zero interest in even seeing this gun, let alone handling or buying one. Some guys think they're the best thing since sliced bread. Not me.

End of discussion. Next topic?

[45&30-30]

I know what ya mean, I love steel and wood, but for some reason I like this revolver. Opinions aside, Ruger probably did do something for the ounce counters. Smith's 12oz scandium at $1000+ or a 15 oz aluminum at $500 while Ruger went in the middle, 13.5oz for $500. I hope this is another success story for them and they can produce them in the thousands, fast.

[Kuato]

I know what ya mean, I love steel and wood, but for some reason I like this revolver. Opinions aside, Ruger probably did do something for the ounce counters. Smith's 12oz scandium at $1000+ or a 15 oz aluminum at $500 while Ruger went in the middle, 13.5oz for $500. I hope this is another success story for them and they can produce them in the thousands, fast.

Ruger may have a 13.5 oz. for $500, but that's $500 of PLASTIC! At least the S&W is ALL aluminum.

If ounces are an issue, they can get a Kel Tec P3AT. At 8.3 oz. & all the plastic people could want, its hard to beat. Especially when you get 7 rounds & it runs about 300 bucks..

[Four Fingers of Death]

It i splug ugly, but no doubt effective. If I was going to buy a belly gun, I thinb k I'd go for an auto.

[Bret4207]

Yeeeesh!!! Bill must be spinning in his grave.

[GrizzLeeBear]

Yeeeesh!!! Bill must be spinning in his grave.

Just what I said in the other post about this revolver.:confused:

As far as price, I know the $525 is MSRP and the street price will be lower. But you can still probably get a Taurus 85 Ultra-Lite that weights only a few ounces more for $100 - $150 less.

I think Ruger is wasting its creativity going after the CCW market so heavily when they could build on their successes with much less time and money spent on "engineering" new plastic guns. How about a 5 - 6" barreled SP101 or Single Six in the "new" .327 mag? Or a 4" GP100 in 44 special (5 shot most likely)? How about a 3 - 4" SP101 in 9mm (didn't they make a short run of these once)? Lots of really cool things they could do with the revolvers they already make.:Fire:

[Lloyd Smale]

I guess you should judge a ccw gun on looks. Its should be judged on reliability and practicality. Personaly im a 1911 guy. I carried snubbys for years and they are effective ccw guns but they make 1911s now that are just about as consealable, at least enough for the way i carry them and they just pack more punch and hell i just like them more. I agree its an ugly gun and its nothing that will ever sit in my safe but it will probably sell like hotcakes. After all a good portion of the people that buy guns would buy a dog turd if it said ruger on it.

[jh45gun]

After having quite a few Rugers in my lifetime I will not own one anymore. There quality control sucks on the revolvers you either get a good one or a mediocre one. As far as the 10/22s go they are a tinkerers dream but other 22's are a lot more accurate out of the box.

[klcarroll]

Yup! .......It's butt-ugly! ...........And I am still getting used to aluminum; ......so in my mind, the only place for plastic is in composit stocks and grips!

I guess that makes me an old, purist "crank"! (LOL)

Kent

[wills]

Now fellas, before yall jump at my throat, this is just MY opinion. I happen to be a puritan when it comes to guns & don't particularly like plastic. I happen to work wood & enjoy the uniqueness of wood stocks for example. I can appreciate the use of "polymers" for certain reasons. But why, oh WHY, would they want to make a polymer revolver? I realize the frame is aluminum & the fire control assembly is housed in plastic. But in a j frame size gun, would the plastic really make THAT big a weight difference over aluminum? I don't think so :roll: . I'm not even going to mention the MSRP on this horrendous looking thing. Oh, & be sure to check out all the shnazzy words they use to describe it. :groner:

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/LCR/index.html

Puritan, or purist?
http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/18200/18203/puritan_18203_lg.gif

[Willbird]

I never liked Colt DA revolvers, so I just never bought one, and do not even look at them. Ruger is free to make whatever they want. They seem to have their eye on the CCW market, and a lightweight +p 38 falls right into that market. At least they did not blatantly copy another companies product like they did with the Ruger LCP.

Bill

[KCSO]

Sorry, but I carried a S and W Airlight as a SECOND gun for years. For a SECOND gun you want reliable and light! This is a gun that you have in addition to 15 pounds of gear strapped to the belt and it will be used as a last resort. You will fire it once a year for qual. and the rest of the time it rides in the pocket. For something that you hope you will never use but need for added insurance light makes sense. All that said i still have my Airlight and will continue to use it if necessary, if I were starting out and were looking for a backup I would give the Ruger a look at least.

[9.3X62AL]

What with the Ruger LCR and the new S&W J-frame in 327 Federal with Krylon Barbecue Pit paint job--I'm hearing laughter from inside my gun safe. And, NO--there are no new added medications recently.

[Agrotom]

I think its great!! As backup gun not a primary carry. The lighter the better. :Fire:

[Kuato]

Puritan, or purist?
http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/18200/18203/puritan_18203_lg.gif

How bout a purist puritan???:roll:

[Wayne Smith]

What with the Ruger LCR and the new S&W J-frame in 327 Federal with Krylon Barbecue Pit paint job--I'm hearing laughter from inside my gun safe. And, NO--there are no new added medications recently.

Humm, maybe there needs to be a new addition?? I agree, I don't like them at all, but can see the bow to utility. I carry a Colt Agent and don't need anything lighter.

[9.3X62AL]

Just my Old School belief systems causing trouble (again). I see no reason why "utilitarian" necessarily excludes aesthetics. Wayne's Agent and KCSO's Airweight speak to that eloquently.

Ah, what do I know--Glocks are ugly as a mud fence, but they work very well. I'll just saunter back to my cave for a nice ground sloth T-bone.

[TNsailorman]

I guess I'm a caveman too. I just spotted a " REX " on the ridge and my.41 mag N frame don't feel so heavy right now. So, 9.3x62AL, if yur back at the cave by now, thro sum wood on the fire. Me and the rest of the boy will drag a big ol steak supper in thar shortly.

[skeet1]

We should probably buy one, as ugly as that is they might not sell that many making it a rare item.

Skeet1

[3006guns]

I just saw this new Ruger ad for the first time yesterday. Looks like the old Smith and Wesson Centennial, but designed by someone with a CAD program. Not that impressed........................:-?

[dk17hmr]

I think I might buy one. That way in a few years when it is no more I will have a rare Ruger and be able to sell if for the big bucks....lol

[Old Ironsights]

I'd have to shoot it before I knock it. But a gun that shoots ONLY .38s seems a bit pointless.

But then, I carry an SP101 under a tucked knit shirt without problems. If I need smaller I have the NAA Guardian.

http://gunblast.com/Ruger-LCR.htm

[lathesmith]

Yea, that thing is butt-ugly to my eyes, but I'm not gonna jump on the Ruger Condemnation Bandwagon just yet. I can think of several reasons why that thing makes a lot of sense as a CCW--it should be sweat-proof, it's lightweight, and it should be very tough. Only time will give it a record, though--good or bad. I had a hard time getting used to a plastic auto, this is even a bridge (or two or three) further than that. But the darned plastic autos just plain WORKED, and for that I must give it it's due, if only grudgingly. So, I'll wait and see...with no plans to own one in the near future. That MSRP looks a tad steep, I think if I was going to spend that kind of coin on a CCW, I'd go for an auto, even though I am fundamentally a wheelgunner.
lathesmith

[9.3X62AL]

TN--

Got the fire ready, and some crawdad and passenger pigeon appetizers set out. Bring the family, Marie will be home in a hour or so.

[MT Gianni]

Flat out butt ugly. I would prefer one to a Taurus 85 if I was in the market for a 38 snubby. Everyone hated Glocks when they first came out and were sure that the failure rate would be high. I have plenty of blue steel and wood to look at in the safe, if it works for utility so be it.
I have been known to drive an ugly car also.

[Tom Herman]

I simply don't own any plastic guns. Give me steel, preferrably stainless so it won't rust here in the beautiful 9+ months of liquid sunshine that we get.
For $500, I can pick up a nice used 629....

Happy Shootin'! -Tom

[AZ-Stew]

This HAS to be a troll, right? It sure is ugly enough to be one. And they said the Edsel was ugly! It's not too ugly, it's about 10 ugly.

I clicked the link and just sat here and laughed when the photo came up.

The aluminum framed Smiths predate my shooting career (50s or 60s?) and the only thing I didn't like about the Model 12 is that the frame is black and doesn't match the blue of the steel parts. Otherwise, they're the same silouhette as any other Smith of the same frame size. At any distance, they look quite normal. This "thing" is a conglomeration of shapes and colors that beg "spit take" at first glance. When will we begin reading about the "impeccable plastic to metal fit" on these things? The cylinder has less charm than my circa 1954 cap pistol (it was a Roy Rogers model, by God) and looks like it was polished with 60 grit sandpaper. I won't mention the exposed rivets. This thing has less class than the ones Jimmy Carter wanted to outlaw as "Saturday Night Specials".

I'll give you $65 for one. If you throw in a box of ammo.

Regards,

Stew

[hedgehorn]

I ain't never seen anything quite like it..... What's the world coming to? ;)

[Snapping Twig]

When I saw that thing the first thought I had was that it was the answer to the question that was never asked.

I've got two alloy framed .45acp's, a Sig 220 and a Kimber CDP, but I draw the line at plastic, especially on a revolver.

[OBXPilgrim]

Got a couple Glocks, but I'm not so sure about that thing.

Did they hire a former H&R handgun designer? - Some of those are uglier (centerfires, that is - some of the rimfire H&Rs were not that bad).

[Bret4207]

Well, they say form follows function and I suppose it's functional. But isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? Maybe in this day of Glocks and Sigs that isn't so ugly after all. It's certainly not the type of gun I'd find appealing. Reminds me of the Ram Line 22 auto pistol or maybe a Hi Point.

[part_timer]

I just looked through the specs and they changed the MSRP to $792.00. YIKES!!!!!!! Me thinks that there is a better choice to spend money on. Perhaps a Bond Arms in 45/410.

[lawboy]

I predict the gun will be very commercially successful. If I did not already have my carry snubbie -- an older Colt Agent -- I would take a serious look at this one. It has all the features a working gun of this class should have so why not give it a fair look? It is not a safe queen, a range prince, or a collector's item. I have guns in all those categories and they have a legitimate place.

THIS is a fighting gun for carrying 24/7. A tool you come to love because it has provided service and security when other guns and people did not and it looks like a gun that will be easy to have PRESENT. I could care less what they made it out of. I can say this from experience, when you have need to lay hands on a firearm because you fear for your safety, you absolutely will have no thought of what it is made of if you have confidence that it will work. If it is reliable it is a welcome addition to the options we have.

Kudos to Ruger.

[Kuato]

I predict the gun will be very commercially successful. If I did not already have my carry snubbie -- an older Colt Agent -- I would take a serious look at this one. It has all the features a working gun of this class should have so why not give it a fair look? It is not a safe queen, a range prince, or a collector's item. I have guns in all those categories and they have a legitimate place.

THIS is a fighting gun for carrying 24/7. A tool you come to love because it has provided service and security when other guns and people did not and it looks like a gun that will be easy to have PRESENT. I could care less what they made it out of. I can say this from experience, when you have need to lay hands on a firearm because you fear for your safety, you absolutely will have no thought of what it is made of if you have confidence that it will work. If it is reliable it is a welcome addition to the options we have.

Kudos to Ruger.

Fighting guns have been made since the 16th century. My point is that plastic has its purpose I guess, but not as one of the main components of a revolver. Its more a marketing hook than a legitimate "leap forward" as far as revolvers are concerned.
If you're a fan of hi dollar plastic, be my guest. The revolver has been around more than 120 years through wars time & again, & street battles, time & again & never needed plastic to be effective OR reliable..

[lawboy]

I agree that the revolver never needed plastic to be reliable. I am just saying that if they have made a quality gun out of plastic, what is wrong with that? For the use it is intended, if plastic gets the job done, cool. If aluminum gets the job done, cool. If steel gets the job done, cool. if unobtainium gets the job done, cool. Get my drift? The material matters not if it performs.

edited to add: You can see my vote by looking at my avatar.

[MikeP]

If this gun had been available when I bought my SP101 .357 I probably would have bought it. The reason is strictly weight.

Certainly, plastic-type materials are not "traditional." But they are functional. Many traditionalists cannot accept its use. But it has been proven to be quite effective these past 20 years or so.

[Ricochet]

That really looks interesting!

Another dinky .38 I've been interested in is the Charter Arms Off Duty.

[Heavy lead]

I have a 642 I carry, it's all I need, this is a real yawning disapointment to me. I'd much rather have an 8 shot 357 RH or SRH, a 5 shot 41 mag GP100, or a myriad of other things. Nothing wrong with a plastic carry gun if they can make it work correctly, but I won't buy one.

[Old Ironsights]

If this gun had been available when I bought my SP101 .357 I probably would have bought it. The reason is strictly weight.

Certainly, plastic-type materials are not "traditional." But they are functional. Many traditionalists cannot accept its use. But it has been proven to be quite effective these past 20 years or so.

RIGHT! It's not a "carry" gun, it's a POCKET gun/BUG.

They are used in entirely different ways for different circumstances.

I CARRY my SP101.

I POCKET my NAA Guardian.

For POCKET carry it most certainly looks interesting.

[Treeman]

Personally , I want one. The LCR reminds me of a Bulldog puppy. So ugly it is cute...and an LCR won't poop on the carpet and grow up to eat you out of house and home while slobbering on the guests.

[Shootn]

I love blued steel and wood, but this pistol strikes me as a "tool". Kinda like a Glock or a hammer. [smilie=1:If they price it right I will try one.

[dpaqu]

Couple of thoughts...

-Ruger strutting it technical and production prowess.

-revolver pocket guns have a more defined place than there full size counterparts for defensive use.

-I agree it comes across as more of a niche tool than a feel good range toy.

-New market segment for Ruger to put the squeeze on competitors. Maybe that will get the other manufactures to come out with something better.

-Probably the right gun at the wrong price but I don't want one.

[buck1]

EHHHH.........no thanks.............

[James C. Snodgrass]

Well for a true Ruger fan it is kinda funky , But it isn't as great a shame as a plastic stocked ss # 1 . Now that's a nasty lookin critter . To the fellas that said they would rather have a mod 85 Taurus I doubt you could run quick enough to give me another one . I'm like most and love the deep old blue of a S&W , or Colt but to catch lint in your pocket on the way to the stop & rob it might work .

[Mohillbilly]

I think I'll hold on to my Colt cobras,they are pretty good friends/tools.