suprised at the gunshop yesterday

[Lloyd Smale]

was at the gunshop yesterday looking at guns with the step son. He wanted a consealed carry gun and really wanted a revolver. We looked at alloy j frame smiths and the ruger lcr's. What shocked me is the rugers were about 50 bucks more then the j frames were. Ruger had a slightly better trigger pull but both were decent the rugers lighter, the smith had quicker reset. The plastic looking ruger was but ugly compared to the classic smith j frame but I know that looks doesn't add much when your needing a gun. But I would have to say that for 50 dollars less id take the smith all day and would probably pick it if the price was the same. Now if the ruger was 50 bucks cheaper I might be swayed. It took me a long time to get used to plastic guns like glocks but these days I buy more of them then anything. Maybe some day the ugly black plastic revolver trend will catch me by surprise too. Me I walked out with an lcpII at half the price of either of them but do have to admit to having a couple j frames at home already.

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

" ...

[Lloyd Smale]

smiths were a 442 and 642

[Walkingwolf]

Smith has dropped their prices on some revolvers, others they are offering rebates. Personally I would choose the Smith J frame over the ruger, and the SP101 prices would push me to the Smith. For me I don't much difference a couple ounces makes carrying a gun, but it makes a whole lot of difference in felt recoil. The LCR is very popular with ladies, surprising since it is so ugly, when it comes down to it for pocket I would go with a semi auto. I have carried a J frame in a uniform pocket, while it did the job it printed. When I switched to a sterling 22lr semi auto there was no more noticeable printing. Today's 380's are as small as that Sterling 22.

I like my GP's, and baby Vaquero though, as well as Mark IV. I wish they would bring back the speed, and service six though, but I have my model 64 though. I just can't see myself buying an LCR, unless it was the 327, or 22lr. But then for 22 I prefer my NAA mini revolver, now that is a compact light pocket revolver, about half the price of an LCR. Ruger pricing is odd, a adjustable sight SA is considerably less than a fixed sight gun, granted the Vaquero is popular there is more versatility to the Blackhawk, and their SP101 is much too pricey.

[scattershot]

All I can say is that the plastic Ruger hurts. Stick with the steel frame Smith. I’m surprised, too, that the Smith would be less than the Ruger.

[Walkingwolf]

I guess there are more manufacturing costs that go into molding plastic. OR the little gun is popular, and Ruger is taking advantage of it, that can backfire in the long run.

[762 shooter]

One day we will look back and say " remember when people took pride in their workmanship and used pure virgin plastic to build a quality handgun."

762

[thegatman]

LCRx is a sweet gun. Shoots 130 grain 38's to point of aim. Lightweight.

[Walkingwolf]

LCRx is a sweet gun. Shoots 130 grain 38's to point of aim. Lightweight.

So does a Charter Arms, at one ounce less than the LCR.

[farmerjim]

Why do looks count in a concealed carry ?

[rintinglen]

Gun prices have been jumping around as manufacturers attempt to dump their over stock. Last Summer S&W was selling their excellent shield pistols for less than 300 bucks after rebate. Right now the Browning 22's are for sale here locally for cheap. Some of the prices advertised for AR's these days boggle the mind when you think back just a year or two ago. If there's something that you like on sale, buy it while you can. As inventories shrink and production levels drop to meet demand, prices will rise.

[Bigslug]

Private Deitrich: "It looks like some sort of secreted resin"

Corporal Hicks: "Yeah. . .but secreted from WHAT?" Aliens, 1986

No question that the plastic revolver is a new take on a really old, established concept, and that pebble is going to take a while to rattle around and find it's place in the collective think tank. Since cost seems to be about the ONLY thing the market has any passion left for, we're undoubtedly going to see more of it, but I'm curious to see what roads it ultimately heads down.

The LCR is intended for the market that tends to carry more than shoot. For all I know, it may be the most durable thing since Wile E. Coyote's Acme Anvil, but it's likely to be a long while before we know that with any certainty. It's a nice shooting gun, that will smack your hand unpleasantly with full-tilt .357's - just like you'd expect from any hefty chambering in a gun that doesn't weigh anything. We're really going to need to see the technology applied to duty and hunting size packages that actually get RUN before the writing is on the wall.

And that's going to be an interesting movie to watch. The negative to the general revolver pattern as we've come to know it is a high bore axis that magnifies muzzle flip. The plus WAS that, being made of steel, revolvers had the weight to minimize any discomfort that might bring to the party. Having shot the scandium S&W .44 Mag, I can say that it's going to take more than new material with old geometry to make such featherweights fun to play with.

The geometry of the Chiappa Rhino that fires from the 6:00 chamber is unquestionably a brilliant move from the physics standpoint, and that might make magnum cartridges shootable in a lightweight revolver. Going against that is the fact that revolver purchases are somewhat conservatively motivated, and a major change to a known appearance might not take. It might be that the primary buyers of such a thing will either be newcomers to the shooting world that have no pre-conceived notions of what a revolver "should" be, or folks so immersed in it that the benefits are immediately obvious. I wouldn't anticipate a lot of "average shooter" purchases - at least not to start. . . and the newbies will have a hell of a time figuring out zeroing with the offset between the sights and the bore.

And that's just one possible direction plastic wheelguns could take. As I say, it'll be an interesting movie to watch.

[Idaho45guy]

That was an excellent post, Bigslug! Beautifully written and great information. You should write firearms articles professionally...

[Walkingwolf]

Why do looks count in a concealed carry ?

For some people it matters not, for others it does. Except for the NAA in my pocket I OC, and I have some ugly guns that sometimes I OC. My problem with the LCR is the cost for a plastic gun, same problem I have with Glocks. They are other manufacturers that do the same at a lower price. I like Rugers, but not enough to pay more than a Smith.

[dragon813gt]

I'd buy the Smith even if it was $100 more than the Ruger. I haven't had to send any Smiths back to the factory. I think it's five out of the last six Rugers I bought had to go back. I'm tired of doing this. I haven't had a chance to shoot the RAP 308 I bought so that one might have to go back as well.

[scattershot]

Gun prices have been jumping around as manufacturers attempt to dump their over stock. Last Summer S&W was selling their excellent shield pistols for less than 300 bucks after rebate. Right now the Browning 22's are for sale here locally for cheap. Some of the prices advertised for AR's these days boggle the mind when you think back just a year or two ago. If there's something that you like on sale, buy it while you can. As inventories shrink and production levels drop to meet demand, prices will rise.

Shields for $249.00 at Palmetto State Armory.

[Lloyd Smale]

sorry but I don't want an ugly wife, ugly truck or car or an ugly gun if given a choice. Now I have limits on all of those but some examples are just TO UGLY but I will say this. Why buy ugly when for less money you can have just as good of a gun that looks good to boot and probably has better resale value 10 years down the road. I think ruger makes them cheap and prices them like that because they know they have enough cheerleaders out there that are conned into thinking there some kind of a premium brand. Smith probably learned its lesson doing the same. Yes glocks and m&ps and sigs ect are ugly too but they have no completion in there price range. to get a really good 1911 that carrys half the ammo is going to cost you twice as much. Now if I could buy a cdp Kimber or a trp springfield or gold cup colt at the same price as a glock I would surely have less glocks.

Why do looks count in a concealed carry ?

[bedbugbilly]

I had a 357 LCR - it shot just fine and was OK but I ended up using 38 special in it because my hands couldn't take the recoil. It does have some advantages - it's light. But even so, I never felt comfortable with it as in my hands, it just didn't feel good. Everyone has their likes and dislikes though and yes, I agree, it was but ugly - but that isn't why I traded it off. I just didn't care enough for it to fall in love with it. I ended up trading it in on a Smith model 36 snub - i put a set of Pachmyer (sp?) combat grips on it and have never regretted it. I liked it so much I picked up a Smith 36 with a3" barrel and I even carry that at times. yep - it's steel and a tad bit heavier but in a Fobus holster on my belt at about 4 o'clock with a shirt tail over it, I don't even notice it.

I think part of it for me is that I've been shooting 55 years and just prefer a steel wheelmen. I own one plastic semi-auto - a Smith 9mm Shield and i do like it quite a bit. But hey, I even carry a Combat Masterpiece at times OWB and the weight doesn't other me so maybe i'm just not sensitive that way (weight of gun).

Both the Rugers and Smiths are good IMHO - it's all about what you prefer to carry.

[FergusonTO35]

If I had to pick just one snubby it would be my 637. Fortunately, I can have more than one so an LCRx is going to join it as soon as funds permit.

[Lloyd Smale]

nothing wrong with that train of thought.

If I had to pick just one snubby it would be my 637. Fortunately, I can have more than one so an LCRx is going to join it as soon as funds permit.