Looks like Ruger ruined the revolver

[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.