Anyone have a Ruger LCRx 3" 38 special?

[Bullshop Junior]

I took amanda to the gun store the other day, and since she is starting to get into guns a bit more and wants one of her own, I told her to go ahead and look around and pick one. (Not buying it anytime soon, just wanted to know what she liked so I could get it once work picks back up and I get ahead on bills)

Much to my surprise, after a good while handling rifles and pistols, she brought me 2 of them....

She had been talking about a Glock for awhile, so when she brought me a Ruger LCR and a Ruger LCRX both in 38 special I was quite surprised.

She said she liked the 3" lcrx better, except for she didn't like the grip, she liked the grip on the standard LCR better.

So here is my questions. Doesn't anyone have one of the 3" lcrx pistols? how do you like it? I liked it better then the standard LCR since it had adjustable sights and a hammer.

How does it shoot?

Will the smaller lcr grip fit it?

And how do any of the lcr pistols hold up? Knowing us, this gun will get shot alot and I am worried about it falling apart.

[Bullshop Junior]

No body? Guess I will just have to buy one and find out for myself...

[jmort]

It is a new model, probably few if any have one. I too have a .357 LCR and the trigger is most excellent. The problem people have is not letting it reset. Pull and fully release. Repeat. Love my gun. Will get one with a hammer or better yet a a LCRx3 in .357 when it comes out. For a light gun it absorbs recoil well. I doubt I will ever set off a heavy full house .357 load. Based on my experience, I expect the gun to hold up well. We shall see.

[Bullshop Junior]

I am really interested in the 3" 38. I think I would make a decent all around woods/truck gun.

[jmort]

I have no doubt whatsoever. Again, the trigger is really good.

[Bullshop Junior]

I was truly amazed by the trigger. That is the smoothest da trigger I have ever tried.

[jonp]

I love my LCR .357 Its designed for Concealed Carry and its definitely "comforting, not comfortable". I load .357 cases with .38 +P loads or a tad hotter for my LCR

Why did you go with the LCR over the SP101?

[18Bravo]

The 3" LCRX has been the number one "to get " pistol on my wish list. Just received notification from Davidson's today that they were now available. Placed my order and hope to have after Christmas. I'll post a range report once I've had an opportunity to put it through its paces.

[bedbugbilly]

I can't speak as to the new 3" but I did have a 357 LCR - I bought the 357 so I "could" shoot 357 but after a few, I fed it a steady diet of 38 spl. It shot well and the trigger was good on it - lightweight as far as a carry piece but I ended up trading it off after a couple of years for a Smith Model 36 snub - I just like steel pistols. I like and have a number of Rugers - good handguns and I'm sure if a person takes care of their LCR, it is going to last a long time. I just prefer the Smith.

I do think that Ruger was smart to make the new 3" - especially in a SA/DA. I also have a Smith Model 36 in 3" and I really like that barrel length - in fact I switch off between the snub and the 3". I don't know if the grips can be changed out on the new 3" or not - a quick call to Ruger will answer that for you though as I'm sure they'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. If that is what she likes - remember it's going to be "her" hand-gun and not "yours". Before you buy, maybe you can find a range where you can rent one so she can try it out -cheaper than buying and then not liking.

Good luck to you both - it's nice when you can get the better half to shoot with you. It took me 40 years before my wife would try it out.

[jmort]

I had a 3" SP101 .357 and have a LCR .357. To me the SP101 is the worst of both worlds, too heavy for EDC, for a 5 shot, and too light to shoot heavy loads, for me. Many report no problem with heavy loads. The LCR is light, has a great trigger, and I can shoot moderate loads, but would only shoot a heavy load in an emergency. Great EDC. I like J frames, had 4, now have one left, and think the LCR is better than the J frames.

[jonp]

I had a 2.5in SP101 357Mag for several years as a carry gun. It was definitely a " practice with 38sp, carry 357mag" gun. Brutal with full house 357mag loads but I liked it quite a bit.

[161]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?262168-Ruger-LCRX-3

[18Bravo]

Received my Ruger LCRx3 a few weeks ago but the weather and time have been working against me getting out to the range. I finally found the time but the weather has not been cooperating. I decided yesterday, what the heck, I’d grow a pair and brave the 14 degrees with a stiff 12 mph breeze and trythis puppy out.

First of all, the ergonomics of this revolver are very good.The larger LCR grips filled my medium sized hand nicely. Unfortunately(remember 14 degrees) the trigger guard is too small to accommodate a gloved hand. At less than 16oz the LCRx3 is deceivingly light for its size. The abbreviated hammer was easy to manipulate in single action mode. Being use to S&W it took me a while to get use to the cylinder release operating “backwards”. The adjustable sights and three inch barrel were major pluses for me offering a respectable, if short, sight picture.

On the less than thrilled side, I don’t understand why Ruger uses two different screw sizes for sight adjustments. I was glad I brought along the large range bag with my assortment of small screw drivers. Trigger pull in SA was a respectable 6lbs as measure on my trigger pull gauge. DA, while very smooth and predictable, was so heavy it wouldn’t even register. I’m guessing north of 12lbs. The annoying loose transfer bar or “Ruger Rattle” is also going to take some getting used to. My biggest peeve however is the extractor rod. It appears Ruger tried to save some money and used the same rod as the shorter LCR even though the 3in. barrel shroud should have allow for a longer rod. This means that the spent cases are half an inch short of being fully extracted. Turning the weapon barrel up will drop most but not all the cases. One or two have to be “finger ejected”. I consider this a major drawback to a carry gun where a rapid reload might be necessary.
So how did it shoot? I’ve attached a few bad pictures. The large yellow target was set at 7 yards and used to sight in. the lower grouping was before sight adjustments, the upper group after corrections. The red circle targets were shot at ten yards off hand. Not too bad considering the fact I was shaking like a junkie in withdrawal from the cold. My loads were mouse fart 148 DEWC in front of2.5gr Bullseye and 158 LRN pushed with 4.1gr of 231. The temperature and numb hands kept me from shooting any of the +P loads. I’ve no doubt that the groups will shrink considerably once the weather turns a bit nicer.

Overall there’s more to like than dislike about this little revolver. It would make an excellent kitgun and double nicely as a backup home defense weapon. Given the right circumstances of temperature and clothing selection and overlooking the reload issue, I can see myself carrying this concealed for those days when the 1911Officer just doesn’t cut it.
127336
127337

[Petrol & Powder]

18Bravo - I've been playing with snubnose revolvers longer than I care to admit but allow me to address the issue of removing spent casings from a DA revolver. There is a school of thought that a short ejector rod is actually preferable on a revolver used for self defense. The short stroke available from an abbreviated ejector rod makes it almost impossible to get a spent casing under the extractor (star). That type of failure occurs when a spent casing is extracted almost all the way out of the chamber, tilts out from the extractor but fails to clear the cylinder and is subsequently pulled back into the chamber under the extractor. That type of malfunction will prevent the cylinder from closing until the errant casing is removed.
The technique used to positively remove spent casings from a DA revolver cylinder should involve a fairly vigorous "slap" of the ejector rod as opposed to a "push". You're not trying to beat the gun up, bend the ejector rod or get too crazy but the goal is to "pop" the casings out rather than slowly push them out. If you point the muzzle straight up and vigorously slap the ejector rod you will get positive ejection of all of the empties 100% of the time. In a self-defense scenario it is unlikely that the operator will need to reload at all and if he/she does need to reload, it will probably only need to be one reload. However in that situation it is critical that the reload be executed quickly and successfully.
Now, that being said, there is an advantage to a full length ejector rod on a revolver used for long shooting sessions, (target work, plinking, competition, etc.) In those situations, the full length ejector rod is beneficial as the cylinder becomes increasingly dirty. There is less urgency to get the spent casings out of the gun during target shooting and a casing under the extractor is annoying but not deadly.
I'm sure Ruger used a short ejector rod with the 3" barrel simply because the bean counters wanted to use as many common parts as possible. However that short rod is not a huge impediment and may even be considered desirable in some situations.

[35remington]

If this is to mostly shoot and rarely carry, I don't think I'd suggest a shortie lightweight 38 for such a task. If it's a shooting gun, a 4 inch 38 would be more satisfactory for most uses and be far more pleasant to shoot as well as much easier to hit with. It would also be OK for occasional carry in situations where carry was particularly justified.

A larger, heavier frame is of course more durable as you know.

[Petrol & Powder]

I totally agree with 35remington.
Not to be irritating but it's likely inevitable that I will be perceived as such........Hammer spurs, single action capability and adjustable sights have no place on 2" barreled revolvers carried for self defense, in my not so humble opinion.
For years I've heard people say, "I like having the ability to cock the hammer in case I what to take a precision shot" or something to that effect. I find that argument to be far from persuasive. Snubnose revolvers can be capable of accurate fire but there are few, if any, situations in which I would ever want to place one in the single action mode. Hammer spurs and adjustable sights are just pointy things waiting to get entangled on something.
I'm a big fan of 2" barreled, DAO revolvers for concealed carry. I'm also a fan of 3" barreled revolvers but they fit a different niche.
When you step up to a 3" barreled revolver you are no longer in the same class of concealment. The 3" barreled revolver is an outstanding tool both as a self defense weapon and a kit gun but at that barrel length you might as well get a full size grip.

Personally, I don't see the advantage in a 3" barrel, 5 round cylinder, lightweight frame AND a small grip.

If you're going to step up to the longer barrel why not get a 6 round cylinder and a full size grip? It is no more difficult to conceal a 3" , 6 shot K-frame sized gun than a 5 shot, 3" barrel J-frame sized gun and it's a LOT easier to shoot the gun with the larger grip.



OK, let the flaming begin.

[str8wal]

Hammer spurs, single action capability and adjustable sights have no place on 2" barreled revolvers carried for self defense, in my not so humble opinion.

I disagree entirely, but that is YNSHO sobeit.

[18Bravo]

Gentleman, Thank you for your comments and observations.
Perhaps I should have clarified the rationale behind the purchase. The Ruger appealed to me for its perceived multi-purpose abilities. First of all I wanted a light weight SA/DA kitgun when walking the farm to take care of the small pesky varmints. Secondly a no nonsense, easy to use, light recoil revolver that my wife could handle for home defense. Lastly as an alternative carry gun for those rare days when the 1911 Officer, for whatever reason, is just too much to holster.
What I discovered, IMHO, is that while this LCR can handle any of mentioned tasks adequately, it doesn’t excel in any one particular duty. It’s not the Swiss Army Knife of handguns. Adjustable sights, SA and longer barrel are a plus for a kit gun while being an unneeded encumbrance on a carrygun. For home defense the stiff DA trigger pull and barely minimal caliber giveit just adequate application. Each of us has a personal theory of what constitutes the perfect carry gun. One of mine is the ability for rapid, predictable reloading. Unfortunately for me, this is not the case with the LCR.
With this all being said, I’m still pleased with the purchase and will spend more time, once the weather changes, to become more familiar with this little guy. I can see us being good friends in the future.

[Lefty Red]

Gentleman, Thank you for your comments and observations.
Perhaps I should have clarified the rationale behind the purchase. The Ruger appealed to me for its perceived multi-purpose abilities. First of all I wanted a light weight SA/DA kitgun when walking the farm to take care of the small pesky varmints. Secondly a no nonsense, easy to use, light recoil revolver that my wife could handle for home defense. Lastly as an alternative carry gun for those rare days when the 1911 Officer, for whatever reason, is just too much to holster.
What I discovered, IMHO, is that while this LCR can handle any of mentioned tasks adequately, it doesn’t excel in any one particular duty. It’s not the Swiss Army Knife of handguns. Adjustable sights, SA and longer barrel are a plus for a kit gun while being an unneeded encumbrance on a carrygun. For home defense the stiff DA trigger pull and barely minimal caliber giveit just adequate application. Each of us has a personal theory of what constitutes the perfect carry gun. One of mine is the ability for rapid, predictable reloading. Unfortunately for me, this is not the case with the LCR.
With this all being said, I’m still pleased with the purchase and will spend more time, once the weather changes, to become more familiar with this little guy. I can see us being good friends in the future.


I could see the LCRx3 filling that roll. I do wish they made it with a half lug or tapered one. But then I wish they made the 4" SP101 with the same! That would be a good kit gun. But noone listens to me..... :(

[wrench man]

I got the GF the LCR-LG, the compact size and lack of a hammer to assist in a quick draw and the laser, she works swing shift so she's out in the dark, were the factors that got me, the only other 38 that I've ever fired is her dads S&W "M&P", it's nowhere near as accurate as the Ruger!
I don't have a round count?, but it is breaking in quit nicely!, the trigger came around real fast, I'm pleased with it.

[Petrol & Powder]

The LCRx3 has all the correct DNA to be a good Kit gun (rust resistant materials, adjustable sights, very lightweight construction) but from what 18Bravo posted I'd say it's not quite up to par as a Kit gun, at least not yet.

I'm with Lefty Red, If Ruger would make a 38 Special SP101 with a lighter contour barrel that was 3" - 4" long with decent sights, that would be a backpacker/hiker/camping dream gun. Stainless steel construction, lots of grips available, smaller than a K-frame but seriously strong......But nobody listens to me either:smile:

[Lefty Red]

I got to handle one today at the LGS. Not impressed. About the size of a S&W 19 with a 2.5" barrel. They put a bulky barrel and grips on it.

[SSGOldfart]

18Bravo - I've been playing with snubnose revolvers longer than I care to admit but allow me to address the issue of removing spent casings from a DA revolver. There is a school of thought that a short ejector rod is actually preferable on a revolver used for self defense. The short stroke available from an abbreviated ejector rod makes it almost impossible to get a spent casing under the extractor (star). That type of failure occurs when a spent casing is extracted almost all the way out of the chamber, tilts out from the extractor but fails to clear the cylinder and is subsequently pulled back into the chamber under the extractor. That type of malfunction will prevent the cylinder from closing until the errant casing is removed.
The technique used to positively remove spent casings from a DA revolver cylinder should involve a fairly vigorous "slap" of the ejector rod as opposed to a "push". You're not trying to beat the gun up, bend the ejector rod or get too crazy but the goal is to "pop" the casings out rather than slowly push them out. If you point the muzzle straight up and vigorously slap the ejector rod you will get positive ejection of all of the empties 100% of the time. In a self-defense scenario it is unlikely that the operator will need to reload at all and if he/she does need to reload, it will probably only need to be one reload. However in that situation it is critical that the reload be executed quickly and successfully.
Now, that being said, there is an advantage to a full length ejector rod on a revolver used for long shooting sessions, (target work, plinking, competition, etc.) In those situations, the full length ejector rod is beneficial as the cylinder becomes increasingly dirty. There is less urgency to get the spent casings out of the gun during target shooting and a casing under the extractor is annoying but not deadly.
I'm sure Ruger used a short ejector rod with the 3" barrel simply because the bean counters wanted to use as many common parts as possible. However that short rod is not a huge impediment and may even be considered desirable in some situations.
Well mastered, P&P I'm a fan of a short rod myself