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 . 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.

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.

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.

[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 . 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.

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

Puritan, or purist?

[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.

[Kuato]

Puritan, or purist?

How bout a purist puritan???

[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.