New composite frame ruger revolver

[jbadams66]

Look what just leaked out of ruger.

They pulled the pictures

[18DAI]

Interesting. I wonder whats hiding on the other side ;)

357, 38, 9mm? Regards 18DAI.

[bigghoss]

I'm not too excited until I find out what calibers it comes in an if they'll make a shrouded hammer version

thats probably why there is a countdown on the ruger website

[Playboypenguin]

Ugh...hopefully it will leak back in. :)

[Kreyzhorse]

Those are ugly, but it appears at least that Ruger is getting into the lightweight snubnose game.

I also hope they worked the bugs out of this so they don't go through another SR-9 / LCP recall.

[AZAK]

Batting 1,000 with recalls on two of two of their last releases,
I would hope that they have taken the time and effort to test this to a level to where:
third times a charm.

As opposed to:
fool me once, shame on you
fool me twice, shame on me
fool me thrice, ...

[Bill DeShivs]

Another version of the Keltec concept- keep a steel or aluminum frame, and replace all non-essential areas with plastic.

[AZAK]

Because I know what to do with the free hat, but what about a free magazine for one of these?

[RamSlammer]

It's . . . "RUGLY". I want one.:)

[Wolfeye]

Very interesting. I'd wondered if they'd ever scale back in size from their overbuilt sp101.

[Playboypenguin]

I will say that I really do like that cylinder design though. :)

[Kreyzhorse]

I had to come back to this picture and look at it again.

While, I'm pleased Ruger appears to be getting into the lightweight game, my god, did it have to be so damn terrible ugly? :barf:

[18DAI]

It's no uglier than those Safety Wesson Night Guard revolvers.

[Kreyzhorse]

It's no uglier than those Safety Wesson Night Guard revolvers.

I'll give you that one, but both of them are plenty ugly.

[rantingredneck]

I'm a Ruger fan.

I'll say that revolver is butt ugly.......

But for some reason it's still intriguing........:confused:

I was kindof hoping their next release would be an SR series in .45ACP.

I'll keep waiting.......

[Technosavant]

All I'm seeing are pics of a 10/22 with a camo job and a Mini-14 with a psychedelic stock. No revolver. :confused:

[rantingredneck]

Weird, the photo just changed to a camo 10/22.

Did Ruger see the leaked photo and change the link?

[Kreyzhorse]

Weird. The photo just changed to the 10/22 on mine as well.

Here is one image of the original revolver photos attached.

[rantingredneck]

Yep.

I had a revolver when I first came to the thread. I typed my post and hit submit and the image changed to a digital camo 10/22. Still there.

The Mini 14 image (2nd pic) hasn't changed.

[dipper]

Thanks for the picture Kreyzhorse, I missed it the first time around.

Looks different for sure but I wonder how it works.
If it performs well and proves durable, I can live with the looks.

[lee n. field]

Here is one image of the original revolver photos attached.

OK. That's interesting.

I suppose we'll see something coming out at Shot Show.

[azredhawk44]

Really low bore axis on that wheelgun. The "LCR", huh?

Hmm.

If I didn't already have a lockless 642 and SP-101, then maybe.

[smee78]

I kind of like it. Looks different.

[dipper]

Could it be a SA?
Looks like it might be.

[LHB1]

No revolvers shown on my screen, just a pair of UGLY rifles, camo 10/22 and nightmarish mini carbine???

[Playboypenguin]

Could it be a SA?

With a shrouded hammer, I doubt it. :)

[pesta2]

When I first saw the thing I thought it was horrendous to say the least. Then I kept coming back to this topic and now that ugly gun is starting to grow on me. It is still ugly but I want it for some strange reason.

[azredhawk44]

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40899&d=1231790212

You know, as small as that cylinder appears to be, could this be an ubermicrosmall attempt, for a 5-shot .327 FedMag?

[Kreyzhorse]

LCR huh? I'm guessing its short for Lightweight Compact Revolver. That makes sense with the recently introduced (and currently being recalled :mad:) LCP or the Lightweight Compact Pistol.

[pesta2]

You know, as small as that cylinder appears to be, could this be an ubermicrosmall attempt, for a 5-shot .327 FedMag?

I think you are right on that. I keep thinking when I see it is how small it looks.

[dipper]

With a shrouded hammer, I doubt it.

Yeah, Playboy I guess your right LOL!

But, doesn't that "LOOK" like a loading gate on the side??
Also, look at the seam where a hammer WOULD be---some kind of hybrid or option to configure the way you would like??

Well, we'll find out soon enough---fun to guess though.

[Gun 4 Fun]

Yikes!!:eek::eek::eek:

[pesta2]

I overlaid the .327 mag 3”. I used the trigger and the serial numbed size for the points of comparison but the cylinders are not as long.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40902&stc=1&d=1231793951

[Kreyzhorse]

Great overlay Pesta!

[rantingredneck]

If I was gonna pocket carry that I'd want grips other than hogue rubber....

[Playboypenguin]

I am guessing it will be a .38spl+p revolver.

[Kreyzhorse]

I am guessing it will be a .38spl+p revolver.

I'm with you PBP. Looks like an attempt to go head to head with the S&W Airweight models.

Also found this quote regarding their new possible revolver:

Back in November, Massad Ayoob suggested that Ruger may be introducing a SP101 revolver with an alloy frame chambered in .38 Special. While I think this would be a profitable gun for Ruger to bring to market, would it be the gun that “rocks” the SHOT show. I don’t think so. After all, several other manufacturers already make lightweight .38 revolvers.

http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2008/12/25/ruger-to-unveil-a-show-stopper-at-the-2009-shot-show/

[azredhawk44]

PBP: Look at the cylinder index notches on the overlays.

There's about a 15% (give or take) difference in spacing between the 6-shot .327 SP101 and this phantom revolver.

You take 15% and multiply by 6 and you get 90%... and since I spitballed that guess I call it close enough to 100%.

I'd say it's a strong case for this weapon having fewer chambers than the 6-shot SP101, making it a 5-shot weapon.

Add to that the appearance that the overlay shows us a height difference of about a quarter inch, and there's no way that Ruger is going to package a 5-shot .38 into a smaller cylinder than that of the SP-101.

Since this cylinder is smaller than the SP-101 and it is unheard of to go down to 4 rounds in a cylinder, I think it most likely this is a 5-shot .327 FedMag.

[Playboypenguin]

Does anyone have the dimensions of this gun? If I had them I could do an accurate comparison overlay with a S&W 642.

[Playboypenguin]

I did a comparison pic with the new Ruger and a S&W .38spl j-frame where I used the length of the cylinder as the standard for the comparison. When the cylinders are presented as the sale length the height of both cylinders also becomes pretty much identical. That further leads me to believe it is just a .38spl+p design.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/PlayboyPenguin/Gun%20comps/Jruger.jpg

[hoytinak]

It's . . . "RUGLY".

I agree and I want one too...however after having to send the SR9 and the LCP in for a recall I'll sit back and wait a while one this one.

I was just contemplating my next purchase and thinking either a Ruger Charger or S&W 642...not in a hurry as I don't really need either one but this might replace the S&W 642 on my list.

[Playboypenguin]

I was just contemplating my next purchase and thinking either a Ruger Charger or S&W 642...not in a hurry as I don't really need either one but this might replace the S&W 642 on my list.

Forget the Ruger or the S&W m642. What you need is a S&W m637 so you will have that exposed hammer for that light SA firing need.

And I am not just saying that because I have one for sale....ok, maybe I am. :p :o

[hoytinak]

Yeah, I seen that and thought about it....:cool:

[BlkHawk73]

Just leaked out??? Sorry the digi-camo 10/22 and laminate Mini ahve been out and available for a while now. Both are distributor editions. C'mon man - keep up.

[rantingredneck]

Read through the thread.

The original picture was of the composite framed revolver shown in subsequent posts.

[Norrick]

it looks like the rear part of the frame, trigger guard, and handle might be plastic, but I think the part the cylinder rests in to the tip of the barrel is all metal...


and is that a loading gate I see? How would that work, I don't see a spot for an ejecting rod. I'm wondering if they intend for the whole cylinder to pop out for reloading.

[SwampYankee]

I'm sorry, but that revolver is awful. Really awful.

[McBrideGuns]

Just my 2cents here and how ever unlikely it may be could this be an attempt at a .22lr revolver with that small of a cylinder?

[Playboypenguin]

The cylinder is not really very small at all. If you look at the comparison pic in post #40 the cylinder is almost identical in proportions to a S&W m637.

[bigghoss]

You know, as small as that cylinder appears to be, could this be an ubermicrosmall attempt, for a 5-shot .327 FedMag?

not likely but I might be interested in the .327 if they did that.

[Mtn Biker]

I captured the pic and blew it up. I swear I can make out 38spl+P on the barrel

[rantingredneck]

What it looks like to me too........

[Playboypenguin]

This is how the gun's composition appears to break down, IMHO.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/PlayboyPenguin/Various/attachment.jpg

[azredhawk44]

I did a comparison pic with the new Ruger and a S&W .38spl j-frame where I used the length of the cylinder as the standard for the comparison. When the cylinders are presented as the sale length the height of both cylinders also becomes pretty much identical. That further leads me to believe it is just a .38spl+p design.


I think the trigger guard is a better comparison of size in this case.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/PlayboyPenguin/Gun%20comps/Jruger.jpg

See how much larger the LCR trigger guard is than that of the J frame? I think your scale is off. That trigger is huge in comparison, and the gun starts to emulate a humpbacked whale.

Also, look at each individual gun, and the scale of the trigger guard versus its accompanying cylinder. The J-frame and its trigger guard are about a 1:1 ratio in size. The LCR, on the other hand, is about a 4:5 ratio of cylinder to trigger guard.

[Leucoandro]

Another version of the Keltec concept- keep a steel or aluminum frame, and replace all non-essential areas with plastic.

I know I am a new member and all, and I know that you are a senior member and all, but give me a break.....you are making a real stretch....I seem to remember the Remington Nylon 66 being one of the first guns to use plastic in all non-essential areas....Glock and HK have also done the same, well before Keltec was in buisness....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the Ruger, it has a bit of an odd look to it, but I wonder what the weight on this thing is unloaded....They sure did trim off all extra metal they could around the cylinder...

The handgun would be interesting in 327 Federal Magnum, but my understanding is that the 327 opperates at higher pressures than the 357 does....would a 38spl +P Handgun (As near as I can tell the barrel says 38spl +P) be able to handle that?


Charlie

[Playboypenguin]

I think the trigger guard is a better comparison of size in this case.

Actually, if I simply shift the pics a bit you will see that when the cylinders are scaled to match that the triggers are also the same size. The difference in the size of the trigger guard is probably because the polymer trigger guard cannot be as thin and small as the aluminum one on the Smith.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/PlayboyPenguin/Various/Jruger2.jpg

[kristop64089]

Ugly, so ugly I may buy one and throw it in the safe...everyone's trying to build a better mousetrap.

If this is an attempt to cut into the J-frame market, it's weak. I'd rathe see them make an Aluminum framed .327, than this recall just waiting to happen.

[Daryl]

Judging by the flutes in the cylinder, it's a five shot.

Sorta strange looking, but now I'm wondering what all the features are on it.

Is that some sort of loading gate? Actually, after looking again, it looks more like some sort of skeletonized recoil shield.

We'll know in a couple of days, I reckon.

Daryl

[rogertc1]

Any thing Ruger make is gods gift to man. Recall or not. This new pistol will be wonderfull and you will buy it. I heard they are only $400.00.

[Stumper]

Ummmm....Guys? It says .38spl +p on the ejector shroud.


And I want one.

[KUHIO]

I'm not too thrilled about platic on a revolver :(

[Daryl]

Ummmm....Guys? It says .38spl +p on the ejector shroud.


Yep, and it says "Ruger LCR" on the barrel, too.

I'm not interested...yet, but I'm curious. The .327 Federal would be more interesting, but I'd rather have that in a Single Six.

I can wait another day or so without any trouble.

Daryl

[Dave85]

I give them nostalgia points for styling the cylinder after the one on the Enfield Mk II (pretty much).

[Technosavant]

Thanks for the photo.

VERY interesting. I would be quite interested in seeing one- Ruger has been needing a more competitive snubnose revolver- the SP101 doesn't compare well to the S&W Airweights, let alone the Airlites, and it won't work well in a pocket. This one, however, would.

I don't know that I'd buy one, but I'd sure have a look, and I don't really even need another snub revolver.

[akr]

I love overbuilt guns. I have a fetish for them.

[Magnum.35744]

I'm not going to lie, if they made a stainless steel version of the gun I'd definitely get one! :)

I like the whole futuristic look to it :D

[postal1911]

Its Ruger Ugly..... Now I Must Have 1

[Bill DeShivs]

Leucoandro
You are correct about the Nylon 66.
Keltec was one of the first to apply this principle to handguns, though-and Ruger seems fond of using Keltec's concepts.

[postal1911]

on the barrel it says its 38spl +p

[tulsamal]

and is that a loading gate I see? How would that work, I don't see a spot for an ejecting rod. I'm wondering if they intend for the whole cylinder to pop out for reloading.

I'm looking at the same thing. It sure as heck looks like a loading gate to me. If you think about the challenges of making a polymer/aluminum receiver revolver, maybe the whole swing out cylinder of a typical DA was the killer part. So they came up with some different way to load and unload with a cylinder that doesn't swing out. That uses a loading gate in some way.

Gregg

[dharr]

Didn't the old Colt Lightning and Thunderer double action revolvers have a loading gate?

[Laz]

Tulsamal speculates that they came up with some different way to load and unload with a cylinder that doesn't swing out

You know, that makes sense to me. The problem would be that it sure would complicate things if a reload became a necessity. While the real world scenario in which a revolver like this is designed to function would rarely require a reload, the lack of a speedy reload would still be a stumbling block to many potential buyers, I would think.

I can't wait to see more about it and to see one first hand. Interesting.

I still wish Ruger would offer a .45 acp DA revolver...sigh.

And New Vaquero convertibles in .45.

And...:D

[bigghoss]

if it was a loading gate they'd need an ejector rod to get the spent cases out.

[Sarge]

Great Googly-Moogly, that thing is a pig in a tutu.

[Johnrobe]

It looks like the barrel is fixed/integral to the frame. I guess that's a good thing considering Ruger can't seem to screw on a barrel straight on their other DA revolvers.

[FALPhil]

Any thing Ruger make is gods gift to man.

Roger,

I own the Brooklyn Bridge. I put a toll booth on it several years ago, and I am making more money than I need. How would you like to invest in my bridge for a share of the profits? It'll make you rich!

[Leucoandro]

tulsamal, Laz, bigghoss, and others

I have attached a Picture of the Ruger LCR with CLC grips on it...The picture is at an angle, so you can see that it is not a loading gate, but an area where Ruger shaved off extra material....When I first saw the side profile I thought the same thing ya'll did....

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x120/Leucoandro/Firearms/RugerLCRCTC.jpg


Bill DeShivs,

I think that H&K was supposed to be the first to use the new Polymer Frames....Glock followed shortly after....I also believe that Colt had some plastic framed 22LR semi-auto's a very long time ago (That might predate H&K, but they were straight plastic)....

All three of these companies had there polymer and plastic products out before Kel-Tec was ever a twinkle in the eye of its founder....

I am not sure, but it would seem that Ruger might be the first to make a Polymer framed Revolver....

Yeah I am pretty sure that some reverse engineering occured with the production of the LCP. I suspect that Ruger made changes to the P3ATR that they thought would make a better product....Notibly it seems that they went for a Fiberglass polymer frame vs what appears to be a plastic/polymer frame W/O Fiberglass on the P3AT....They also went for an improved extractor....etc.....But the fact remains that it is a P3AT at heart....You really must admit that the LCR is something totally different from anything Kel-Tec produces though....

BTW, if Colt, Glock and H&K all produced polymer framed pistols before Kel-Tec, does that mean that Kel-Tec copied them? I did notice that many of the action parts on the P3AT looks like those in the Buckmark, just scaled down a little, and moved around slightly.....



Charlie

[LanceOregon]

Why is everyone calling this handgun ugly??

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40899&d=1231790212


The SP101 has always been an excellent design, other than the fact that it is so very heavy.

.

[LanceOregon]

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x120/Leucoandro/Firearms/RugerLCRCTC.jpg


Wow, it is is being introduced with Crimson Trace Lasergrips already available for it?? Ruger must have shelled out some bucks to make that happen. And it shows you how popular the Crimson Trace grips have become.

That is really pretty cool. And it shows that Ruger is definitely serious about marketing this handgun big time.

I wonder if this gun will be made available in the new .327 Federal Magnum???

.

[Magnum Wheel Man]

I'm watchin... I've always been a Ruger fan... & more of a revolver guy than an auto guy... butt... since I got my permit to carry, my 2 most carried guns are both S&W revolvers... an Air Weight 32 H&R Magnum J Frame, & an Air Lite 44 special L frame... the SP-101 is a fine revolver, but weight for weight, I could be carrying my 15 round CZ 9mm Compact, or maybe even my Witness full size 10mm... for me the weight of the package is very important for daily use...

to me, for everyday carry, I want something that excells in these areas... reliability, lack of weight, sufficient power, durable / corrosion resistant... my S&W Air Lite is carried 98% of the time, because it excells in these areas... if Ruger made something as easy to carry, I'd consider adding one to my carry battery... right now the only Ruger in that group is an Alaskan in 454 Casull ( for woods carry ), & way... way... way over on the other end of the weight spectrum...:D

[LanceOregon]

Magnum Wheel Man:

You truly are a He Man to carry a Ruger Alaskan in 454 Casull. All photos that I have seen of people shooting that revolver make it appear to be a most painful experience.

Here is an example of of one:

http://gunblast.com/images/Ruger-SRHAlaskan454/MVC-020F.jpg

[Magnum Wheel Man]

awesome pic... "Gunblast guy" must be shooting a pretty hot loads... I've only shot ( 3 different factory loadings ), & a few sane handloads in my gun...

... in fact, I had bullet creep on my 1st cylinder full of factory cartridges, because I "stiff armed" the gun, for fear of whacking myself in the head ( I am a big guy though )... but I was pleasantly suprised at how easy the factory loadings were to shoot

[Technosavant]

You can also see where they really shaved down the cylinder; it goes WAY beyond regular traditional fluting. I also notice that the non-CT grips also have a covered backstrap with what appears to be recoil reducing grips- something tells me that this will be a very light gun to carry (without needing the care of S&W's titanium cylinders) and will be quite unpleasant to shoot.

I eagerly await the official announcement, along with pricing and availability information.

[Master Blaster]

Wow thats really ugly even for a ruger.

Will it pass the California frame melting point test???
Is there a childproof key lock on the other side?
Will it come in OD green and titanium purple???

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thanks for interesting pictures and analysis!

My thought was that this totally breaks the past Ruger ban on CCW guns from the old man. I recall reading that he ditched a compact version of his 22 LR semi as it was too concealable.

It's a good marketing move if it has a good price point and weight. Lesser caliber models in the 327 or 22s might be a good move also.

[Sriracha]

I wonder how this can offer any improvement over the S&W 642.

Is the Ruger revolver lighter?
I don't know that there's any advantage in a gun lighter than 15 oz for .38 +P.

Is it smaller?
The boot grips on the 642 seem as small as one can go and still have adequate control. The 642's 1 7/8" barrel also seems short enough without sacrificing too much velocity.

Is it cheaper?
This may be their main selling point.

Does it have a lock?
Hmmm. Perhaps this could sway me. S&W, are you listening?

All this is mere speculation, of course.
-Sriracha

[bigghoss]

Is there a childproof key lock on the other side?

lets hope not

[azredhawk44]

I yield, PBP. You're right. I can't "quite" read it, but I think I see " + P " at the end of the caliber stamp on the barrel in one pic, and I see what appears to maybe be a " 38 " in the other pic.

Not clear by any stretch, but I don't think there is a .327 or .32H&R +p rating at this point.

Those cylinder walls are tiny, though! Very un-rugerish.

[12GaugeShuggoth]

Hopefully it'll have a better release than their last two showings (recall-omania), and hopefully they'll offer it in the .327 Fed. loading, as it'll actually be a useful package unlike the current offerings (just my opinion, nothing else). I'd love to see this new cartridge succeed, .32's are just plain fun to shoot and supposedly this time 'round performance is excellent.

I don't know what everyone is complaining about though, to me it's not any uglier than a comparable S&W or similar revolver....sure it's a little different...maybe a bit funky, but what's so wrong with that?

And dear holy mother of crap, please don't put any stupid locks on it. There are some of us still here that don't need a lock to prevent us from winning Darwin awards.

[barryhud]

There were a lot of naysayers about the Ruger 101 in 327 and the LCP. I bought both of them. The LCP is always in my pocket and I shoot the 101 at least once a week. I have learned a lot about DA shooting from the 101. The 101 is too heavy for me for a practical concealed carry, so bring on the new lite rev and I hope it is a 327. The new rev isn't any ugler than my S/W Bodyguard with Hogue grips.:rolleyes:

[CraigC]

I hope they sell a truckload of them and horn in on S&W's snubby market but that thing is utterly hideous! I do like the cylinder design though, looks like a throwback to pre-Colt and european designs. That part, is cool. Might make a good pocket gun with different grips.

[Dave Chuppa]

I'm thinking I may need one of these.

[2ndamd]

+1!
Me too.

[Ranger325]

Interesting.................especially with the CT grips. I sure would like to see one in person.

Regards,

[Playboypenguin]

I yield, PBP. You're right. I can't "quite" read it, but I think I see " + P " at the end of the caliber stamp on the barrel in one pic, and I see what appears to maybe be a " 38 " in the other pic.
This is one case where I wish I had been wrong. A .32H&R would have been so much cooler. I still do not think I would have wanted one though. Too much plastic on that gun for my tastes.
Those cylinder walls are tiny, though! Very un-rugerish.
I do not think this gun will share the Ruger reputation for toughness. It will be a standard revolver...which kind of negates the reason why I like Ruger. With this being a new design and no stronger than a Smith why would I not just buy the time proven Smith?

[2ndamd]

PBP said : With this being a new design and no stronger than a Smith why would I not just buy the time proven Smith?

Two words: Hitlery Hole :)

Maybe the "O" in Obama is suppose to remind us of the S&W internal lock? I stay away from these "holes" or "O's" like the plague!

[Wuchak]

It's so homely it's cute! I'd buy one in a heartbeat. If you search online you'll find a polymer break top revolver made by the Russians a few years back that didn't go anywhere.

The advantage over the 642? It says Ruger instead of S&W on the side.:) (I have and love both btw)

Besides, aluminum for a frame is so yesterday.

How long before Hollywood puts it in a movie as the plastic revolver used to go through a metal detector?

[Playboypenguin]

Two words: Hitlery Hole
Sorry, but when it comes to my personal safety I do not base my choices on politics. I will take the reliable, but cosmetically blemished, Smith over an unproven new design from a company that has had major issues and recalls with their last two products...and this is from a Ruger lover. :)

[johnwilliamson062]

it is just a .38spl+p design.
Just a 38spl+p? blaspheme!!!
I am pretty excited about this. I almost bought a sp101 a week back and I am glad they were out of stock. I would worry about it being plastic if it was not ruger making it. I have faith they would use only the strongest most ridiculously tough polymers for heir firearms.

[dipper]

Sorry, but when it comes to my personal safety I do not base my choices on politics.

I am sure that 2ndamd was not thinking about anything political when he mentioned the "Hillary Hole."
Many people ( myself included ) have shunned S&W because of the internal lock and concerns that it may disable the revolver at the worst time... it's the main reason that I have purchased SP 101s instead of a S&W offering.

I like the idea of this new offering from Ruger and if it is durable and dependable, I see one in my future.

[Playboypenguin]

Many people ( myself included ) have shunned S&W because of the internal lock and concerns that it may disable the revolver at the worst time... it's the main reason that I have purchased SP 101s instead of a S&W offering.

But those concerns are pretty much unfounded statistically. That is like not swimming because of a fear of being eaten by a Kraken. :)

In fact, if you search the web you will find more claims of SP101's failing due to poorly produced barrels than you will Smith's failing because of locks. Add in the fact that this particular Ruger is completely untested and I would not choose it over a Smith.

[dipper]

But those concerns are pretty much unfounded statistically.

True, but they have failed and even if it is a very small possibility that it COULD fail, I just don't think it's worth the chance---just my opinion.

OK, what the heck is a Kraken?:)

[18DAI]

I've never even read on the internet, of Ruger SP101's with a failed barrel??:confused: Got a link?

I have seen a bunch of NC DOC S&W IL model 64's with their barrels blown off. A reporter did a big story on it in the Winston Salem journal IIRC.

I have personally witnessed two S&W IL revolvers fail, and lock up tight at the range.

I'll buy one of these Rugers. The two new GP100's I purchased in the last two years are sweet.

Besides even if the wind up revolvers were as reliable as the old S&W pre locks, they are STILL UGLY !! :) Regards 18DAI.

[Playboypenguin]

True, but they have failed and even if it is a very small possibility that it COULD fail, I just don't think it's worth the chance---just my opinion.
Then you definitely would not want a Ruger because they can fail too...or a Colt...or a Springer...etc.
OK, what the heck is a Kraken?
http://quarkscrew.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/kraken.jpg

[2ndamd]

PBP said: I will take the reliable, but cosmetically blemished, Smith over an unproven new design

I know you would.
This is not meant to be a criticism of you. I have been on these forums long enough to know what you like. I disagree with you sometimes. No big deal.

I will never own a Smith with an internal lock. I don't need others to validate my choice. The choice is mine alone. But, if populace rules in the forum world? Then, there are many others who have decided on this choice as well.

I know you would take a Hillary Hole over a new polymer from Ruger. I would opt for the Ruger.

Opinions vary. Choice is a good thing. Don't ya think?

See you on the boards.

[2ndamd]

I have never seen or heard of a SP101 failing. The barrel issues were just turned too tight. this caused the gun to shoot to the left or right. It certainly never failed like the S&W IL failures. No Kracken needed. The IL failures are real and documented. Look at the S&W forum for documentation.

[Playboypenguin]

I know you would take a Hillary Hole over a new polymer from Ruger. I would opt for the Ruger.
Even though their last two polymer guns have been subject to recall? You will still rather trust another untested polymer gun from them over a proven platform for SD?

[2ndamd]

Yea. I would. I don't want to argue opinions with you. I know you're a good guy. We just don't see eye-to-eye on a few issues. No big deal.

[18DAI]

Yes, Ruger recalled their defective handguns. I applaud them for that.

Contrast that to S&W still denying that they are even aware of a single internal lock failure. BS flag on that.

Sorry to further derail the thread. Regards 18DAI.

[Sarvisian]

I'll buy one (or two) and as soon as I feel it's a solid performer I'll trust it, just like any gun I buy. Just because a design is proven doesn't mean the individual sample is, I put 500 to 1000 rounds through any gun before it is allowed to do defensive duty.

[ricsmty]

Can someone explain Hilary Hole?

[csmsss]

Can someone explain Hilary Hole?

Yes - it's an enormous chasm from whence lies and deceit burst forth:

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00416/Hilary_Clinton_280_416507a.jpg

[rantingredneck]

I hope it doesn't have an infernal lock. The LCP didn't. Maybe this one won't either.......

We can hope....

The more I look at it the more I want one. Would make a nice pocket carry "new york reload" for my SP101 (that is way too heavy/large to pocket carry, but works so well IWB for me..;)..)

I wonder if Ruger used the same grip dimension as an existing design (their own or S&W) to get CT grips to fit it so quickly? Possible? Looks significantly smaller than the SP101 grip stud so I imagine it's borrowed from Smith and Wesson if it's an existing CTC model.

Then again that pic could be a mockup and the CTC grips may not actually be available yet. I guess we'll see soon when the official announcement comes.

RE: Smith and Wesson IL lock failures:

A local fellow here, who is active on carolinashootersforum.com has had a recent S&W IL model spontaneously lock under recoil at the range twice. It's been back to Smith both times for repair of the IL. It is now exhibiting flame cutting and he's sent pics to Smith. They want it back for repair for the third time.

They ain't what they used to be........

As someone who had to send my LCP in for repair under the recall, I appreciate Ruger stepping forward with a fix vs. denial that a problem exists.

[oneounceload]

Jusr disable the IL and you'll have no worries

[hoytinak]

Jusr disable the IL and you'll have no worries

But you still have that ugly hole. :barf: But as Playboy said, the looks of your carry gun should be your last concern.

Can someone explain Hilary Hole?

The key hole for the internal lock.
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll195/hoytinak/642.jpg

[oneounceload]

maybe so, but it will function just fine....

I wouldn't touch this new Ruger for at least a year - not with their current record on quality issues

[Playboypenguin]

But you still have that ugly hole. But as Playboy said, the looks of your carry gun should be your last concern.

I do believe you can disable the lock without removing it. All you have to do is file off the piece in the inside that catches the the inner workings. :)

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/review/pix/lock1b2.jpg

[rjrivero]

I like the look. The cylinder flutes are mean looking. It's kinda got that "Batman Industrial" kind of look.

[ricsmty]

My Taurus 85 has a lock like the S&W only it's at the base of the trigger. Hasen't been a problem so far. <500 rounds.

[Sarge]

Yes - it's an enormous chasm from whence lies and deceit burst forth:
(Hillary Pic)


You know, for the first time in my life I feel genuinely sorry for Bill ;)

[B.N.Real]

Eh,who knows,maybe Ruger has something here.

Superlight weight,low cost and maybe,just maybe no defects.

This might be the future of all revolvers. :eek:

[Playboypenguin]

This might be the future of all revolvers.

Polymer the future of revolvers???? :barf::barf:

I am giving you exactely 2 minutes to take that back! That kind of talk might be acceptable over on the Glock boards, but not around these parts it isn't. :mad: ;)

I am seriously thinking of reporting that post as inappropriate. :)

[hoytinak]

Yeah next thing you know Glock will be coming out with the "perfect" revolver. :eek:

Sorry.....someone had to say it. :p

[B.N.Real]

Easy there PBP.

Just a WILD guess there.

Ain't nuthin' better than a good old steel revolver. :D

Unless it's a NEW Steel Revolver. :D

Rack them chambers,it's like MUSIC!

Still,in your pocket,a superlightweight powerhouse revolver has it's place.

I hope Ruger beat the dogsnot out of this gun in trials before it ever reaches the market.

It will be compared with the Scandium Smith's without a doubt and those have been very reliable as far as I have read.

[Wuchak]

The recalls that Ruger has done recently were not for "major" issues. The guns were not unsafe to shoot or faulty. They happen to discharge if dropped onto a hard surface at exactly the right angle. Not every time they are dropped even, just at that certain angle. Most other manufacturers wouldn't bother doing a recall, especially on guns so recently released so they could avoid tainting them. Ruger, being Ruger, decided that any chance of a problem was too big and did a recall. Back in the early 1990's when departments were looking at Glocks guess what the discovered? That's right, when dropped they would discharge. Only it wasn't at just a certain angle. It was bad enough that it cause many departments to pass over them. I don't recall Glock doing a recall. I don't remember a big announcement of any redesign to correct this in later versions. And I don't see Glock being slammed for not fixing them or for having a faulty design. A major problem and design flaw would be making a handgun for a high pressure round with a chamber that doesn't fully support the cartridge allowing numerous cases where the gun blows apart. Now that's a major problem. Still no recall from Glock on that one either. As others have pointed out there is still no admission from S&W that there is a serious problem of the locks self engaging in the lightweight revolvers. I guess someone has to get killed because their gun locks up in a gunfight before S&W will do something. If it was Ruger after the 2nd report of the problem they would have done a recall and fixed it.

[Wuchak]

The new CLR looks like the child of a G26 and a S&W 642. If you have one of each don't put them in the same safe!

[Playboypenguin]

Wuchak,

Don't worry about that. My polymer guns are not allowed in the safe with my real guns. :)

[armedandsafe]

OK,I've read this whole thread and I have only one thing to conribute.

You guys are complaining about how "ugly" it is. My opinion is:

1. When it is in its holster, no one can see whether it is ugly or beautiful.

2. When you are looking into the muzzle of any gun, that is one ugly gun.

Pops

[B.N.Real]

Believe me,Ruger still has a great standing with me.

One of the first brands I consider when I buy a new handgun.

Doing recalls that make sure the gun is safe is no reason to think less of any company.

It would just be nice for Ruger to get a homerun on this wild looking thing.

I can't wait to handle it in a gun store.:D

"Heck,this thing must weigh FIVE OUNCES!":D

[Leucoandro]

Well, this thing has an Internal Lock....Guess I wont be buying one...

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x120/Leucoandro/Firearms/LCRInternalLock.jpg

[Magnum Wheel Man]

I haven' had the grip panels off of my new model Vaqueros, ( they also have locks ) but would suspect that it is a similar type of lock... too early to tell if there are any accidental lock ups ( none that I know on the new Vaqueros anway ), & at least there is no way of knowing it has a lock, unless you drill the hole in the grip, or remove it... personally I don't like any of the locks, but at least Rugers design is less unsightly...:o

[Kreyzhorse]

Suggested retail of $525. Weight is 13.5 oz with is 1.5 oz lighter than a S&W Airweight. Ugly as hell still, but I hope Ruger can roll this one out without this issues that have followed them with the SR-9 and LCP.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not a bad price point - let's see how that plays out on the street vs. the 642 s from SW.

[Technosavant]

I wonder the price on the street. Initially upon seeing the gun, I was expecting a lower MSRP- something in the $400 range. The 642 MSRP is $561, and seems to retail pretty close to $400. That may indicate a similar street price for the Ruger, but the Smith has more of a reputation and will likely have a better trigger.

At the same price as a Smith J frame, it starts looking less attractive. At a $50+ discount, it looks pretty darned good. I'll likely pick one up if I see one for a bit under $400, but I don't see me doing it for more.

[CraigC]

Looks like the same lock they're putting in the single actions. As much as I despise internal locks and won't own a S&W with one, it's not too bad. So far, there have been NO reports on RugerForum of one failing. There is no external evidence of a lock and it is easy to ignore. It's up to the user to drill a hole in the grip panel to make it accessible. It is also easy to disable, if you so choose. I'm thinking that sooner or later, someone will offer a solid machined aluminum block to replace the lock.


It's kinda got that "Batman Industrial" kind of look.

That's a good way to put it!

[Boats]

After the "newness" wears off, I would expect this revolver to be consistently found on the market for about $375.

The Ruger IL is a mainspring block that is easily disabled/removed and in any event not likely to be induced into operation by recoil.

What interests me most is the new cammed trigger/hammer interface. This is a total departure from past Ruger DA designs and will be interesting to try.

[akr]

MY "space age polymer" guns give me such comfort, though, PBP. ;)

[Leejack]

I'll predict right now that the new Ruger will be a winner!

The Ruger internal lock system has not been a problem at all.
;)

[BillCA]

As revolvers go, this is one is a boat-load of ugly.
Calling it a pig in a tutu is being polite.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/PlayboyPenguin/Various/attachment.jpg
Illustrated photo by PlayboyPenguin, used without permission.

Some thoughts & comments.
People whine about S&W 2-piece barrels...Which this will have - an aluminum shroud with a 17-4 PH aerospace stainless steel liner.
I've heard lots of gripes about S&W's 2-piece barrel, MIM parts, etc., but I didn't see anyone express concern about mating an aluminum frame group to the polymer grip-trigger-action group.
Most poly pistols note there is steel in the frame for strength. Ruger makes no claims of embedded steel bits for durability.
Entirely new (and unproven) action design. Before you say they must have tested it out, does anyone remember the abominable trigger on the HK VP-70 pistol?
Low weight was paramount in the design so they could claim a lighter revolver than S&W. To me this means some design decisions may be questionable.
They couldn't have extended the aluminum topstrap smoothly onto the barrel rib for a cleaner look? C'mon, this design is uglier than some old Colts with round barrels and front sights that looked like afterthoughts.


A huge question will be how well the polymer grip/action section holds up to hammering of heavier .38+P loads over the long haul. Will the internals gouge and weaking the polymer? Will the recoil elongate any holes for pins?

What about resistance to thermal deformity? If I leave the LCR in my car in a Las Vegas Summer where temps can hit 155 to 165 inside a locked car will the poly frame soften or warp? What happens if the gun is stored in the glovebox of my truck in Alaska's -55 degree winter?

Ruger is trying to do to the revolver market what Glock (et al) did to the semi-auto pistol market. Create guns that are simply functional and cheaper to produce, with little or no aesthetics involved. Who cares if you dump it into a glovebox and it looks crappy after ten years? It looked that way when it was new. Would I buy one? Maybe. For camping, hiking or similar activities that might scar up a gun. But it wouldn't be something I'd proudly show off. For that, I'd rather buy the S&W 438 Bodyguard and live with the extra 1.5 oz.

[Technosavant]

OK, Bill, let's look over your objections

Ugly- Everybody thinks some gun is ugly. Somebody else is attracted to it. They're guns, not paintings, furniture, or mates. Looks doesn't really enter into what they are supposed to do- if they function reliably and are accurate enough, that's plenty. If somebody sees the gun, they aren't likely to be commenting on its looks.

Two Piece Barrels- I have a hard time getting worked up over it. My Smith with a two piece works just fine.

Aluminum to polymer attachment- Make up your mind. First you complain that it could shoot loose or cause other trouble, then you complain that many poly pistols have a poly shroud/steel frame setup, and how those tend to work. I can't imagine that this would be a significant problem short of thousands of rounds down the pipe, and this isn't the kind of gun where you put two hundred rounds through it every range session- that is not what a snubby is for.

New/Unproven action- We'll see how it works. You have a point here, but the cutout graphics at Ruger's site show it to be a pretty simple setup. It is no more complex than a DA Smith. Your point is not a giant-killer. Every design is unproven and new at first- doesn't mean it is crap.

Low weight = Questionable- You're kidding, right? S&W has a lighter yet gun (the Airlites, at 10 ounces for the 340PD), and I don't see people calling that a questionable design decision. Low weight is the point- any heavier than 15 ounces and it gets difficult to haul around in a pocket. I don't see any place where the design might be questionable, provided the poly/steel interface is strong enough, and I'd expect it to be so, but again, we'll see.

Top strap looks- Back to the ugly argument. You think it's ugly. We get it. I think it looks kinda weird myself, but I tend to like stuff like that.

I'm rather interested not out of the weight- I'm thinking it is going to have its work cut out for it competing against the 642. It is the reduced recoil from the poly grip frame that interests me- this thing has the potential of being the most comfortable lightweight .38spl snub on the market.

Much remains to be seen from production examples, and Ruger's recent design issues give a person pause, but this is an attempt to rethink the revolver (much like the S&W full size tactical revolvers), and I think that effort is overdue. The wheelgun isn't dead, and just because there's some general designs that have worked well for a half century doesn't mean that there's no improvements to be brought to the table.

[darkgael]

Tecnho: +1. Nice post. Well said. I agree right across the board. I just can't get worked up about locks and polymer frames. I'll probably pick up one of these new Rugers.
Pete

[Norrick]

is this going to be rugers virst DAO revolver? I have yet to see a DAO revolver form them. I'm curious to how the trigger is going to be on this, as the DA on some of their revolvers is less than stellar.

[Technosavant]

Ruger has made DAO revolvers before, but only in the sense that the hammer spur was removed. This is an entirely new fire control group- it is contained entirely within the polymer frame. The Ruger site has a cutaway look at it, and it appears quite simple. Simple is good for such things.

[Norrick]

N/A

[Playboypenguin]

Ruger has made DAO revolvers before, but only in the sense that the hammer spur was removed. This is an entirely new fire control group- it is contained entirely within the polymer frame. The Ruger site has a cutaway look at it, and it appears quite simple. Simple is good for such things.

My SP101 was the DAO version. Th :)e trigger was not as good as my Smith m642, but it was not the worst trigger I ever felt.

[oneounceload]

What about flame cutting on the aluminum top strap from a diet of hot 125 gr +P?

[Mtn Biker]

Norrick, popped up on their web site this morning when the count down timer hit 0.

VL

[Jeff #111]

I'm going to wait and see for the next year or two before deciding if I'm going to spend my money on it. It's ugly - strictly a tool in my opinion. No esthetic appeal. But it might be just the ticket as well.

Hey at least S&W and Ruger are making an effort to keep the revolver a viable option with the younger generation of gun buyers. Good for them. I hate the idea that the revolver might be allowed to die off through lack of interest. This is a good thing no matter how you look at it.

Good for Ruger.

[biscuit82]

Its not that ugly wierd yes, but it is a CCW gun. no one else should see it and if it holds up to the rep of the other Ruger Revolever. than it will prove that beauty is only skin deep.

Wonder how long till there will be a aftermarket cylinder or if ruger will try and push the 327 with this

[Technosavant]

Wonder how long till there will be a aftermarket cylinder or if ruger will try and push the 327 with this

There won't be an aftermarket cylinder. Nobody bothers with that kind of thing on modern DA revolvers- too much trouble and expense. You'd have to make sure the gaps were set properly, install another barrel, and then you still have only a five shot revolver because ain't NOBODY going to spend the time reworking the action/timing for a cylinder with a different number of holes in it. It has to be that way from the factory.

However, if Ruger senses enough demand for it (and they might well), I could easily see them making a .327 variant, and given the speed with which S&W responds to things (or more accurately, the speed at which they DON'T), it might well be on the market before any of S&W's .327 J frames.

[Laz]

I could easily see them making a .327 variant

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if that were already in their plans if the .38 version starts out well. I'd bet they're ready to go with a .327 variant.

[mnw42]

A few thoughts....

The design of the frame probably does a good job of mitigating the recoil. At 13.5oz I hope it does.

It is ugly, but ugly is as ugly does.

The "Friction-reducing cam fire control system" makes me think MR73; which isn't a bad thing.

I don't see it being better than my Nickel, 6-shot, Colt Cobra.

[BillCA]

TechnoSavant,

Sorry, I don't buy into the premise that a gun is a tool so it doesn't need to have any aesthetic appeal. That theory belongs to Hi-Point, Liberators and Glocks. I DO want the gun to have at least some eye appeal. And that "somebody" who may be looking at a seriously ugly gun may be a district attorney or a juror.

Two Piece Barrels- I have a hard time getting worked up over it. My Smith with a two piece works just fine.
I agree. Mine has not had any problem either. Yet there are those who decry it as "cheap" or less durable or any other argument you can think of. I don't think it is as attractive as a traditional barrel, but it's not grossly ugly. But my point was that no one whined about it on a Ruger.

Aluminum to polymer attachment- Make up your mind. First you complain that it could shoot loose or cause other trouble, then you complain that many poly pistols have a poly shroud/steel frame setup, and how those tend to work. I can't imagine that this would be a significant problem short of thousands of rounds down the pipe, and this isn't the kind of gun where you put two hundred rounds through it every range session- that is not what a snubby is for.
You misunderstand my argument.
Most of the polyframe gun makers add steel inserts to the polymer frames for strength and dimensional rigidity. And they have touted that in their marketing brochures. I see no mention of it with the Ruger - which makes me wonder if they did or did not add metal. When they go out of their way to say their aluminum frame has a "synergistic" coating [whatever the hell that's supposed to mean] but don't mention if the polymer frame includes steel support, it makes you wonder if it does.

And if it does not, I have to wonder about the amount of flex and wear and tear the polymer will be subjected to.


Low weight = Questionable- You're kidding, right? S&W has a lighter yet gun (the Airlites, at 10 ounces for the 340PD), and I don't see people calling that a questionable design decision. Low weight is the point- any heavier than 15 ounces and it gets difficult to haul around in a pocket. I don't see any place where the design might be questionable, provided the poly/steel interface is strong enough, and I'd expect it to be so, but again, we'll see.
I'm kidding - not. I'm thinking it is not terribly difficult to make a Polymer/Al revolver that weighs in between 15-18 oz. I'm more concerned that a driving factor was not the engineers, but marketing hacks. I can almost see them in a meeting saying we have to beat our competitor's lightweight by at least a couple of ounces. Are you sure you can't get it down to 10 or 11 ounces? How about stronger springs and a lighter weight hammer? :rolleyes: The polymer-to-Aluminum interface I'd like to understand better.

It is the reduced recoil from the poly grip frame that interests me- this thing has the potential of being the most comfortable lightweight .38spl snub on the market.
This is a claim for which I see no real engineering feature set. They claim the "high tech polymer fire control group" helps reduce recoil - without any support - but then go on to claim the Hogue "Sorbothane" grip "reduces perceived recoil". Well, by golly that thing must then have NO recoil with all that reduction going on!

In short, I'm skeptical of the marketing hype.

And I disagree with you about it not being a gun you'll fire a lot at the range. A primary SD gun is one you need to fire a lot in order to be fast and accurate with it. How many rounds that takes varies by individual. I'd hate to invest the money and time to get used to a specimen only to find that just as I'm comfortable with it, it has to be replaced or seriously overhauled.

I hope it works, but if the recent Ruger debacle with the .327 Mag is any example, we won't see one of these on a dealer's shelf until 2010.

[Laz]

BillCA - you said Most of the polyframe gun makers add steel inserts to the polymer frames for strength and dimensional rigidity. And they have touted that in their marketing brochures. I see no mention of it with the Ruger

Ruger seems to be describing their polymer frame in the same way they described the polymer frrame of the initial P95s when they came out. In that case, I remember reading a number of articles describing that particular polymer as a variant of Dow Chemicals Isoplast and reading about it found that it has been used in a number of industrial applications that required strength and durability and without metal inserts, i.e. it was used for heavy duty bumpers and for gear wheels. At that time it was noted that the P95 neither had nor needed metal inserts to strengthen the frame as the material and the design kept it from flexing too much or wearing down. The P95 has its fans and its detractors but I have never heard anyone say they aren't strong or haven't held up over time. If the polymer in the LCR is of the same stuff, maybe it doesn't need strengthening for the role it's expected to play. Just a thought.

[Scott Free]

That a major manufacturer is introducing the first partial polymer revolver (and designed for CCW) is a very cool thing. It is lightweight, it's a decent caliber, it's entirely pocketable--it's a Ruger. It's got a lot going for it. I really like my S&W 642, and I'm not about to trade it. But if I didn't already own it, I'd definitely be taking a hard look at Ruger's little revolver. Go, Ruger!

[Technosavant]

Bill, I agree with you about how the polymer to metal interface may well be the weak point of the firearm. Yet, I haven't seen anybody complaining about how their plastic semiauto has shot loose, even if it is just the plastic sheathing coming unfastened from any metal supports it may have.

Plastic does bend under stress, and it can help reduce recoil (although that recoil has already been magnified due to the decreased mass). I don't know if you've shot a lightweight snub (I don't remember you saying so), but even the 15 ounce S&W 642 has one heck of a kick, even with standard pressure loads. Yes, you need to obtain familiarity and competence with your weapon, but I haven't met anybody who takes their lightweight snub to the range every few weeks for a couple hundred rounds. It just doesn't happen. There's yet lighter guns (as I said, the Smith 340 clocks in at 10 oz. for a .357 magnum chambering) that are far more punishing. I guarantee you nobody is firing those guns with that kind of round count. Any perceived recoil reduction can only help, but I think it's a bit premature to label the thing a bad idea- we have to see it work first.

For the record, if you're worried about looks in front of a DA or juror, I hope you don't carry a Glock. :p I can't imagine how that would carry any weight- you'd have to have put yourself in one heck of an iffy situation.

The "synergistic" coating on the aluminum sounds like it is one of the new whiz-bang finishes, maybe in the category of the ion-bond coating Smith is now using on some of their guns (like the Night Guard models). It can't wear any worse than the finish on my 642. :( It doesn't look like the polymer has any steel reinforcement, but then, it may not need any. Again, we'll have to see how it wears- my main concern is the area around the rivets, but it doesn't worry me to put me off the idea.

[Laz]

I'm assuming that the "long strand, glass fiber-filled polymer" is the same or a variation on the same polymer used in the P95-97 series which is (from the Dow website):
ISOPLAST Engineering Thermoplastic Polyurethane Resins
ISOPLAST™ engineering thermoplastic polyurethane resins combine the toughness and dimensional stability of amorphous resins with the superior performance and chemical resistance associated with semi-crystalline resins. ISOPLAST is available in Impact-Modified, Clear and Glass-Reinforced resins, giving you a range of options to meet your most demanding applications.

Impact-modified ISOPLAST resins provide the best practical toughness of any rigid polymer — they are ideal for parts that will experience significant impact and abuse during use.
Clear ISOPLAST resins are processable with injection molding, extrusion or blow molding methods.
Glass ISOPLAST resins offer easy, cost-effective processing, even with 60 percent glass loadings.


It's pretty tough stuff and can be used in some very high-abuse situations.

[rjrivero]

If you haven't seen it yet, there is a mini review on this revolver.

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

[BillCA]

Laz - thanks for the info on the polymers. Lots of newer & better materials have come out since the 80's. It's hard to keep up.

Tech - I know what you're saying. Most folks will likely shoot 50 to 100 rounds at 5 yards, see that they can actually hit the target and fire maybe 25-50 rounds a year after that. IF that. I once owned a Model 37 Airweight Chiefs Special and in the first month put about 400 rounds through it. Mostly because after the first two rounds it was hard to keep a decent group. I settled in to about 100 rounds a month until I was able to keep all five inside the 9-ring at 15 yards. I'd still be at the range shooting it if I'd tried to do that with point-shooting! :D

I think most folks buy the uberlight guns and intend to use them only for very close-up and personal situations. For these people, running a box or two of ammo through the gun for familiarity is enough and they might fire 20-50 rounds a year thereafter. Even a Charter Arms revolver will last many years for them.

For someone who only owns one gun and wants to be proficient, it will be fired much more. In the late 70's a college-student friend picked up a Charter Arms .44 Bulldog as his SD/HD revolver. The sad part was that after only about 400 rounds the gun was battered beyond repair. He sold the replacement to buy something durable. That's why I am usually leery of extra-light guns.

It may be Ruger has a winner here. Time will tell. I'm sure someone will torture test a Ruger soon and it will tell us a lot.

[Socrates]

http://i142.invalid-sanitized.localhost/albums/r89/PlayboyPenguin/Various/attachment.jpghttp://i45.invalid-sanitized.localhost/albums/f99/Socrates28/360PD/360PDRnewgrips_0040.jpg

Looking at these pictures, I'm hoping a couple things happen.
Since it's already DA only, I suspect the grip allows for a higher hold, with more of your large hands on the grip.
If it has a better trigger then S&@'s 10 pound, maximum tuned trigger, that would be a big plus.
Perhaps the grip geometry allows more accuracy then the S&@?

As for other concerns:
Anybody ever heard of top strap cutting with 38 Plus P?
For someone who only owns one gun and wants to be proficient, it will be fired much more. In the late 70's a college-student friend picked up a Charter Arms .44 Bulldog as his SD/HD revolver. The sad part was that after only about 400 rounds the gun was battered beyond repair. He sold the replacement to buy something durable. That's why I am usually leery of extra-light guns.
:eek:
Was this in Santa Cruz? It might have been ME!!!
I will say mine shot fine with 240 grain 1000-1100 fps loads, right up until it locked up...

[Technosavant]

For someone who only owns one gun and wants to be proficient, it will be fired much more. In the late 70's a college-student friend picked up a Charter Arms .44 Bulldog as his SD/HD revolver. The sad part was that after only about 400 rounds the gun was battered beyond repair. He sold the replacement to buy something durable. That's why I am usually leery of extra-light guns.

I'm right there with you on that. Lightweight guns are bad choices for an only gun (by which I mean guns light enough for pocket carry)- you just can't practice enough with them to be fully proficient. Even if you manage to do so (by the addition of cushy grips or something), the gun just won't last.

The LCR goes in the same category as the Smith lightweight J frames, Kel-Tecs, and so on. They exist so that you can have a gun, and the assumption is that any fight using that gun will be at extremely short range. Correct or no, that leads to the conclusion that practice is less needed.

I probably wouldn't recommend the LCR to somebody needing their first gun until it proves itself, but for those who already have their basic firearm needs covered, it looks like it's worth a look. I'm not sure when I'll get my hands on one (if it is as popular as the LCP, it will likely be a while), but I do see one in my future.

[johnwilliamson062]

owning several ruger products this is what i am willing to say:
Ruger tested this more thoroughly than most any company would and got it to the point they wanted it to be at.
Ruger went for a more reliable, more robust product than most manufacturers will.
If any part of the firearm does not work as they intended Ruger will man up and take care of it.

[laytonj1]

Ruger tested this more thoroughly than most any company would and got it to the point they wanted it to be at.
Ruger went for a more reliable, more robust product than most manufacturers will.
Do you work in Rugers R&D or any other gunmakers R&D that you can make this statement?

Jim

[Gun 4 Fun]

I don't remember very many recalls, if any, when Bill ruger was alive. The same thing that always happens when bean counters take over, appears to be happening at Ruger. Recalls up the wazoo, and stupid looking guns that look like they came from a Buck Rogers movie. More's the pity!:barf:

[Dave85]

Wonder how long till there will be a aftermarket cylinder or if ruger will try and push the 327 with this
If they do have a .327 Mag. in the works, I would suspect it is going to be a bit heavier. That "extensively fluted" cylinder probably won't work well with a 45,000 psi round. Also, from what I've read about the ballistics of the .327 Mag., you'll want at least a 3" barrel to make it worth your while.

[Socrates]

3" barrel? That's what I'd like on my 360PD. It's HUGE in getting .357 factory loads to act like 357 magnum. No solution for that one from S&@, however.