.357 LCRx!!!!! - Page 2

9x19 · January 28, 2017, 01:37 PM

I pestered the folks in Ruger's booth at SHOT this year about a 3" LCRx in .22 (with adj sights) and they said they had no plans to build one... instead pushing the SP101.

I told them they had customers waiting for the lighter weight pistol, but not sure it made a difference. Still, I tried.

TruthTellers · January 28, 2017, 02:41 PM

Quote:

I pestered the folks in Ruger's booth at SHOT this year about a 3" LCRx in .22 (with adj sights) and they said they had no plans to build one... instead pushing the SP101.

I would love to know, when comparing apples to apples, which Ruger makes more money off of: The LCR or the SP101? The SP101 requires a lot more machining time while the LCR looks like it probably costs them $200 total to make.

9x19 · January 28, 2017, 05:14 PM

I picked up the 3" .38 and mentioned that it used the same frame, and they already make a .22LR cylinder and 2" barrel... and while the folks there agreed it shouldn't take too much engineering effort, they were still suggesting the SP101 instead.

I pointed out the weight difference and what an awesome woods gun the LCRx would be instead. Maybe they'll carry word back to the PTBs, but for now...

TruthTellers · January 28, 2017, 06:48 PM

I just don't see what benefit the folks at Ruger see that the .22 SP101 has over a 3 or even 4 inch .22 LCRx, other than they currently have them available for sale to the public (>_<)

I have no doubt that there have been discussions inside Ruger about adding longer barreled LCRx revovlers. I'm sure the question that gets brought up when it's discussed is: What happens to the SP101 then?

I say just stop making the SP101's that aren't in .357 Magnum. I can understand that the SP is built way stronger than the LCR is and for .357 that's great, but for .22, .327, .38+P... you don't need that tank like design.

Radny97 · January 28, 2017, 07:43 PM

Truthtellers I was the one who suggested that perhaps the LCRx line couldn't handle 357 mag pressures because of the lack of that upper pin. I am very glad that I have been proven wrong.

Super Sneaky Steve · January 28, 2017, 11:53 PM

.357 Magnum means you can load up 35,000 PSI. It doesn't mean you HAVE to.

.35 spl +P is 18,500 PSI. That leaves a lot to play with in between.

There's a full wadcutter I like to load using magnum cases. The Lee manual has the data. It's a stout thumper but very manageable.

carguychris · January 29, 2017, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

I just don't see what benefit the folks at Ruger see that the .22 SP101 has over a 3 or even 4 inch .22 LCRx...

Prodigious weight equals minimal recoil, and the SP101 has more traditional styling and a more substantial feel. These factors could be more important to folks who intend to use it primarily for plinking or teaching new shooters. Additionally, it can serve as a low-recoil trainer for a centerfire SP101.

Case in point: A 3"-4" .22LR LCRx (or S&W Model 317 or 43) isn't going to replace my S&W Model 18.

While I stand by my earlier assertion than a .22 LCRx would outsell the .22 SP101, I doubt it will make .22 SP101 sales shrink to insignificance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

I say just stop making the SP101's that aren't in .357 Magnum.

People are still going to want .22 SP101s as low-recoil plinkers and trainers, and the .327Mag cartridge is no pussycat; the latter will be a good deal more pleasant to shoot in the heavier SP101 platform. Additionally, .32 S&W Long can be handloaded cheaper than .38Spl since the bullets are smaller, which makes the .327 version attractive as a plinker.

TruthTellers · January 29, 2017, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Prodigious weight equals minimal recoil, and the SP101 has more traditional styling and a more substantial feel.

I have a NAA MiniMaster that weighs about 13 oz. Shooting .22 in it feels no different than shooting .22 in a heavier revolver with a full grip.

When it comes to shooting .22, weight has little to do with recoil because there's no recoil to notice.

Moon Tree · January 30, 2017, 03:48 AM

This is my first post so be gentle. I love Ruger handguns. I own 5 of them. I love 4 of them and like the other very well. BUT, Ruger often misses the mark when it comes to the handgun of my dreams. Like many of you have said, I would have purchases a LCRx in a 3" barrel IF it had adjustable rear sight, or at the very least "driftable" rear sights. Like others, I emailed Ruger about my desires and got the pat response "we have no plans of producing that firearm."

I "settled" for a SP101 Wiley Clap, 357 mag with a 2.25" barrel. I'm extremely happy with this revolver. I carry it daily. My 5th cylinder full, I shot two 10's, two 9's and a 6 (which I knew was left and low at the trigger pull). That was at 7 yards. I love this gun.

As far as a .22 cal in an LCR with a 3 inch barrel is concerned, I see the appeal, but I'm extremely happy with the Mark III that I've owned for 35+ years. I've probably taken more game with that pistol than I have with all the other non-shotgun firearms I own, combined. It lives in my glove box.

Now if Ruger made a LCRx in a .22 magnum they'd have my attention.

TruthTellers · January 30, 2017, 05:14 AM

Some people just don't want an auto loading .22 and I'm one of them. I'll take the revolver with the 8 round cylinder, which is close enough to the standard 10 rounds.

Yes, I know there are aftermarket stuff to make the SR22 a 15 rd magazine. Still, don't care for autoloading .22's.

As for the .22 Mag LCRx, Ruger can make that tomorrow if they wanted to, it's built on the Aluminum frame, so the 3 inch aluminum shroud on the LCRx would work fine, Ruger would just need the barrel liner made.

I suggest if you really want it, tell the above stuff to them and that they're losing money not making it.

Again, doesn't make sense that Ruger doesn't make it because the only other DA .22 Mag revolver they make is the LCR.

jason hammac · January 30, 2017, 06:09 PM

This revolver needs to be made in the .327 magnum, S&W will be kicking themselves forever for not keeping the 632 in production!!

arquebus357 · January 31, 2017, 11:27 AM

Never was interested in the LCR because it lacked a hammer. Now, I may be talked into a light weight .38 spl, knock about, snub nosed revolver. forget .357 in a revolver this light.

Lohman446 · January 31, 2017, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Prodigious weight equals minimal recoil, and the SP101 has more traditional styling and a more substantial feel. These factors could be more important to folks who intend to use it primarily for plinking or teaching new shooters.

An inordinately heavy gun is not helpful in teaching new shooters many of whom are younger or of smaller stature. The heavier a firearm is the more it taxes the muscles. Granted you still need balance but weight for the sake of weight is no good

January 28, 2017, 01:37 PM	#26
9x19 Senior Member Join Date: October 15, 1998 Location: Sherman, TX USA Posts: 3,750	I pestered the folks in Ruger's booth at SHOT this year about a 3" LCRx in .22 (with adj sights) and they said they had no plans to build one... instead pushing the SP101. I told them they had customers waiting for the lighter weight pistol, but not sure it made a difference. Still, I tried. __________________ Make mine lean, mean, and 9x19!

January 28, 2017, 05:14 PM	#28
9x19 Senior Member Join Date: October 15, 1998 Location: Sherman, TX USA Posts: 3,750	I picked up the 3" .38 and mentioned that it used the same frame, and they already make a .22LR cylinder and 2" barrel... and while the folks there agreed it shouldn't take too much engineering effort, they were still suggesting the SP101 instead. I pointed out the weight difference and what an awesome woods gun the LCRx would be instead. Maybe they'll carry word back to the PTBs, but for now... __________________ Make mine lean, mean, and 9x19!

January 28, 2017, 06:48 PM	#29
TruthTellers Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2016 Posts: 3,888	I just don't see what benefit the folks at Ruger see that the .22 SP101 has over a 3 or even 4 inch .22 LCRx, other than they currently have them available for sale to the public (>_<) I have no doubt that there have been discussions inside Ruger about adding longer barreled LCRx revovlers. I'm sure the question that gets brought up when it's discussed is: What happens to the SP101 then? I say just stop making the SP101's that aren't in .357 Magnum. I can understand that the SP is built way stronger than the LCR is and for .357 that's great, but for .22, .327, .38+P... you don't need that tank like design.

January 28, 2017, 07:43 PM	#30
Radny97 Senior Member Join Date: July 8, 2015 Posts: 1,021	Truthtellers I was the one who suggested that perhaps the LCRx line couldn't handle 357 mag pressures because of the lack of that upper pin. I am very glad that I have been proven wrong.

January 28, 2017, 11:53 PM	#31
Super Sneaky Steve Senior Member Join Date: August 9, 2011 Posts: 1,250	.357 Magnum means you can load up 35,000 PSI. It doesn't mean you HAVE to. .35 spl +P is 18,500 PSI. That leaves a lot to play with in between. There's a full wadcutter I like to load using magnum cases. The Lee manual has the data. It's a stout thumper but very manageable.

January 30, 2017, 03:48 AM	#34
Moon Tree Junior Member Join Date: January 29, 2017 Posts: 3	This is my first post so be gentle. I love Ruger handguns. I own 5 of them. I love 4 of them and like the other very well. BUT, Ruger often misses the mark when it comes to the handgun of my dreams. Like many of you have said, I would have purchases a LCRx in a 3" barrel IF it had adjustable rear sight, or at the very least "driftable" rear sights. Like others, I emailed Ruger about my desires and got the pat response "we have no plans of producing that firearm." I "settled" for a SP101 Wiley Clap, 357 mag with a 2.25" barrel. I'm extremely happy with this revolver. I carry it daily. My 5th cylinder full, I shot two 10's, two 9's and a 6 (which I knew was left and low at the trigger pull). That was at 7 yards. I love this gun. As far as a .22 cal in an LCR with a 3 inch barrel is concerned, I see the appeal, but I'm extremely happy with the Mark III that I've owned for 35+ years. I've probably taken more game with that pistol than I have with all the other non-shotgun firearms I own, combined. It lives in my glove box. Now if Ruger made a LCRx in a .22 magnum they'd have my attention.

January 30, 2017, 05:14 AM	#35
TruthTellers Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2016 Posts: 3,888	Some people just don't want an auto loading .22 and I'm one of them. I'll take the revolver with the 8 round cylinder, which is close enough to the standard 10 rounds. Yes, I know there are aftermarket stuff to make the SR22 a 15 rd magazine. Still, don't care for autoloading .22's. As for the .22 Mag LCRx, Ruger can make that tomorrow if they wanted to, it's built on the Aluminum frame, so the 3 inch aluminum shroud on the LCRx would work fine, Ruger would just need the barrel liner made. I suggest if you really want it, tell the above stuff to them and that they're losing money not making it. Again, doesn't make sense that Ruger doesn't make it because the only other DA .22 Mag revolver they make is the LCR.

January 30, 2017, 06:09 PM	#36
jason hammac Member Join Date: October 19, 2006 Posts: 52	This revolver needs to be made in the .327 magnum, S&W will be kicking themselves forever for not keeping the 632 in production!!

January 31, 2017, 11:27 AM	#37
arquebus357 Senior Member Join Date: December 19, 2016 Location: Atlanta, Georgia area Posts: 455	Never was interested in the LCR because it lacked a hammer. Now, I may be talked into a light weight .38 spl, knock about, snub nosed revolver. forget .357 in a revolver this light.