S&W 638 vs Ruger LCR

[glassguy]

I have decided that I want a shrouded hammer revolver for jacket pocket carry. I like the S&W 638 because it is single/double action and will shoot +P ammo. The Ruger LCR on the other hand is double action only but available in .357 and 9mm. I'd appreciate any opinions as to why one is superior to the other. Thanks, G

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by glassguy

I like the S&W 638 because it is single/double action and will shoot +P ammo. The Ruger LCR on the other hand is double action only but available in .357 and 9mm.

The Ruger LCR is available in a .38Spl+P model that is significantly lighter than the .357/9mm versions (13.5 oz vs. 17.1 oz) because the frame is aluminum alloy rather than stainless steel.

S&W markets a similar shrouded-hammer model in .357Mag, the steel-frame Model 649, but it is substantially heavier than the Model 638, which has never been offered in .357Mag because the aluminum alloy frame cannot take the punishment. The company has marketed spur-hammer (360) and DAO (340) J frame models with lightweight scandium frames in their M&P (steel cylinder) and PD or Ti lines (titanium cylinder), but AFAIK they've never offered the shrouded hammer this way, and their scandium revolvers are substantially pricier than the aluminum Airweights like the M638.

Speaking as a S&W fan, I have to admit that IMHO the LCR has a significantly superior DA trigger out-of-the-box (I have not shot the DA/SA LCRx), and it is more comfortable to shoot with stock grips. The downside is that those cushy LCR grips are physically larger than J frame "boot" grips and are also stickier, so they make the gun harder to pocket-carry, and may hang up on the draw. Aftermarket wood LCR grips will address the stickiness factor, but they don't entirely address the size discrepancy.

[JSG81]

I’m in the same decision making process and am leaning to the 638 because of the size difference. Personally I don’t want to shoot .357 in either but I understand the desire to have the ability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[glassguy]

Weight is a prime consideration here. Another consideration is durability. While I have no experience with the Ruger, I had a friend who carried an aluminum framed S&W in .22 cal., nine shot if I recall correctly, anyway, his body chemistry reacted badly with the finish, it corroded badly. I don't think that the corrosion affected the function of the gun but it sure was ugly. Corrosion got under the clear coat and ate channels under the finish that looked like worm holes.

I was not aware that Ruger made a sa/da . I have also read that the Ruger da trigger is smoother than the Smith. I'll check them out at the next local gun show.

Good info, thanks for the reply.

[OldMarksman]

Try both, shooting very rapidly while maintaining combat accuracy.

I had a 442. I found the trigger less than optimal for rapid controlled fire, and I had to soak my hand after fifty shots--arthritis and tendonitis .

I replaced it with a heavier Ruger 101 with a bobbed hammer.

I now much prefer a Kimber K6A--steel, very good trigger, and very importantly, with six shots.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by glassguy

While I have no experience with the Ruger, I had a friend who carried an aluminum framed S&W in .22 cal., nine shot if I recall correctly, anyway, his body chemistry reacted badly with the finish, it corroded badly. I don't think that the corrosion affected the function of the gun but it sure was ugly. Corrosion got under the clear coat and ate channels under the finish that looked like worm holes.

The gun was presumably a Model 317. AFAIK they are made from a different alloy than other Airweights and seem prone to weird finish problems, although I've never heard a comprehensive answer for this, only seen examples.

I used to have a Model 638 that I pocket-carried extensively in very sweaty conditions. It suffered significant high-edge wear but no flaking, chipping, or strange chemical deterioration like I've heard about on other J frames.

Anecdotal evidence, take it for what it's worth.

I'll say this: despite the silver frame finish of the 637/638/642 being less attractive IMHO than the matte black 437/438/442, I recommend the silver/stainless for pocket carry, because raw aluminum high-edge wear is a LOT less glaring against a silver background than a black one.

[smee78]

I also was in the same position years ago and I got the Smith 638, love the shrouded hammer and the Smith had a lot more options for replacement grips.

[Carmady]

I sent a LCR back to Ruger for repair, but they couldn't fix it so they replaced it with a new LCR which had .0045"-.005" end-shake. I called them, and the tech said that it was within spec. When I asked how much end-shake it took to be out of spec he answered with something like, "That information isn't available to the public."

I'd go with the 638.

[glassguy]

So now I go on the hunt for local ranges that rent both guns. I really need to shoot both, preferrably at the same time.

[Overkill777]

Both guns are good to go. It comes down to personal preference. The Ruger is a great gun but I have a soft spot for j frames.

[tranders]

I have the 642 S&W which is the same airweight frame as the 638. It is a joy to carry,but even with standard pressure 38 Specials is not fun to shoot very much. Normally when I go to the range I will shoot a cylinder or two and back in the holster it goes.

[bassJAM1]

I wouldn't get hung up on having single action capability on a pocket gun. I had a SA/DA j-frame (337) for a few years, and with practice got to where I was just as accurate in double action as I was single action. So I sold it and now carry a 442 when I pocket carry.

Both the Rugers and J-frames are great guns, it is largely personal preference. As to the finish, S&W essentially uses a painted finish on the aluminum framed Airweights, and I have seen more of the "stainless" have the clearcoat peel than I have seen the "blued" guns have their finish torn up.

[shurshot]

I have the 638 and 642 Airweight S&W... no experience with that Ruger you mentioned. My snubs, with hot .38 +P's, are FAR more uncomfortable to shoot than my .44 Magnums. That being said, they ARE controllable and accurate as far as snubs go. They sure slip into a pocket easy.

[Slimjim9]

Weight is a prime consideration here.

I'll say this. I shot the LCR38 and did not like it at all. I got the LCR357 and shoot .38 out of it and I like it much better even with the extra weight. I even put a Pachmayr Diamond Pro which is fatter and a little longer than stock to help even more with recoil. BUT - I still pocket carry it in most khakis and cargo pant front pockets - and some jeans. Not the skinny jeans mind you, but geez, why would you anyway.

[BeornLS]

Well I can say this, but this is just my opinion. I've owned LCR in .38, LCR in .357 magnum. They are fine revolvers, very very nice trigger pulls from the factory. Pleasure to shoot, especially with .38s out of the .357 steel frame LCR.

However, I don't own them anymore and carry a 638 on a regular basis. The reason behind it is primarily because the 638 just carries easier to me.

Basically for all the reasons already mentioned, smaller grip being the biggest one. In addition, I do like the option of being able to pull one off in single action mode if needed. Maybe to dispatch some sort of critter or what not.

I will say if Ruger did make an LCR in the style of the S&W 638 or bodyguard style...I'll be in line to purchase one. I still have one of their LCRx models (exposed hammer) in .22 LR with the 3" barrel and larger grip....love that little gun for plinking, camping, etc.

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Interesting, I have the LCR9mm and use a clipdraw holster. I find the gun extremely easy to carry IWB and I HATE IWB's. I also have a Mitch Rosen Holster that makes is very easy to carry, in fact last deer season, I carried the LCR in the Mitch. I did a lot of hunting, and at one point ended up in a cut-over. A hell of a time trying to get out. Took almost two hours. I fell numerous time. It dawned on me that I could not feel the LCR. I panicked thinking I had lost it. NOPE, still there, just could not feel it.
I love the LCR, but yes, would love to have the Smith as Well. However it will have to wait. Last month bought a LCR22.cal for traing which is totally fun to shoot and two weeks ago a Nano.

Here are two very easy carry's, And I love both of them.

[dgludwig]

The Ruger LCR on the other hand is double action only but available in .357 and 9mm. I'd appreciate any opinions as to why one is superior to the other.

The Ruger LCR is also available chambered for the .327 Federal Magnum, which offers an extra shot advantage over the .38/357 revolvers. Imo, the LCR has a superior da trigger pull over contemporary S&W J-frames.

[tallball]

I prefer the LCR. It is light and has a very nice trigger. But they are both nice revolvers. It's win/win.

[Rafsob]

I have three LCR models, .357, .327 and the .22 Lr. I love all three. They are light and car well. I use the .22 to practice and safe money on ammo. I am having a time trying to figure out which I will keep. Both the 357 and 327 are bout the same recoil and do about the same damage.

[tallball]

NEVER sell or trade a gun that you actually like. Trust me on this.