From the NRA Show
Ruger revolvers:
Various -hawks:
 |
| From 2010 NRA Annual Meeting |
Even more -hawks:
 |
| From 2010 NRA Annual Meeting |
A question I asked numerous times was Why should I care about the Ruger LCR? I never got an answer. But I did get this pic:
 |
| From 2010 NRA Annual Meeting |
May 20th, 2010 at 10:01 am
I don’t know why you should. I care about the LCR because my fiancee cannot easily operate the slide of the LCP with her arthritis. But the LCP has the simple point and click interface of any revolver and with the crimson trace grip sight picture is not as big of an issue. And if fits her hand better than other lightweight revolvers.
May 20th, 2010 at 10:07 am
I shot an LCR a couple of years ago and was impressed by the DA trigger pull, especially for a stock gun. Recoil was manageable and as MichaelG says, “simple point and click”.
May 20th, 2010 at 10:13 am
But why an LCR over, say, any other revolver?
May 20th, 2010 at 10:15 am
The LCR is a big deal because although the LCR still is not as light as the S&W 340 with the Scandium frame, it comes damn close with about $500 to spare.
May 20th, 2010 at 11:15 am
+1 to ericire12
Its also need to see people try new ideas on firearms platforms. Even more when you have a really slick gun that nearly matches performance of a top-shelf S&W but for pretty good price.
May 20th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I give up, why should anyone care about any thing?
May 20th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Unc, were you following me around taking pictures of things after I did?
First the Mark IIIs, now the centerfire revolvers..
As for the LCR, what got me was that it is now available in .357 Magnum. Ouchie!
May 20th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I guess it’s important because the world needed another balsa weight, hard to shoot carry gun with a heavy trigger. Just another industry “enabler” supporting the delusional idea that a little gun with limited speed, power and accuracy is a “good enough” solution to personal defense, because it’s “too hard” and “too expensive” to make the effort to carry a larger, more capable gun with you. What customers want, in this case, is really not what they need. Caveat emptor.
May 20th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Raise your hand if you have actually held an LCR and tested the trigger pull. (Raises hand)
Keep your hand up if the trigger could accurately be described as “heavy”. (Lowers hand)
I haven’t shot it, but the reviewers who have shot it don’t seem to feel it was as bad (let alone worse) to shoot than an airweight j-frame.
The phrase “caveat emptor” would seem to be appropriate advice for anyone deciding how much weight to give to the unpaid, unsolicited opinion of Karl Rehn.
May 20th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
It’s just Ruger’s next serious attempt at the light carry revolver market.
A plastic single-six is an interesting notion.
And I do approve of adding a little more weight. My S&W Bodyguard is an expert’s revolver because it is light. Gotta have a balance there with controllability.
May 20th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
A lightweight revolver in anything more than .38+P is a gun which won’t see a lot of practice.
I don’t mind if Ruger is getting onto the small airweight revolver business; the more the merrier.
I will be REALLY interested to see if a lightweight Ruger like the LCR outlasts a lightweight Smith like the 637. Time for one of the gun mags to quit shilling new products and perform a decent comparison torture test — or do we have to wait for Gun Reports to get round to it?
May 20th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
…or, you can dope out how to manage the extra 10 oz or so and get an SP-101, which, as KdT notes, you might actually PRACTICE with. I shoot 4-500 rds/year with mine, and have since 1985, and it barely shows any wear, except a sweeter trigger pull.
May 20th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Meanwhile, while I love my Redhawk, the Super Redhawk remains the second ugliest revolver manufactured.
May 21st, 2010 at 1:20 am
I love my LCR, it’s my carry pistol. I certainly have no complaints, the trigger pull is better than many singles I’ve tried. Carrying .38+P is nice, and practicing with regular .38 is even nicer. The short barrel is not a hindrance to accuracy, as some friends of mine from Germany showed me a few months ago.
May 21st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Take two novice shooters. Give one an LCR and the other a Glock 19. Give them both the same training and let them fire the same number of rounds in practice.
Which one do you believe will reach the higher skill level? Which one has the better chance of surviving a real violent encounter, if both are carrying their respective guns when attacked?
Which gun would you rather have in a gunfight?
No matter how hard you train with a snub, if you put in the same effort in training with an easier-to-shoot, higher-capacity semiauto, you’ll end up with more skill than you can develop with the snub.
Thus the “you can compensate for the suckiness of the snub by training harder” argument fails.
Tom Givens of Rangemaster has had 53 students in real gunfights in the past 5 years. He presented on that data again this year at the Polite Society conference. Some of his students had to fire more than 5 rounds, some had to make shots of more than 15 yards or make tight shots around parked cars, or engage multiple attackers (crime is bad in Memphis). Should I ask him to look at those 53 incidents and report back as to how many he thinks would have been ‘unsurvivable’ if the shooter had only had a 5 shot snub?
The snub decision is usually founded on the idea that your situation will be the easy kind with one attacker in good light at 2 yards with a full frontal exposure, with plenty of time to draw and make the shot, and that the attacker will be instantly stopped by being shot.
No matter how good anyone is with a snub, the truth is that if that same shooter had trained just as hard with an easier-to-shoot SA or striker fired semiauto, that shooter would have a higher level of skill (and more ammunition in the gun). So the whole “I can train harder and compensate” rationalization fails IMHO.
If you need to outrun a tiger, you need running shoes, not Crocs. No matter how good they improve the Crocs, switching to running shoes is going to improve your odds for survival.
May 21st, 2010 at 5:20 pm
one paragraph got in there twice in two different versions. sorry about that. meant to cut one version before I hit submit…
May 22nd, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Karl,
I don’t know who you are; nor do I know who Tom Givens is, or what your relationship is to him.
I know who Massad Ayoob is. I know who Jim Cirillo is (was). Maybe you and this Tom guy have more experience with carrying concealed handguns and surviving gunfights than Mas and Jim. And maybe you haven’t. Mas and Jim feel/felt that a .38+P is adequate for self defense. I trust their experience.
And, most importantly, I know that a Glock 19 won’t fit into the front pocket of a pair of jeans or khaki shorts while tucked into a pocket holster. A J-frame or LCR will.
Ever been to Houston in summertime, Karl? I have personal experience with that situation. 95+ degrees with high humidity. T-shirt and shorts are about as much clothing as a sane person can tolerate. Maybe you think that a shoot-me-first/photojournalist vest is the way to go. Or those easy to spot “tactical” garments, or a belly-band. Sweating like a pig isn’t fun, and sticking out as a guy who’s carrying isn’t a good idea. Unless you secretly want to be “made” as having a concealed gun.
And, Karl, the “snub decision” you refer to is a straw-man argument. The REAL decision is: I can carry a J-frame/LCR in any clothing with more coverage than a Speedo. Not true for a Glock 19. Not even for a Glock 26 (this I know from person experience, not just because I heard it from some guy).
The gun you have on you has 100% more stopping power than the gun you left home because you couldn’t conceal it, Karl. That’s a proven fact. You can look it up on the internet.