Ruger lcr 9mm

[gunnerd147]

Earlier in this thread there was some discussion regarding 9mm muzzle velocities from a snubbie. Below is a link to a page from the RugerPistolsForum thread discussing the LCR9. A short way down there are a couple of posts by Bruce from mousegunaddict-blog. One is a short video discussing the gun and showing his first range session with it. Following that is a post by him with some chronograph data that is a bit surprising.

I keep seeing this surprise all over the internet;
It's really not surprising at all when you consider that if you measured revolver barrels the same way as semi-autos this gun would be reported as having a barrel in the ballpark of 3.4-3.5"
Pistol barrels are measured from the muzzle to the breach face (so are rifle and shotguns, fwiw), but for some reason revolver barrels are measured from the muzzle to the forcing cone- ie. excluding the chamber.
The cylinder on a .357 revolver is approx. 1.6", so your classic 4" .357 measured like an auto would be a 5.7" barrel.
Food for thought, and now it isn't so surprising that the LCR 9mm's velocities are similar to autos with 3.5" barrels.

Moon clips from TK Custom for this revolver are about $8/ea
http://www.moonclips.com/cart/shopdi...id=268&cat=9mm

Safariland Comp I speed loaders for a S&W 642 in .38spl are about $10/ea
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001PBIWHG/...I2N01XV8GXDV54

I don't see that as much of a cost savings considering the increased durability of the speed loader.

Once the price on these comes down a ways I'm sure I'll pick one up.
I was eyeballing a 940 when I ordered my 642 Pro, but couldn't justify the cost.
I'm very glad to see Ruger step up and produce a product that should have been on the market for years.

[GK17]

Thanks, gunnerd147! Came across the barrel length factor the day after I posted here. Will follow your links.

PS; The Comp1 means relying on gravity extraction during a speed reload.

[gunnerd147]

It does to a fair degree, very true. That's actually why I have a 642 Pro, and one of the reasons why I'm such a fan of the 9mm revolver.
With the shorter case of the 9mm vs the .38spl you're more likely to get complete extraction of the shells with the short ejector rod on the J-frames and LCR.

Another is the much better selection of good quality modern hollow points that reliably expand.
AFAIK there are only a couple .38 special loads that can consistently pass the FBI standards testing from a ~2" snub nose; the heavy clothing test being the most relevant for most people IMO.
In 9mm you have 15-20 different loads to choose from with much better chances of being able to find one of them in stock somewhere.

[GK17]

Bruce at MouseGunAddict reviews LCR9.

http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/

[Chuck Haggard]

Anyone tried shooting it without the clips yet?

[GK17]

Anyone tried shooting it without the clips yet?

"One last point on moon clips and the LCR 9mm is that you really don't need a moon clip to use the revolver.* Part of the video review below includes a demonstration of single loading rounds into the chambers of the LCR cylinder and firing all five rounds without issue.* Without a moon clip in place, you will need to manually poke each spent brass case from the cylinder much like you do with a single action revolver. * ** ** - See more at: http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/#....eCHB8c29.dpuf "

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...psfcacd34a.jpg

[jh9]

Anyone shot .380 out of one of these yet?

I know more than a couple people who aren't gun types, are very recoil averse and if .380 works it'd be another option like the glock 42.

[revolvergeek]

I'll have one of these, had planned to get a .38 LCR soon as well.

FYI for those who don't like rubber stocks Eagle has wood stocks - https://eaglegrips.com/62-ruger-lcr-grips

They look pretty good for pocket carry (I personally strongly dislike rubber stocks on pocket guns, they tend to stick in the pocket for me).

-Rob

Interesting. Thanks for pointing those out.