PDA

View Full Version : Ruger lcr 9mm



NerdAlert
09-22-2014, 11:39 AM
http://www.ruger.com/products/lcr/specSheets/5456.html

This might be my npe carry piece. Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

Chuck Haggard
09-22-2014, 11:39 AM
What?

What?

Damn, that's a surpiser................

Lon
09-22-2014, 11:57 AM
Damn. You just cost me money.

NerdAlert
09-22-2014, 12:04 PM
Bout time I returned the favor and cost someone else money :)


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

LSP972
09-22-2014, 12:20 PM
Be interesting to see how they handled the ejection process (specs don't say).

The cylinder rear gauge looks a bit tight for moon clips, so maybe they finally solved that issue? Perhaps a variation of the S&W M-547 arrangement?

.

TCinVA
09-22-2014, 12:36 PM
Interesting. Put me down for also wanting to know how they solved the 9mm extraction problem.

JR1572
09-22-2014, 12:41 PM
I want this.

JR1572

NerdAlert
09-22-2014, 01:02 PM
On their Facebook page they stated that it uses provided moon clips.


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

Chuck Haggard
09-22-2014, 01:06 PM
Interesting. Put me down for also wanting to know how they solved the 9mm extraction problem.

^This^

jetfire
09-22-2014, 01:07 PM
The media spec sheet I got today says it uses moon clips.

JM Campbell
09-22-2014, 01:24 PM
I'm not a revolver guy...so this is 442 size?

Pocket carry?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

jetfire
09-22-2014, 01:36 PM
I'm not a revolver guy...so this is 442 size?

Pocket carry?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

The LCR works pretty well for pocket carry with the caveat that you need bigger pockets to accommodate the factory stocks. The Crimson Trace stocks are a little smaller and work better.

Chuck Haggard
09-22-2014, 01:49 PM
My stock LCR is in between the sizes of my J frames with the CT 305 and the boot grip. The Ruger is smaller in height than the 642 with the 305s, bigger than the 351 I have with the boot grips.

LSP972
09-22-2014, 02:08 PM
The media spec sheet I got today says it uses moon clips.

Pity; I was hoping for some revolutionary new mechanism. So its basically same sheep, different wool? Pardon me while I yawn...;)

.

Up1911Fan
09-22-2014, 02:13 PM
I'm gonna try one out.

Stephen
09-22-2014, 02:41 PM
Ruger has these boot grips that work well for pocket carry Much better than factory Hogues.

http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ruger_lcr_boot.jpg

I know Ruger sometimes does limited runs for dealer specials or whatever. Like they just did a limited run of Single Sevens in .327. Is the new 9mm LCR something like that? Or a regular new product introduction?

RevolverRob
09-22-2014, 03:07 PM
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

Lester Polfus
09-22-2014, 03:31 PM
My inner gun nerd wants to go spend several hundred dollars so I can prove to myself yet again how much moon clips suck.

BN
09-22-2014, 04:25 PM
That's going to have some snappy recoil. :(

LSP972
09-22-2014, 04:35 PM
My inner gun nerd wants to go spend several hundred dollars so I can prove to myself yet again how much moon clips suck.

Resist; your inner wallet will thank you.

.

Sigfan26
09-22-2014, 04:52 PM
One thing to keep in mind: A lot of premium 9mm ammunition has some difficulties expanding in a 3" barrel... What is gonna happen when you shorten the barrel to 2" and add a cylinder gap?

If S&W did the 940 again (although a scandium would be better), I'd buy one to have commonality of ammunition and relegate it to BUG duty... But a moonclip Ruger? I'll wait.

Hambo
09-22-2014, 04:54 PM
Resist.


Having been down the 940 road, I think I can hold out.

Lester Polfus
09-22-2014, 04:54 PM
Resist; your inner wallet will thank you.

.

Yeah, I should go buy the Guide Gun or Redhawk I've been wanting instead.

I'm going to go write:

"If you can carry a snubby with moonclips, you can carry a bigger gun and magazine."

On the chalkboard in the kitchen a couple hundred times.

RevolverRob
09-22-2014, 05:13 PM
One thing to keep in mind: A lot of premium 9mm ammunition has some difficulties expanding in a 3" barrel... What is gonna happen when you shorten the barrel to 2" and add a cylinder gap?

If S&W did the 940 again (although a scandium would be better), I'd buy one to have commonality of ammunition and relegate it to BUG duty... But a moonclip Ruger? I'll wait.

I have serious concerns about reliability of expanding ammo from a short barrel too. Not sure why everyone is down on Ruger, they build better revolvers than Smith does today. I'll wait to see how well the 9mm LCR works, before dropping my money, but so far I haven't seen any major long-term LCR complaints.



I'm going to go write:

"If you can carry a snubby with moonclips, you can carry a bigger gun and magazine."

On the chalkboard in the kitchen a couple hundred times.

Yes, if they figured out how to make it eject without moonclips I'd really want it. Now that I realize it needs moonclips it is far less exciting a proposition.

__

Now that I've given it more than twenty seconds of thought...I think I'll just a buy a .38 and .22LR LCR and call it a day. Not much sense in trading a reliably expanding bullet from a short barrel for one of questionable reliability and also moonclips...Nah, I think I'll still have to have a 9mm too, just because.

-Rob

Lester Polfus
09-22-2014, 05:17 PM
Now that I've given it more than twenty seconds of thought...I think I'll just a buy a .38 and .22LR LCR and call it a day. Not much sense in trading a reliably expanding bullet from a short barrel for one of questionable reliability and also moonclips...Nah, I think I'll still have to have a 9mm too, just because.

-Rob

There's something about it that just sets my inner gadget boy all aquiver, but, they just aren't practical.

RevolverRob
09-22-2014, 05:23 PM
There's something about it that just sets my inner gadget boy all aquiver, but, they just aren't practical.

I'm a 100% with you on that. I keep a separate "just because" gun fund - it's the one you buy silly guns with. You know the fund that buys 9mm LCRs or Mauser C96s, or Sig P210s. If I only bought practical things...I'm not sure I'd fulfill my requisite American societal obligation for excess. You can't let the commies win you know...

Lester Polfus
09-22-2014, 05:29 PM
I'm a 100% with you on that. I keep a separate "just because" gun fund - it's the one you buy silly guns with. You know the fund that buys 9mm LCRs or Mauser C96s, or Sig P210s. If I only bought practical things...I'm not sure I'd fulfill my requisite American societal obligation for excess. You can't let the commies win you know...

See. That's where this whole thing falls apart for me. I got rid of my "just because" gun money, and I'm plowing it into becoming debt free, retiring early etc.

It just isn't very fun somtimes though.

Hmph.

I'm off to write:

"I'm doing the right thing"

On the board two hundred times...

NerdAlert
09-22-2014, 05:47 PM
I've never owned or shot a moon clip revolver. Is the concern with carrying a reload and the moon clip bends in the pocket? Seems like once the moon clip is in the gun it's ok right? Last question, just to be clear. Am I hearing that moon clip only revolvers should not be considered for "serious" use?


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

Lester Polfus
09-22-2014, 05:52 PM
I've never owned or shot a moon clip revolver. Is the concern with carrying a reload and the moon clip bends in the pocket? Seems like once the moon clip is in the gun it's ok right? Last question, just to be clear. Am I hearing that moon clip only revolvers should not be considered for "serious" use?


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

We wrung this out pretty good in this thread:

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12994-Man-I-d-sure-like-a-9mm-j-frame&highlight=moon+clip

Chuck Haggard
09-22-2014, 06:11 PM
Ref barrel length; 2" from a wheelgun is damn close to 3" from a semi-auto pistol due to how the barrels are measured.

ssb
09-22-2014, 06:15 PM
Ref barrel length; 2" from a wheelgun is damn close to 3" from a semi-auto pistol due to how the barrels are measured.

Is there any data showing how the velocities compare/would compare?

Additionally, any data on how slow the common carry rounds can be moving and still expand/penetrate as needed?

Chuck Haggard
09-22-2014, 06:33 PM
Closest thing I have at the moment;
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

Keep in mind every gun will give slightly different velocities.

I used to have data on ammo I had run through my 940, but that was years ago. Going from memory I recall being surprised at how little velocity was lost from that gun.

ssb
09-22-2014, 06:39 PM
Closest thing I have at the moment;
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

Keep in mind every gun will give slightly different velocities.

I used to have data on ammo I had run through my 940, but that was years ago. Going from memory I recall being surprised at how little velocity was lost from that gun.

Yeah, I googled my way into that a while ago, looking for info on this same topic and didn't come up with much in the way of real-world velocities out of revolvers. If there's not much loss, that's great. I'd hope that means that the ammo we have now, which we know works, wouldn't have to be redesigned in order to work out of a snub.

Lester Polfus
09-22-2014, 06:52 PM
Yeah, I googled my way into that a while ago, looking for info on this same topic and didn't come up with much in the way of real-world velocities out of revolvers. If there's not much loss, that's great. I'd hope that means that the ammo we have now, which we know works, wouldn't have to be redesigned in order to work out of a snub.

This guy:

http://www.realguns.com/articles/655.htm

has chrono and gello results in his review of the LCR 9mm, although I don't know if his jello testing protocol is compliant to the industry standard, as I really don't know much about that.

ssb
09-22-2014, 07:01 PM
This guy:

http://www.realguns.com/articles/655.htm

has chrono and gello results in his review of the LCR 9mm, although I don't know if his jello testing protocol is compliant to the industry standard, as I really don't know much about that.

The failure to expand on the Win. 147gr (isn't the "Defend" stuff the same as the PDX1 bonded?) is concerning, given that I've trended towards the 147gr bullets in 9mm.

NerdAlert
09-22-2014, 07:13 PM
We wrung this out pretty good in this thread:

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12994-Man-I-d-sure-like-a-9mm-j-frame&highlight=moon+clip

I read the whole thing. Most of it was about "this cartridge vs that cartridge" "just buy a 38" and "don't load 38 super in your j frame". If I were carrying a pocket gun I would not be carrying a reload. If I were carrying it in the belt I'd carry a 9mm auto. It does suck that no one can make a properly functional 9mm revolver. Maybe ruger has figured something out, or maybe it's another waste of time. Only time will tell.

Guess I'll just stick with my plan and buy an airweight.


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

Kyle Reese
09-22-2014, 07:21 PM
Looks interesting. Are these shipping yet?

Sigfan26
09-22-2014, 07:31 PM
The failure to expand on the Win. 147gr (isn't the "Defend" stuff the same as the PDX1 bonded?) is concerning, given that I've trended towards the 147gr bullets in 9mm.

The velocities seem high for a sub2" barrel... I'd like to see another source chrono with this gun to verify. Only 100fps slower than factory specs seems odd to me.

Chuck Haggard
09-22-2014, 07:52 PM
His numbers are in the right ball park.

Chuck Haggard
09-22-2014, 07:53 PM
The velocities seem high for a sub2" barrel... I'd like to see another source chrono with this gun to verify. Only 100fps slower than factory specs seems odd to me.


Semi-auto pistols include the chamber in the barrel length, thus a 2" revolver barrel is similar in length to a 3" pistol barrel.

Stephen
09-22-2014, 08:23 PM
From P-F member Molon:

http://www.box.net/shared/static/5li8m192c0.jpg

MK9 has a 3" barrel

Sigfan26
09-22-2014, 09:12 PM
From P-F member Molon:

http://www.box.net/shared/static/5li8m192c0.jpg

MK9 has a 3" barrel

Interesting... But I'd still like to see another velocity test of the Lcr9 from someone trusted. Also, the cylinder gap, I would expect, would release some pressure/velocity.

Chuck Haggard
09-22-2014, 09:19 PM
Cylinder gap often doesn't make as big a deal as you would think.

Sigfan26
09-22-2014, 09:33 PM
Cylinder gap often doesn't make as big a deal as you would think.

I would imagine. I'm just skeptical by nature... And, Ruger is involved, so I'm extra skeptical.

Haraise
09-22-2014, 10:05 PM
I would imagine. I'm just skeptical by nature... And, Ruger is involved, so I'm extra skeptical.

Then don't believe Ruger. Try this on: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/234799-940-ballistics.html


Beretta 92F - 1,190 fps
Glock 17 - 1,230 fps
Glock 19 - 1,190 fps
Sig 226 - 1,170 fps
Sig 225 - 1,160 fps
H&K P7M8 - 1,210 fps
S&W 940 - 1,140 fps

Or here: http://gunhub.com/handguns/345-velocity-information-9mm-s-w-model-940-a.html

I like the 940, after I found out that the Ruger moon clips are the ticket. No stickie extraction with any load!
My chronograph results were as follows:

127 gr. Win. SXT +p+ =1145 fps.
115 gr. Rem. JHP +p+=1239 fps.
115 gr. Gold Dot +p+ =1258 fps.
124 gr. Fed. Nyclad JHP=1002 fps.

Plenty of S&W 940 chrono results out there, to tell you how 9mm does in a small revolver.

Sigfan26
09-22-2014, 10:08 PM
Then don't believe Ruger. Try this on: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/234799-940-ballistics.html


Beretta 92F - 1,190 fps
Glock 17 - 1,230 fps
Glock 19 - 1,190 fps
Sig 226 - 1,170 fps
Sig 225 - 1,160 fps
H&K P7M8 - 1,210 fps
S&W 940 - 1,140 fps

Or here: http://gunhub.com/handguns/345-velocity-information-9mm-s-w-model-940-a.html

I like the 940, after I found out that the Ruger moon clips are the ticket. No stickie extraction with any load!
My chronograph results were as follows:

127 gr. Win. SXT +p+ =1145 fps.
115 gr. Rem. JHP +p+=1239 fps.
115 gr. Gold Dot +p+ =1258 fps.
124 gr. Fed. Nyclad JHP=1002 fps.

Plenty of S&W 940 chrono results out there, to tell you how 9mm does in a small revolver.

Looks good. How do the moon clips hold up being carried in a pocket?

Sean O
09-22-2014, 10:10 PM
I will give it time to see how it shakes out reliability wise, but I love the idea of selling my current LCR for this. Common caliber and all...

Haraise
09-22-2014, 10:14 PM
Looks good. How do the moon clips hold up being carried in a pocket?

No idea. Was it Cooper who said 'reloading a pocket revolver in combat is an act of faith?' Or was it an act of faith more than he would take?

Sigfan26
09-22-2014, 10:19 PM
No idea. Was it Cooper who said 'reloading a pocket revolver in combat is an act of faith?' Or was it an act of faith more than he would take?

I hope not. Quoting cooper to validate anything involving a 9mm makes Baby Jesus cry.

Sigfan26
09-22-2014, 10:21 PM
No idea. Was it Cooper who said 'reloading a pocket revolver in combat is an act of faith?' Or was it an act of faith more than he would take?

Also, might want to actually test if the moon clips can hold up in a pocket.

idahojess
09-22-2014, 11:09 PM
It's interesting (to me) that the 9mm LCR is the heaviest one they make at 17.2 ounces (beats the .357 by one-tenth of an ounce, but still...) I wonder if that's due to the higher expected recoil.

http://ruger.com/products/lcr/models.html

edited to add: I see the 9mm and .357 are steel, rather than aluminum in the body part of the gun.

Stephen
09-22-2014, 11:23 PM
The BBTI guys tested the effects of cylinder gap on velocity. http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/gaptests.html

Hambo
09-23-2014, 06:29 AM
If you've never had a moon clip revolver, here are a few bits of experience. My 940 moon clips works very well and I never managed to bend one, but the concern was there. I didn't find a great way to carry spares. Also, unlike a .38 and like a Garand, there is no way to load less than a full clip. This may or may not be a real concern. One problem I did experience was that it was picky about ammo and extraction. 9BP and IIRC 9BPLE were no problem, but I had at least one incident in ammo testing when I had to beat on the elector to get the clip/cases out. The coolest part of mine was that slightly dirty I could load and reliably fire loose rounds. This seemed appealing as a spare pistol mag doubled as an ammo carrier for the 940. The obvious down side was that if I needed to reload a second time, it would take the rest of my life.

The cool factor was high, but practically speaking it wasn't an improvement over a J-frame .38.

Lon
09-23-2014, 07:27 AM
Also, might want to actually test if the moon clips can hold up in a pocket.

Try these:

https://moonclips.com/cart/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=36&cat=Moonclip+Holders+%2F+Concealed+Carry

JonInWA
09-23-2014, 08:29 AM
Now if Ruger made a 9mm version of their Match Champion GP100, or a 9mm version of their 3" GP100 (with the old compact grips, of course), or a 3" 9mm SP101...

Best, Jon

RevolverRob
09-23-2014, 08:36 AM
or a 3" 9mm SP101...

Best, Jon

They made that one actually. They are tough to find, but out there. They also did a 2 3/4" Service Six in 9mm.

MGW
09-23-2014, 08:43 AM
I've never owned or shot a moon clip revolver. Is the concern with carrying a reload and the moon clip bends in the pocket? Seems like once the moon clip is in the gun it's ok right? Last question, just to be clear. Am I hearing that moon clip only revolvers should not be considered for "serious" use?


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

I have a 442 Pro with no lock that is cut for moonclips and has crimson trace grips installed. I've given up on reloading it with the moonclips if I'm in a hurry.

I would trade it in a heart beat for a stock 340.

I used to think a 9mm snubby would be cool. The 9mm LCR is tempting but after the above mentioned thread I no longer want to mess with one.

MGW
09-23-2014, 08:49 AM
Try these:

https://moonclips.com/cart/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=36&cat=Moonclip+Holders+%2F+Concealed+Carry

I've looked at those. They look pretty cool. The problem I've experienced is the rounds wobble around to much in the clips to reliably reload hollow points quickly. They work better with FMJs but I have no desire to carry FMJs as reloads.

jetfire
09-23-2014, 10:52 AM
Moonclip guns on the J-frame/LCR/wee lil' revolver platform tend to be problematic because the clip has to be so small to fit in a gun where space is already at a premium. I've never bent a clip for a 625 or my 929, but I have bent all kinds of clips for 5 shot guns. The biggest danger is when you bend a clip juuuuuuuuuuuuust a little bit, so that you can't necessarily see how it's bent. Then it will go in the gun, and you'll get a couple of normal trigger pulls, until you try to rotate the slightly bent clip under the hammer and your trigger pull goes up by 1 billion pounds to "JESUS GOD WHY WON'T THIS GUN GO OFF". That happened to me at a BUG match.

I really, really, really want to like small, clip fed 9mm revolvers. It's just such a great idea on paper, but it's never really shaken out in the actual concept specifically because the little thin clips are problematic and don't hold up well to use. Plus when you're dealing with guns that small, the realistic reload time between a moonclip and a Safariland Comp-I is basically nil. Yes, I can reload a giant N-frame with moonclips faster than a speedloader gun, but that's comparing apples to...slightly smaller apples.

Chuck Haggard
09-23-2014, 11:08 AM
Ref gun weight; the .22lr LCR is heavier than the .38s, so recoil management wasn't one of the things going into "why", it's just how the guns are built.

GJM
09-23-2014, 11:11 AM
Is the moon clip needed to fire, or just get the empty cases out for a reload?

If it is to get them out, since I wouldn't carry more than one reload, I would consider using the revolver with the moon clip and carrying five spare rounds loose or in a speed strip as they are easier to carry and I wouldn't have to worry about bending a moon clip.

jetfire
09-23-2014, 11:33 AM
Is the moon clip needed to fire, or just get the empty cases out for a reload?

If it is to get them out, since I wouldn't carry more than one reload, I would consider using the revolver with the moon clip and carrying five spare rounds loose or in a speed strip as they are easier to carry and I wouldn't have to worry about bending a moon clip.

Unknown right now; I'd would guess that the answer is likely yes. All of the other 9mm wheelies I've seen don't headspace off the case in the cylinder, they need the clips to shoot.

Chuck Haggard
09-23-2014, 12:46 PM
My 940 would shoot without clips, but one needed a cleaning rod to get the cases out one at a time.

NEPAKevin
09-23-2014, 12:52 PM
My limited experience with bent moonclips resembled a high primer both in feel and suck.

JonInWA
09-23-2014, 01:11 PM
I've heard of 'em. They're both pretty scarce. As I recall, the SP101 in 9mm had what appeared to be a pretty flimsy-looking unprotected blade adjustable rear sight, the same that they used for all the SP101s not in .38 Special/.357 magnum. The Service Six was also available with a 4" barrel.

Best, Jon

Charlie Foxtrot
09-23-2014, 01:11 PM
Pity; I was hoping for some revolutionary new mechanism. So its basically same sheep, different wool? Pardon me while I yawn...;)

.

LSP, I'm not a revolver guy -- but the LCR impressed the heck out of me. It does have a new cam-based double-action system that is very smooth and even. I shot a 2 inch 5 shot group at 7 yards with one of the first cylinders of ammo at about a one round per second pace. And I reiterate, I'm not a revolver guy. Much easier to shoot than a Smidt stubbie. Surprise the #### out of me.

What would I carry? Probably a Shield or R51 sized semi.

YPYMAMYC.

jc000
09-23-2014, 03:14 PM
As a LCR .22 owner, and the OP on the 9mm j-frame thread, I am definitely looking forward to seeing some feedback on this pistol! Did I miss when this is expected to hit the street?

LSP972
09-23-2014, 03:53 PM
... but the LCR impressed the heck out of me. It does have a new cam-based double-action system that is very smooth and even.

I keep hearing that. Unfortunately, the few I've handled were… not... "very smooth and even". Perhaps its my inner bias toward the J frame S&W showing through.

In any case, the LCR is a bit larger overall than the J frame. And I would wager that the reason you find the LCR much easier to shoot than a J frame is mostly due to stock selection on the latter. The LCR does indeed come with a nice, comfortable stock; again, unfortunately, that rubber stock is not nearly as concealable in a pocket as a set of RB Magnas with a T-grip adapter on the J frame. Or a pair of Spegels, or Ahrends, or… well, you get the idea.

And if you're going to obviate that issue by carrying it on your belt… why not just carry a serious pistol/revolver there? Serious, as in something better than a five shot snubby...

Not trying to bust your chops, but this particular aspect of the game offers no free lunch.

And, I give up; what does that acronym YPYMAMYC stand for?

.

Crow Hunter
09-23-2014, 03:56 PM
Is the moon clip needed to fire, or just get the empty cases out for a reload?

If it is to get them out, since I wouldn't carry more than one reload, I would consider using the revolver with the moon clip and carrying five spare rounds loose or in a speed strip as they are easier to carry and I wouldn't have to worry about bending a moon clip.

If it is like the Ruger 9mm Blackhawk I used to have that has a "ridge" in the cylinder to headspace off of, then that would be a very valid use.

You could actually carry the 9mm rounds in a thin single stack magazine and just thumb them into the chambers faster than you could get them off a speed strip and use that for a reload. Or just use the magazine from your primary if you were using the revolver as a backup.

The question would be, and I don't know, can you check that the moon clip you have in the gun is good (not bent) without shooting it like you can check for high primers?

LSP972
09-23-2014, 04:07 PM
The question would be, and I don't know, can you check that the moon clip you have in the gun is good (not bent) without shooting it like you can check for high primers?

Here there be monsters (and hungry liability attorneys).

This is actually relatively easy if your revolver has an exposed hammer. You just ease it back far enough, while keeping your finger off the trigger, to unlock the cylinder stop… and then you can spin the cylinder easily and check for dragging, etc.

Where this gets interesting is on enclosed-hammer revolvers like the Centennial J frames… and the LCR. To unlock that cylinder stop, you have to PULL THE TRIGGER slightly; far enough but not too far.

Getting the picture???:D

.

Chuck Haggard
09-23-2014, 04:41 PM
I stick the end of my left thumb behind the trigger when I do that check on a enclosed hammer gun

LSP972
09-23-2014, 05:32 PM
I stick the end of my left thumb behind the trigger when I do that check on a enclosed hammer gun

You're a braver man than I, sir…;)

However… curiousity overwhelms me. You've got one hand on the gun, pulling the trigger- the other hand's thumb behind the trigger… what do you use to spin the cylinder with???

I just tried it on my M-342. I did manage to rotate the cylinder with my left index finger, but was rewarded with a charley horse in the meta-carpal region.

Admittedly, I have short fingers. But still…?

.

Chuck Haggard
09-23-2014, 05:41 PM
Shooting hand thumb.

Part of my bedroom wall is a 2 1/2ft thick brick chimney from floor to ceiling. Safe backstop, I has it.

jetfire
09-23-2014, 10:50 PM
Shooting hand thumb.

Part of my bedroom wall is a 2 1/2" thick brick chimney from floor to ceiling. Safe backstop, I has it.

That's actually pretty ingenious.

RevolverRob
09-23-2014, 11:57 PM
Hmm. I've never checked for high primers like what you guys are proposing. Which as I understand it, is basically to rotate the cylinder so all chambers line up under the firing pin?

I always do a tactile check, by running my thumb over the primers in freshly loaded cartridges (not when speed loading, just administrative loading). Then I close the gun and invert it and look at the cartridges against the recoil shield on the right (non-latch) side of the gun. Then I just unlock the cylinder, rotate it two chambers, close it and check it again. It's a bit slow, but you can spot a high primer this way, because the cartridge with the high primer will have the rim above the other cartridge rims when inverted. I haven't had one, where the primer wasn't high enough to lift the rim a noticeable amount visually tie up a gun. That's in Colts, Smiths, or Rugers.

LSP972 - LCRs can be kind of hit and miss. I haven't found one that is as "tight" as a Smith, but they don't lock up the same way, so that's not terribly surprising. Most of them rattle a bunch more than J-Frames. And I agree entirely about the stock LCR stocks and even the LCR "boot grip". Too big, too wrong, too rubbery, for easy pocket carry. But Eagle is making wood boot grips for them now and maybe VZ will come out with some minimalist Micartas to make the world a better place. The LCR has one really distinct advantage - well two actually. 1) Pinned front sight. 2) Readily available and relatively inexpensive .22LR option.

-Rob

Chuck Haggard
09-24-2014, 06:57 AM
With hammer guns it's easy to just pull the hammer back a touch and rotate the cylinder TV cowboy style. If it rotates freely then it's GTG

My concealed hammer snub method ammo check method is something I came up with on my own, and frankly it's doing an unsafe thing as safely as possible. I only do that when I am both wide awake, not trying to "multitask", and I need to put new carry ammo in that gun, and only where and when I can afford to get a bang if I fuck it up. I'm at least as careful as when I dry fire, perhaps more so, and I am pretty anal about my dry practice safety regimen.

LSP972
09-24-2014, 07:51 AM
LSP972 - LCRs can be kind of hit and miss. I haven't found one that is as "tight" as a Smith, but they don't lock up the same way, so that's not terribly surprising. Most of them rattle a bunch more than J-Frames. -Rob


That, I'll buy. The first one I handled/shot was for my mother. After my dad passed, she wanted something to keep handy, as she insists on living alone in their house and his few handguns were all unsuitable for an elderly woman. So we went shopping. I kept trying to steer toward a J frame with Pachmyar Compac rubber stocks, but once she felt an LCR she announced "This is the one I want."


So ordered. I bought it, and put 100 factory wadcutters through it before cleaning it, reloading it with wadcutters, and giving it to her. As you noted, it wasn't very tight to begin with, but after those 100 wadcutters, it was loose as a goose... indeed, it rattled.

Now... I am aware that Ruger has a reputation for building durable firearms. I have no doubt that LCR, loose as it is, will continue to work without issue. But loosening up that fast, after just a small number of low-powered rounds, isn't exactly confidence-inspiring. But what are you gonna do? Mom is a hard-headed Cajun, so I relented. The fact that it will probably never be shot again was a factor in that decision.

I have since handled/shot a half-dozen or so other LCRs that have come through the lab. None of them, including the one I bought for Mom, featured this supposedly-orgasmic trigger action I keep hearing about.

And I see where one new version apparently has an exposed hammer?

Whatever; it seems to be selling well, so that's good for Ruger. I'll admit to having far too much time and effort invested in J frames to even think about something else.

.

GJM
09-24-2014, 10:03 AM
In case it hasn't been posted, a review with velocity info, etc.:

http://www.realguns.com/articles/655.htm

Wonder if this causes S&W to reintroduce something?

Rich
09-24-2014, 10:21 AM
Even if the LCR 9mm was reliable I would stick with the 38spl / 38spl+P .

One thing going for a 9mm snub is that there is more LE loads on the list in 9mm than 38spl / +P

TCinVA
09-24-2014, 10:25 AM
I looked really hard at the LCR on multiple occasions, but I could never get past the extra bulk and the feel of the trigger.



Wonder if this causes S&W to reintroduce something?

Given the amount of monkey-see, monkey-do in the gun industry I wouldn't bet against it.

Gary1911A1
09-24-2014, 10:35 AM
Interesting, but I'd be concerned if Ruger didn't put a heavy DA trigger pull on it like other makers of 9MM revolvers have done in the past to ensure ignition of hard primers in some imported ammo. Think I'll wait and just keep my LCR in .38Special.

Charlie Foxtrot
09-24-2014, 11:29 AM
And, I give up; what does that acronym YPYMAMYC stand for?


Hmm, I'm surprised - I've handled several LCRs and shot one. The DA trigger pulls were pretty consistent gun to gun: 38 or 357, and appreciably better than the snubbie I was loaned. The snubbie had a long, heavy and gritty DA pull that stacked significantly right before let off. But than, I'm not a revolver guy. I'm with you, semi is the way to go. BTW: Only shot the LCR because the wife took me to the range to try out a bunch of CCW firearms. She IS a revolver fan - hatin' on my Glocks.

What did she choose? The S&W M&P 9 and 9C. Go figure.

Wimmens.

YPYMAMYC is ironic hipster for "Youz Pays Youz Money And Makes Youz Choices".

BN
09-24-2014, 12:29 PM
Now if Ruger , or a 3" 9mm SP101...


I have a Ruger SP101 3" in 9mm. Sticky extraction, floppy moon clips, (even the good ones from moonclips.com) and for a heavy steel gun, it has snappy recoil. Mine has fixed sights and shoots below point of aim. Sits in the safe. :(

LSP972
09-24-2014, 12:30 PM
I'm not a revolver guy. I'm with you, semi is the way to go.

For a primary, yes. I still think the snubby revolver is best for a secondary/back-up.

I was weaned on the 1911 in the army, then was required to carry revolvers for ten years when I became a po-lice. And then the semi-auto "revolution" came to US law enforcement, and the circle was complete.:D

.

jetfire
09-24-2014, 01:51 PM
I have a Ruger SP101 3" in 9mm. Sticky extraction, floppy moon clips, (even the good ones from moonclips.com) and for a heavy steel gun, it has snappy recoil. Mine has fixed sights and shoots below point of aim. Sits in the safe. :(

The snappy recoil thing is a good point: I've never shot a 9mm snubby that was less snappy than a similar .38.

RevolverRob
09-24-2014, 02:45 PM
The snappy recoil thing is a good point: I've never shot a 9mm snubby that was less snappy than a similar .38.

Well that follows the physics of the thing.

124-grain bullet at ~1100 fps vs. a 158-grain bullet at ~850 fps from a gun weighing approximately the same. Try as we might, we can't really beat physics on Earth.

-Rob

abu fitna
09-24-2014, 05:38 PM
Given the amount of monkey-see, monkey-do in the gun industry I wouldn't bet against it.

Unfortunately, my bet is they revamp the BG 38 for this. While I dont hate the thing as much as some folks (I have a much higher degree of tolerance for weapons which lack all soul and are mere functional objects), I am curious if the platform can take the stress. I dont know that original chambering has proven itself in the long run to satisfaction, let alone something more fierce.

Gary1911A1
09-25-2014, 10:56 AM
Well that follows the physics of the thing.

124-grain bullet at ~1100 fps vs. a 158-grain bullet at ~850 fps from a gun weighing approximately the same. Try as we might, we can't really beat physics on Earth.

-Rob

Do you think the higher chamber pressure of the 9MM has something to do with it too?

Frank R
09-25-2014, 11:12 AM
Well that follows the physics of the thing.

124-grain bullet at ~1100 fps vs. a 158-grain bullet at ~850 fps from a gun weighing approximately the same. Try as we might, we can't really beat physics on Earth.


I shoot a DPX @ 1050 in my 38 with no ill effects. The 9mm is 4oz heavier. So much for physics.
-Rob

JonInWA
09-25-2014, 03:46 PM
I have a Ruger SP101 3" in 9mm. Sticky extraction, floppy moon clips, (even the good ones from moonclips.com) and for a heavy steel gun, it has snappy recoil. Mine has fixed sights and shoots below point of aim. Sits in the safe. :(

Thanks for sharing, Bill. Another of my fantasy gun bucket list potentials bites the dust...

Now if there was a compact grip 3"/4" GP100, with suitably durable and reliable moon clips in 9mm...

Best, Jon

RevolverRob
09-25-2014, 06:32 PM
Do you think the higher chamber pressure of the 9MM has something to do with it too?

No clue - I'll leave that to the actual physics experts. Higher chamber pressure explains why 9mm can fire a bullet of the same weight at a higher velocity. Edit - Actually this does impact recoil. Higher chamber pressure would equal higher propellant gas velocities in the equation below.


I shoot a DPX @ 1050 in my 38 with no ill effects. The 9mm is 4oz heavier. So much for physics.

I am not sure what you mean, honestly. Yes the 9mm is 4 ounces heavier than the .38 LCR. DPX is a 110-grain bullet at 1050, by definition in the same weight gun, it would have LESS recoil than a 124-grain bullet at 1100. That's how physics works, it's a universal Law, not subject to whim or arbitrary definition.

http://www.saami.org/PubResources/GunRecoilFormulae.pdf

Recoil = 1/2 MV^2 - Where M = Mass of Firearm, V = Velocity of Recoiling Firearm (not muzzle velocity). V = (We * Ve) + (Wpr * Vpg)/7000*Wf - Where We = Weight (in grains) of ejecta, Ve = Velocity of Ejecta (FPS), Wpr = Weight of propellant gases (grains), Vpg = Velocity of Propellant Gases (FPS), divided by 7000 (conversion of grains to pounds), Wf = Weight of Firearm in pounds (if you converted this to grains, would not need the conversion factor).

When you work this out, if Weight of firearm is the same, you have to factor weight of cartridge which between .38 and 9mm is in .38s favor for being larger (more mass), and bullet weight and velocity are higher in 9mm handgun, as well it is a higher pressure cartridge (see above) and therefore propellant gases would have a higher velocity as well. If you worked it out the 4 ounces heavier in the 9mm gun might equal the same recoil as a moderately slower bullet of lower weight in a lighter gun, but likely you'll find that recoil is still larger in the 9mm gun. I honestly do not have all of the numbers here, or I would work out the equations to show you and learn it myself, but this is how kinetic energy equations work, physics works.

And in fact if you looked at this situation .38 special brass is heavier, even if you had a gun the same weight, same bullet weight, same velocity, recoil would definitively be lower - because of the increased mass of .38 Special brass over 9x19, AND because of the lower propellant velocity by having less pressure within the case. Although, I suspect it would be such a miniscule difference that detecting or measuring it would be nearly impossible without advanced equipment, but none the less that recoil would be less. Math and physics, they work.

-Rob

PS: This works great for revolvers, because there is no reciprocating mechanism to impact velocity of the firearm. In a weapon with reciprocating action - totally different situation.

Frank R
09-25-2014, 11:31 PM
No clue - I'll leave that to the actual physics experts. Higher chamber pressure explains why 9mm can fire a bullet of the same weight at a higher velocity. Edit - Actually this does impact recoil. Higher chamber pressure would equal higher propellant gas velocities in the equation below.



I am not sure what you mean, honestly. Yes the 9mm is 4 ounces heavier than the .38 LCR. DPX is a 110-grain bullet at 1050, by definition in the same weight gun, it would have LESS recoil than a 124-grain bullet at 1100. That's how physics works, it's a universal Law, not subject to whim or arbitrary definition.

http://www.saami.org/PubResources/GunRecoilFormulae.pdf

Recoil = 1/2 MV^2 - Where M = Mass of Firearm, V = Velocity of Recoiling Firearm (not muzzle velocity). V = (We * Ve) + (Wpr * Vpg)/7000*Wf - Where We = Weight (in grains) of ejecta, Ve = Velocity of Ejecta (FPS), Wpr = Weight of propellant gases (grains), Vpg = Velocity of Propellant Gases (FPS), divided by 7000 (conversion of grains to pounds), Wf = Weight of Firearm in pounds (if you converted this to grains, would not need the conversion factor).

When you work this out, if Weight of firearm is the same, you have to factor weight of cartridge which between .38 and 9mm is in .38s favor for being larger (more mass), and bullet weight and velocity are higher in 9mm handgun, as well it is a higher pressure cartridge (see above) and therefore propellant gases would have a higher velocity as well. If you worked it out the 4 ounces heavier in the 9mm gun might equal the same recoil as a moderately slower bullet of lower weight in a lighter gun, but likely you'll find that recoil is still larger in the 9mm gun. I honestly do not have all of the numbers here, or I would work out the equations to show you and learn it myself, but this is how kinetic energy equations work, physics works.

And in fact if you looked at this situation .38 special brass is heavier, even if you had a gun the same weight, same bullet weight, same velocity, recoil would definitively be lower - because of the increased mass of .38 Special brass over 9x19, AND because of the lower propellant velocity by having less pressure within the case. Although, I suspect it would be such a miniscule difference that detecting or measuring it would be nearly impossible without advanced equipment, but none the less that recoil would be less. Math and physics, they work.

-Rob

PS: This works great for revolvers, because there is no reciprocating mechanism to impact velocity of the firearm. In a weapon with reciprocating action - totally different situation.

I'd like to see your results using the examples mentioned.

BN
09-26-2014, 11:36 AM
Thanks for sharing, Bill. Another of my fantasy gun bucket list potentials bites the dust...

Now if there was a compact grip 3"/4" GP100, with suitably durable and reliable moon clips in 9mm...

Best, Jon

One time I also test drove a Ruger Speed Six in 9mm with a 2 3/4" barrel. It also had very snappy recoil. I put a set of big Pachmayer grips on it trying to tame it down. No joy. :(

I think anyone carrying a J-Frame size revolver should learn to make the first 5 shots count. ;) An old saying from J-Frame shooting detectives that were kicking a door. "Take 5 and dive". That meant shoot 5 times and get out of the way of the next officer through the door. :)

Smash
10-01-2014, 10:31 AM
Going to shoot tomorrow.

What questions would everyone like answered?
I'm not writing a full review. I'll leave that to the pros like Gun Nuts.

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/F2SConsulting/38A37F3C-FC52-4536-9F7E-83ACA7A13C84_zps3shvcmnd.jpg (http://s1097.photobucket.com/user/F2SConsulting/media/38A37F3C-FC52-4536-9F7E-83ACA7A13C84_zps3shvcmnd.jpg.html)

Sean O
10-01-2014, 11:01 AM
Going to shoot tomorrow.

What questions would everyone like answered?
I'm not writing a full review. I'll leave that to the pros like Gun Nuts.


Biggest question I would like answered is can it be fired without the moon clips (I understand the no extraction part)? One review said it can, would like to have it confirmed if you don't mind.

Chuck Haggard
10-01-2014, 11:07 AM
What weight bullets does that beast seem to be zero'd with? is a question I have.

Clay
10-01-2014, 11:24 AM
Recoil compared to a .38 special +p.

Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk

Gary1911A1
10-02-2014, 09:01 AM
Is the DA pull incresed to bust harder primers used in some imported 9MM ammo?

Mike C
10-02-2014, 09:26 AM
Is the cylinder release latch any different than on the LCR(K) model in .357 mag, or does it at lease not operate like a cheap $2.00 watch? I've shot one a good bit recently and couldn't stand how awkward and flimsy the release latch was. It required pretty deliberate and precise manipulation to open the cylinder, I did not find it nearly as easy to operate as a latch on a 642/442 or 340PD when trying to speed reload.

Smash
10-02-2014, 12:54 PM
Dont complain about the pictures I'm not Stickman. :cool:

From left to right .38 LCR, Bodyguard .38, S&W 438, LCR 9mm.
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/F2SConsulting/FE9AFCC1-03CC-4AEB-9140-CF4CDB5D9AE6_zpswzbdl65j.jpg (http://s1097.photobucket.com/user/F2SConsulting/media/FE9AFCC1-03CC-4AEB-9140-CF4CDB5D9AE6_zpswzbdl65j.jpg.html)

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/F2SConsulting/76176A05-61E8-4C1A-9471-A84DA81A03DC_zpsuemy2v3b.jpg (http://s1097.photobucket.com/user/F2SConsulting/media/76176A05-61E8-4C1A-9471-A84DA81A03DC_zpsuemy2v3b.jpg.html)

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/F2SConsulting/FA1D47A0-05C1-4A77-8030-5BBE4E00EF71_zps54i7s9if.jpg (http://s1097.photobucket.com/user/F2SConsulting/media/FA1D47A0-05C1-4A77-8030-5BBE4E00EF71_zps54i7s9if.jpg.html)

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/F2SConsulting/99F61F03-85A1-4631-8996-191B79027EE8_zpsocpliz51.jpg (http://s1097.photobucket.com/user/F2SConsulting/media/99F61F03-85A1-4631-8996-191B79027EE8_zpsocpliz51.jpg.html)

SW 438 vs LCR 9MM
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/F2SConsulting/EBB5D33A-F830-4C39-9D02-21DE0C18DC6C_zpsumn4jrvv.jpg (http://s1097.photobucket.com/user/F2SConsulting/media/EBB5D33A-F830-4C39-9D02-21DE0C18DC6C_zpsumn4jrvv.jpg.html)

Bodyguard vs LCR
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/F2SConsulting/87FB9D7D-3164-493F-9D2A-CE5DCC4C4F8C_zpsodlfte6y.jpg (http://s1097.photobucket.com/user/F2SConsulting/media/87FB9D7D-3164-493F-9D2A-CE5DCC4C4F8C_zpsodlfte6y.jpg.html)

Smash
10-02-2014, 01:00 PM
Biggest question I would like answered is can it be fired without the moon clips (I understand the no extraction part)? One review said it can, would like to have it confirmed if you don't mind.

I screwed this one up and forgot to try this. It was even one of the main things I wanted to try.

Long story short. Our tritium front sight for the .38 model doesnt work for the 9mm. I was so p*ssed because of that I didn't ensure to run all of the tests.

Smash
10-02-2014, 01:10 PM
What weight bullets does that beast seem to be zero'd with? is a question I have.

We only shot it with our .38 LCR Sights. They dont regulate as the front sight is too tall. We cant go shorter because it doesnt allow any room to fit the tritium vial in.

With that in mind, the closest we had to regulating was the 147gr Cor Bon FMJ marked as 900FPS, next was Winchester 9mm NATO, then the 115gr +P, the worst was Magtech 124gr.

2" low - 6" low was the range on all of these.

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/F2SConsulting/FA047BEF-4E3E-454E-8C42-2A55A3BCA308_zps2iulhijh.jpg (http://s1097.photobucket.com/user/F2SConsulting/media/FA047BEF-4E3E-454E-8C42-2A55A3BCA308_zps2iulhijh.jpg.html)

Smash
10-02-2014, 01:13 PM
Recoil compared to a .38 special +p.

Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk

I cant give a definitive on this answer. I would say recoil on the +P and the NATO 9mm was about the same if not a little better than shooting 110gr .38 Special +P. I think different grips on my J frame that matched the LCRs grips may change the felt recoil. Personal opinion only.

Smash
10-02-2014, 01:14 PM
Is the DA pull incresed to bust harder primers used in some imported 9MM ammo?

The cylinder latch is still gritty and not solid and tactile like the J frame.

Smash
10-02-2014, 01:15 PM
Is the DA pull incresed to bust harder primers used in some imported 9MM ammo?

The DA pull feels the same. I havent put it on a guage to find out the scientific numbers. The DA pull on the LCR 9mm is much better than on my S&W 438(Smoother and "feels" lighter)

Clay
10-02-2014, 02:52 PM
Thanks!

Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk

Mike C
10-02-2014, 03:56 PM
Smash thanks for sharing. What range are your numbers from for POA/POI?

Smash
10-04-2014, 07:46 AM
Sorry, that's important isn't it? I was shooting from 15yds

ekrauos
10-14-2014, 04:43 PM
Would a 9mm moon clip revolver make sense in this case? just thinking out loud...

Joe blow concealed carries this thing with no reload. While at home he still carries the 9mm revolver with no reload, however; he was moon clip reloads stashed all over his house...

From a money standpoint, it would be cheaper than buying .38 spcl and a bunch of speed loaders. Any merit?

GK17
10-25-2014, 06:15 PM
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.

http://rugerpistolforums.com/forums/lcr-discussion/20476-lcr-9mm-buy-one-handle-one.html#post239585

gunnerd147
11-04-2014, 09:31 AM
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/shopdisplayproducts.asp?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/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=51YK0Q4A35O1&coliid=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
11-05-2014, 08:07 AM
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
11-09-2014, 10:49 AM
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
11-15-2014, 11:15 AM
Bruce at MouseGunAddict reviews LCR9.

http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/

Chuck Haggard
11-15-2014, 02:38 PM
Anyone tried shooting it without the clips yet?

GK17
11-15-2014, 05:21 PM
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/#sthash.eCHB8c29.dpuf "

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v391/BDSBruce/Blog%20Photos%204/72b65cd7-e1e4-43f3-8d0a-c95d390aff4e_zpsfcacd34a.jpg

jh9
11-19-2014, 06:33 PM
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
11-24-2014, 11:59 AM
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.