Doc_Glock
12-19-2021, 11:08 AM
81553
There has been a lot of discussion on these revolvers lately and this is just a short post with my observations. I have one example of both and have ~2500ish rounds through both. Plus a lot of "unprotected" dry fire in that I didn't put anything in the chamber. Ruger says this is okay, Smith I think advises snap caps.
They area both concealable .22 8 shot revolvers.
81554
On first impressions the Ruger is built more robustly and has a better trigger. Over time and a lot of trigger pulls, however the Smith trigger improves quite a bit in both smoothness and weight to become the Ruger's equal. The 43C's pull is shorter with minimal over travel and the reset spring is more robust, which along with a shorter reset makes the 43C near impossible to short stroke. More on that later. Total weight not measurable on either with my equipment, but estimated 10-12lbs
81555
With time and rounds, the LCR has become a little looser feeling than the 43C, but they both work quite well.
The LCR sight is well regulated and very intuitive to use. It is a classic rectangular post inside a rectangular groove: equal height, equal light.
The 43C uses a round big dot post that goes into a half circle groove with a portion of the dot above the groove and generally hits behind the dot. It isn't intuitive and it doesn't feel fast, and precision is difficult with this sight.
43C is 12.4oz loaded with 8X40 grain
LCR is 15.7oz loaded with 8X40 grain.
The 43c is marginally smaller.
Both are ammo sensitive and you have to find ammo they like. Both revolvers, for me, do not like Minimags and the 43C also won't work well with CCI SV ammo although Velocitors are fine. Ammo sensitivity is demonstrated by: The cylinder locking up halfway through a firing session, rounds sticking in the cylinder, hammer strikes that do not ignite primers. I can not emphasize enough that you have to test a bunch of ammo in these and find something that is reliable for the revolver. The LCR is decidedly less finicky than the 43C which kind of drove me nuts trying to figure out how to get minimags to run in it. Ultimately I gave up and it happily chews up craptastic golden bullets.
Both will start to have problems extracting as the cylinder gets hot after maybe 3-5 cylinders rapid fire. The 43C more so.
I shoot the both about the same: 0.21-0.23 splits to a B8 black at 5 yards, and can pretty easily keep them all on a B8 at 15 yards with controlled sighted fire. 25 yard groups are extremely challenging and I am lucky to keep them all on a B8
The groups below are all 80 round groups, the 5 yard groups fired as fast as I could pull the trigger at 5 and the 15 yard at about a 1/second pace snatching the trigger as soon as I saw a sight picture.
81552
I split the 43C marginally, like 0.01-0.02 faster.
Most importantly, I never short stroke the 43C, and I can and will short stroke the LCR when chasing splits about once a cylinder until I really adapt to the thing.
The 43C in general is jewel like, except the barrel, which spits lead to the top of the frame. Also the crown is pretty much non existent and difficult to get to with how the barrel is located in the frame. This spitting started early and has stayed stable and I am told by other 43C owners that it is "normal"
81556
81557
Those photos are from early ownership and I would actually say the lead is less bad now, somehow and I never really chipped it off much.
The 43C extractor star is a WTF example of terrible attention to detail, it works somehow but yuck.
81558
The LCR Barrel is beautiful from forcing cone to crown, but the rest of the revolver feels less tightly assembled than the 43C, and, I guess "cheaper" in feel and assembly. But it also doesn't have the 43C's glaring flaws in small parts. It is put together nicely and consistently, it just feels cheap.
All in all if I had to keep one, it would be the 43C for the following reasons:
1. It is way lighter.
2. I don't short stroke it.
3. It is marginally smaller.
4. The overall package feels more quality over time.
That is saying a lot for me because I have bitched and moaned about the 43C quite a bit in my training journal. It has been drama with the lead spitting and ammo sensitivity. I just had to give up wanting to run my abundant supply of minimags through it and just use other ammo. The 43C also seems to have a decided break in period. New, out of the box, the Ruger ran circles around it.
Fact is I don't consider either of these serious self defense guns, not to say they won't work. I have sold all my small DA centerfire revolvers since I find them sucky to shoot and not any better to carry than a 9mm Glock. And I can shoot any 9mm Glock with a real round, at the same speed and better accuracy than either of these two .22 revolvers. However, these small .22s fun, great DA trainers, don't beat you up, and would be pretty safe for pocket carry.
There has been a lot of discussion on these revolvers lately and this is just a short post with my observations. I have one example of both and have ~2500ish rounds through both. Plus a lot of "unprotected" dry fire in that I didn't put anything in the chamber. Ruger says this is okay, Smith I think advises snap caps.
They area both concealable .22 8 shot revolvers.
81554
On first impressions the Ruger is built more robustly and has a better trigger. Over time and a lot of trigger pulls, however the Smith trigger improves quite a bit in both smoothness and weight to become the Ruger's equal. The 43C's pull is shorter with minimal over travel and the reset spring is more robust, which along with a shorter reset makes the 43C near impossible to short stroke. More on that later. Total weight not measurable on either with my equipment, but estimated 10-12lbs
81555
With time and rounds, the LCR has become a little looser feeling than the 43C, but they both work quite well.
The LCR sight is well regulated and very intuitive to use. It is a classic rectangular post inside a rectangular groove: equal height, equal light.
The 43C uses a round big dot post that goes into a half circle groove with a portion of the dot above the groove and generally hits behind the dot. It isn't intuitive and it doesn't feel fast, and precision is difficult with this sight.
43C is 12.4oz loaded with 8X40 grain
LCR is 15.7oz loaded with 8X40 grain.
The 43c is marginally smaller.
Both are ammo sensitive and you have to find ammo they like. Both revolvers, for me, do not like Minimags and the 43C also won't work well with CCI SV ammo although Velocitors are fine. Ammo sensitivity is demonstrated by: The cylinder locking up halfway through a firing session, rounds sticking in the cylinder, hammer strikes that do not ignite primers. I can not emphasize enough that you have to test a bunch of ammo in these and find something that is reliable for the revolver. The LCR is decidedly less finicky than the 43C which kind of drove me nuts trying to figure out how to get minimags to run in it. Ultimately I gave up and it happily chews up craptastic golden bullets.
Both will start to have problems extracting as the cylinder gets hot after maybe 3-5 cylinders rapid fire. The 43C more so.
I shoot the both about the same: 0.21-0.23 splits to a B8 black at 5 yards, and can pretty easily keep them all on a B8 at 15 yards with controlled sighted fire. 25 yard groups are extremely challenging and I am lucky to keep them all on a B8
The groups below are all 80 round groups, the 5 yard groups fired as fast as I could pull the trigger at 5 and the 15 yard at about a 1/second pace snatching the trigger as soon as I saw a sight picture.
81552
I split the 43C marginally, like 0.01-0.02 faster.
Most importantly, I never short stroke the 43C, and I can and will short stroke the LCR when chasing splits about once a cylinder until I really adapt to the thing.
The 43C in general is jewel like, except the barrel, which spits lead to the top of the frame. Also the crown is pretty much non existent and difficult to get to with how the barrel is located in the frame. This spitting started early and has stayed stable and I am told by other 43C owners that it is "normal"
81556
81557
Those photos are from early ownership and I would actually say the lead is less bad now, somehow and I never really chipped it off much.
The 43C extractor star is a WTF example of terrible attention to detail, it works somehow but yuck.
81558
The LCR Barrel is beautiful from forcing cone to crown, but the rest of the revolver feels less tightly assembled than the 43C, and, I guess "cheaper" in feel and assembly. But it also doesn't have the 43C's glaring flaws in small parts. It is put together nicely and consistently, it just feels cheap.
All in all if I had to keep one, it would be the 43C for the following reasons:
1. It is way lighter.
2. I don't short stroke it.
3. It is marginally smaller.
4. The overall package feels more quality over time.
That is saying a lot for me because I have bitched and moaned about the 43C quite a bit in my training journal. It has been drama with the lead spitting and ammo sensitivity. I just had to give up wanting to run my abundant supply of minimags through it and just use other ammo. The 43C also seems to have a decided break in period. New, out of the box, the Ruger ran circles around it.
Fact is I don't consider either of these serious self defense guns, not to say they won't work. I have sold all my small DA centerfire revolvers since I find them sucky to shoot and not any better to carry than a 9mm Glock. And I can shoot any 9mm Glock with a real round, at the same speed and better accuracy than either of these two .22 revolvers. However, these small .22s fun, great DA trainers, don't beat you up, and would be pretty safe for pocket carry.