Ruger has released several new LCRx models

Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
523
Likes
108
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
This news is about 2 weeks old, but I haven't seen any other topics here about these new offerings from Ruger. I'm a fan of their LCRx revolvers... even though I totally skipped their .22 LCRx after waiting a year for it to release and got an SR22 instead, which I'm very happy with btw.

Anyway, new LCRx revolvers are a 2 inch snub in 9mm, .327, and .22 Mag, and a 3 inch .22 Mag.

I like the 9mm and .327 offerings, I think they'll sell well, but I don't understand why anyone would get a .22 Mag revolver that only holds 6 rounds and will still have as heavy a trigger as a .22 LR revolver and you can literally get .32 S&W Long ammo online for about the same price as .22 Mag ammo.

I'm a big fan of .327 and have been eyeing the SP101, but I think I'm gonna wait until Ruger comes out with the 3 inch LCRx in .327 before I make a decision.

Anyway, what do you guys think of the LCR's with exposed hammers?
 
Right now on AmmoSeek, you can find .22WMR starting at .16/round. The cheapest .32 S&W Long is .28/round. That's a pretty big difference.
 
Anyway, what do you guys think of the LCR's with exposed hammers?
The original Lightweight Carry Revolver was specifically made for pocket carry. Within the LCR market, there are those that want to hit bulleyes at the range via single action. Although I love the idea, I worry that the exposed hammer will interfere with pocket draw. If it were holstered, then it might work (but I would rather carry an auto on the hip anyway). I wonder what the LCRx sales are compared to the standard version?
 
Anyway, what do you guys think of the LCR's with exposed hammers?

Had one in .38 spl. It was fun to shoot to despite the recoil, and surprisingly accurate for a mediocre shooter like me. But it kept shaking its own parts loose and I eventually got rid of it. I've had no such trouble with my SP101.
 
I'd like to get an LCRx in .327 or .22WMR and bob the hammer like I had done with my old Model 60. Then you've got the best of both worlds, with a SA (if you're careful) and good pocket draw.

I still think Ruger missed the boat by making the .22 WMR a six shot in the same size as the 9 shot .22LR - which just equates to extra weight, presumably to tame the mighty magnum. I think a 9 shot .22Mag in a lightweight package would be a very good minimum carry piece, especially for those with disabilities making full power loads or large autos difficult to shoot.
 
I still think Ruger missed the boat by making the .22 WMR a six shot in the same size as the 9 shot .22LR
The LCRx .22lr is 8 shot, not 9 (I own one). I don't think they could make an 8 shot .22WMR without making the cylinder larger, but it seems like they might have made a 7 shot. I suspect that the issue might be heat. The .22WMR cartridges definitely tend to be a little stickier.
 
The LCRx .22lr is 8 shot, not 9 (I own one). I don't think they could make an 8 shot .22WMR without making the cylinder larger, but it seems like they might have made a 7 shot. I suspect that the issue might be heat. The .22WMR cartridges definitely tend to be a little stickier.

My bad - good catch. I think I had the old H&R revolvers on the brain for the 9 shot. Even a 7 shot would still be lighter, and isn't that what you want in a plastic pocket gun?
I'm sure you're right in that the cylinder would need to be thicker, but I can't see why. Would the pressure be that much greater? I know the case of a WMR is a LITTLE thicker, but not by much, is it? I know that on my Single Six, the cylinders are the same size, but that's not a pocket gun by any stretch. (I'm not a gun designer, engineer or rocket surgeon - genuinely asking)
 
Right now on AmmoSeek, you can find .22WMR starting at .16/round. The cheapest .32 S&W Long is .28/round. That's a pretty big difference.
I was thinking about short barrel JHP .22 Magnum ammo like Hornady Critical Defense and Speer Gold Dots. They're basically .22 Magnum ammo designed to work with handgun barrels and not 20 inch rifles. I find they shoot more accurate.

But, if someone wanted the cheapest, most substandard .22 Mag ammo to use in a revolver, yeah, that is cheaper. But a .32 will penetrate deeper.

And also be more reliable. I've had more misfires with .22 Mag than I've ever had with .22 LR.
 
My bad - good catch. I think I had the old H&R revolvers on the brain for the 9 shot. Even a 7 shot would still be lighter, and isn't that what you want in a plastic pocket gun?
I'm sure you're right in that the cylinder would need to be thicker, but I can't see why. Would the pressure be that much greater? I know the case of a WMR is a LITTLE thicker, but not by much, is it? I know that on my Single Six, the cylinders are the same size, but that's not a pocket gun by any stretch. (I'm not a gun designer, engineer or rocket surgeon - genuinely asking)
I'm not a gun designer either, but the .22 mag is slightly larger meaning that if you went to 8 shots in the same size cylinder, you'd have less metal between chambers than the .22lr with a significantly higher pressure round. Probably not a good idea. The real question is why they didn't go with 7 shots like Smith & Wesson. Again, my guess (and it's just a guess) is that it might have something to do with heat dispersion. There are 3 .22 mags in my house, 2 LCRs and a Charter Arms Pathfinder. All 3 are prone to empty casings sticking in the cylinder. And the more you shoot 'em (i.e. the hotter they get) the more they stick.
 
I like the weight and feel of the LCRx in.38 snubbie. I also want the option of single action, I have had one screw loosen up over a few range trips.
Overall I like it, would love to try a 3 inch.

I suppose there is a market for .22mag though Id be hard pressed to understand why. .38, .327, and .22lr in snubbie and 3 inch would cover alot of ground.
 
You can't compare the price of .22WMR premium defense ammo with .32 S&W Long range ammo. I'm not sure anyone even makes defense ammo in .32 S&W Long.
Alright, fine, price aside, which is a huge variable, .32 S&W Long and H&R and .327 Magnums are better performers than .22 Mag defensively and if one is going to buy a 2 inch snub nose, then the bigger caliber is a better choice.

And I think for whatever more the price will be for the ammunition, they are superior to even .22 Mag defense ammo.
 
.32 S&W Long and H&R and .327 Magnums are better performers than .22 Mag defensively and if one is going to buy a 2 inch snub nose, then the bigger caliber is a better choice.
No argument there. The big problem is that almost nobody (other than Ruger) is making new guns in .327 magnum, and I don't think anyone is making new guns in .32 S&W, .32 S&W Long or .32 H&R Magnum. I've been following those calibers for a while because I think something like the LCR .327 that can shoot the .32 calibers would be ideal for me, since the arthritis in my shooting hand won't allow me to shoot larger caliber revolvers. But if they don't become popular, the ammo will always be expensive, if you can even get it.

Given that I'm 64 and already have arthritis in my shooting hand, I figure I'm not going to be able to carry my Shields forever. If I'm going to have to go to a revolver, it's probably going to be something like an LCRx .22 magnum. Unless the .327 finally catches on, that is.
 
No argument there. The big problem is that almost nobody (other than Ruger) is making new guns in .327 magnum, and I don't think anyone is making new guns in .32 S&W, .32 S&W Long or .32 H&R Magnum. I've been following those calibers for a while because I think something like the LCR .327 that can shoot the .32 calibers would be ideal for me, since the arthritis in my shooting hand won't allow me to shoot larger caliber revolvers. But if they don't become popular, the ammo will always be expensive, if you can even get it.

Given that I'm 64 and already have arthritis in my shooting hand, I figure I'm not going to be able to carry my Shields forever. If I'm going to have to go to a revolver, it's probably going to be something like an LCRx .22 magnum. Unless the .327 finally catches on, that is.
One of the problems I've seen with the Ruger LCR .22 Mag is that because it is a DAO only gun, it will light strike and not fire the round. This seems to be an issue with .22 Magnum ammunition because I have a SA revolver that consistently fires .22 LR, but when I swap the cylinders to .22 Mag, misfires abound.

The exposed hammer LCRx's may help reduce that issue with .22 Mag, but then the question becomes "Why buy or even carry a revolver that has such problems when the .32 won't and has more power?"

You will always be able to find .32 S&W Long ammo for a decent price online and if you're so inclined in retirement, reloading is a viable option with the .32 calibers. They don't use much lead or powder.
 
Does anyone really ever shoot a snubbie enough that ammo cost should be a serious consideration?
 
Actually, yes. Any gun that I carry is going to get fired a lot. If you don't shoot it, you can't be proficient with it.

I guess it depends upon the definition of a lot. I've never seen anyone go through several boxes of ammo with a snubbie, and I'm at the range very often. Maybe I'll see someone burn through a box to practice for proficiency, but how many rounds does one actually need to be confident to hit a target 10 feet away?

Don't get me wrong- snubs have their purpose. Burning through a lot of ammo just doesn't seem common to me and I doubt I'll ever see evidence that proves me wrong though I'm sure there are exceptions.

I'd pick a caliber based on matching what you already have, or if not that go for .357/.38. Wadcutters can be loaded for pennies, and hot magnum loads aren't something anyone is going to enjoy burning through box after box. Therefore, cost doesn't have to be an issue.

I'll need to check out an LCRx. I prefer a hammer, and if the trigger pull is as nice as the original LCR's it should be great.
 
I guess it depends upon the definition of a lot. I've never seen anyone go through several boxes of ammo with a snubbie, and I'm at the range very often. Maybe I'll see someone burn through a box to practice for proficiency, but how many rounds does one actually need to be confident to hit a target 10 feet away?
Every time I shoot my LCR, I put at least 100 rounds through it, and I practice at the same distances that I do with my Shields. Threats don't change because you're carrying a revolver.
 
Does anyone really ever shoot a snubbie enough that ammo cost should be a serious consideration?
For the average person, probably not, but for a gun enthusiast, yes they do.

Price of a gun and ammo is absolutely in the forefront of an average person's mind; they do not want to spend more money than they have to. The result of that is they buy guns they feel will protect them that are low recoil, like the .22 Magnum, and when they go to shoot it, they realize it's not as easy to shoot as they thought. I can say with certainty that I shoot .32 better than I shoot .22 Magnum.
 
Back
Top Bottom