I don't know. I think it might remind a little too much like one of those .38 snub nose looking cap guns. you know, the ones that use those round plastic caps on a round ring. lol
The other thing I'd add, do any of these people that test or get guns to test, ever say anything bad about them? I mean, I know if they do and I'm quite sure they know if they do, they probably won't get very many more freebies to test out. lol
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
Last edited by GlockMeister; 01-26-2009 at 08:29 AM.
You mean at Gun Blast? If so, yea, I'd agree there. If not, who is this Gun Tests you speak of? Is that the one that has members pay subscriptions and themembers get stuff sometimes to evaluate and give a review and then get to keep what they review?
But as far as Gun Blast, yea, I've read some negative comments with some of the products they've reviewed. But I believe with Gun Blast, they've been known to go out and buy an item to test if they weren't sent it. I could have sworn I read a few articles on various items where they said they didn't get one of from the manufacturer and had to wait until they hit the market and go out and buy one right along with and like everyone else in order to review it. But I really don't ever remember hearing any negative comments when it comes to those who also get sponsored from those they review?
However, I could be wrong. But this is how it seems to be to me anyways...
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
You mean at Gun Blast? If so, yea, I'd agree there. If not, who is this Gun Tests you speak of? Is that the one that has members pay subscriptions and themembers get stuff sometimes to evaluate and give a review and then get to keep what they review?
But as far as Gun Blast, yea, I've read some negative comments with some of the products they've reviewed. But I believe with Gun Blast, they've been known to go out and buy an item to test if they weren't sent it. I could have sworn I read a few articles on various items where they said they didn't get one of from the manufacturer and had to wait until they hit the market and go out and buy one right along with and like everyone else in order to review it. But I really don't ever remember hearing any negative comments when it comes to those who also get sponsored from those they review?
However, I could be wrong. But this is how it seems to be to me anyways...
I'm referring to Gun Tests, the magazine, from which "Gun Blast" gets some of its content. Gun Tests, the magazine, buys most of the guns it tests, and then sells them on. Gun Tests, the magazine, accepts no advertising. Gun Tests, the magazine, has rated many, many firearms as "F" or "Don't Buy" over the years.
There are some who criticize Gun Tests, the magazine's reliance on a sample size of one. Gun Tests, the magazine, has had the occasion to test another sample of a previously tested firearm in subsequent years, and has up- or down-graded, as appropriate, their rating based on that new sample.
Todd Woodard and his crew at Gun Tests, the magazine, do a respectable job, given their comparably limited resources.
There are gun writers who have publicly stated that if a firearm is a "dud," they just don't report on it at all. I guess we have to give them partial credit for not whitewashing a poor performing weapon, but that still smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Oh, well.
I totally agree that Gun Tests is independent. They tell you what they like (and why), as well as what they don't like (and why). On more than one occasion I've been disappointed they didn't tell me what I wanted to hear. I just wish they could test more guns more often.
Gun Tests.. The magazine (that I used to subscribe to) that gave a Sig Sauer P6 a bad review because of the import marks, and gave Pheonix Arm's HP22 pistol a great review, yet the one I have doesn't even make a good paperweight..
Well, my Pheonix Arms .22 has never been in a correct state to fire a half a box of .22's, and my P6 is a fantastic, well built 9mm..
They hit a few reviews right, but they're miles off on others..
The LCR looks like a great .38, and it sounds like (from Guns and Ammo's test) that Ruger tested the hell out of it, trying to get it to fail.. 10,000 rounds of +P ammo with the top screw out, and the pistol's clearance dimensions didn't change at all..
That's a lot of loading 5 round at a time and blowing them off...
I'm referring to Gun Tests, the magazine, from which "Gun Blast" gets some of its content. Gun Tests, the magazine, buys most of the guns it tests, and then sells them on. Gun Tests, the magazine, accepts no advertising. Gun Tests, the magazine, has rated many, many firearms as "F" or "Don't Buy" over the years.
There are some who criticize Gun Tests, the magazine's reliance on a sample size of one. Gun Tests, the magazine, has had the occasion to test another sample of a previously tested firearm in subsequent years, and has up- or down-graded, as appropriate, their rating based on that new sample.
Todd Woodard and his crew at Gun Tests, the magazine, do a respectable job, given their comparably limited resources.
There are gun writers who have publicly stated that if a firearm is a "dud," they just don't report on it at all. I guess we have to give them partial credit for not whitewashing a poor performing weapon, but that still smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Oh, well.
Regards,
Walt
Walt, I appreciate the info. Is this the correct site/place?
And FWIW, I can relate to what Paper says also. I'm sure they've gotten a few wrong. But the fact they're independent and that there's one out there and they do their best, is good to know
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
Last edited by GlockMeister; 01-31-2009 at 02:46 PM.
Why I like this gun (not having held it, nor fired it):
1. It's beautiful. This is a damned good looking revolver, It's outward asthetics put one in mind of some of the most beautiful revolvers of the past, the Colt Single Action Army, The Webley MK VI, The Smith & Wesson .44 Russian. The LCR is handsome as they come. It has one of those designs that just says something special has come along. The LCR is the sexiest revolver since the Colt Python.
2. It's ergonomic, concealed hammer design is such that it will facilitate comfortable carry and ease of draw without snagging on holster or clothing.
3. The .38 Special lives! You cannot kill this round. It is neither the most sophisticated nor the most powerful, but it is still incredibly versitile and able to do the job. Cops should already be looking at using it as a backup gun. I only hope Ruger comes out with a 3 or even 4 inch barreled version.
Why I don't like this gun (again, same exceptions):
1. It only has 5 shots. some of the new Taurus guns are built on a frame this small and yet have 6 shots. That extra shot could be the one that saves your life.
2. It may spell the doom of the classic revolver. If this gun is a complete success and Ruger sells the hell out of them, Smith&Wesson and Taurus will take design cues and if classic revolver (steel frame) sales drop off, we could see them disappear forever. I know this is sort a sentimental thing on my part, but still.....
3. Once the novelty factor wears off, it may turn out to be just another snubby, and we've got dozens of them flooding the market already.
Last edited by Ballbearing; 02-05-2009 at 05:49 PM.
As I've mentioned in a couple of other places, I've never bought a gun new in my life. But I may make an exception for this one. I recently inherited an S&W Chiefs Special, and love it to death. But the LCR will shoot +P (my old S&W probably shouldn't); it's lighter; it has no hammer to snag on clothing. At my age, laser-grip sights start sounding pretty tempting.
And there's an intangible: most modern guns just don't appeal to me. My aesthetics somehow got stuck somewhere back at the beginning of the 20th Century, and I like milled steel, bluing, wood, curves and grace. Modern functional just doesn't cut it, practical as it may be.
But somehow the LCR sneaked past all my prejudices. I was almost horrified when I caught myself thinking, "you know, that's not a bad-looking gun, for being a stubby snubby and having plastic and rubber and stuff like that all over the place..."
Will it outlast my old WWI and WWII milsurps? I doubt it; those things will probably be going strong when my great grandchildren start begging to shoot them. But I'm almost 60; I don't shoot seven days a week; and I'm willing to bet it'll outlast me...
Ruger's always made great revolvers--I really like my SP-101. Semi-auto's too once the bugs get worked out of them (they had a few glitches with their early autoloaders and the LCP, but everything seemed to work out in the end).
I think this is their entry level snubbie designed to compete head on with the Smith J-frames (442/642/638) and the Taurus CIA/85, etc. Ruger's never really had a light J-frame size revolver--the SP-101 has always been a little bit heavy for CCW (which aids in its shootability, making it a "true" .357 snubbie if desired which can be shot with .357 loads without your hand feeling like it's been smacked) -- whereas an Airweight seems to be able to slip into a pocket unobtrusively--an "always have it with you" kinda gun for when you're too lazy to strap on the 1911.
I think it'll serve its purpose well (Ruger's a great company), and it's always great to see new guns being developed for the prudent citizens embracing CCW, but I don't personally see a distinctive advantage over a J-frame Smith with shrouded/internal hammer. Gives another choice in the marketplace though which is always good. I certainly don't think it'll replace the classic snubbie revolver any more than Glocks replaced the autoloader; some folks like plastic, some don't, and some don't care. One thing in the Ruger's favor is the trigger was redesigned -- several women shooters I've helped teach to shoot have had trouble with the trigger pull on some out of the box snubbies. Yes, the answer is develop more strength, but the gun tends to move more than it should when firing, and the shooting can be less pleasant which doensn't lead to alot of practice.
I think the .38's are fine, but someone could pull a marketing coup with a revolver like this in 9mm--the 9's a very efficient cartridge and still pretty cheap. Give someone common ammo as well with a mid/full size autoloader and b/u snubbie.
__________________
God gives us free will; the statist tries to take it away
Hmmm, a 9mm revolver? I think I might get one of those. 9mm, is my favorite caliber!
But, I seem to remember, didn't somebody already build a 9mm revolver?
The new Ruger LCR 
I'm sold
Gun Tests 
