Winelover
North Central Arkansas
Based on my comparisons between the 357 LCR and the CA Bulldog...........roughly <1/8" in cylinder diameter. The Bulldog fits in molded open bottom holsters that the LCR and J-frames fit in.
Close quarters self defense
- Thread starter Ben
- Start date
My impression of "large" or "bulky" relates to the LCRX, which may be considerably different from the LRC. I'd rather have fixed sights on my carry revolvers, but the only way to get a 3" was to go with the LCRX.
This is good info though, because I need to get some holsters. I had one picked out but they only gave Smith frame sizes and when I called, the guy could not answer which one would fit my Bulldog. I have holsters left over from the SP101, 3" and the Bulldogs and the Taurus 605 both fit, but the LCRX definitely won't go.
It isn't often someone suggests I'm loading too light! That load was a 429421 at about 780fps out of my old Bulldog. The bullets were dead-soft lead: great expansion, not-so-much for penetrating a lot of bone. Vertebra would usually stop it
From Ruger's site:
"Monolithic frame is made from aerospace-grade, 7000-series aluminum in .22 LR, .22 Magnum and .38 Special models and from 400-series stainless steel in the powerful .357 Magnum, 9mm Luger and .327 Federal Magnum models."
Saw no mention of "pot metal."
Yeah, may as well buy a SP101 for what prices I've seen 357 LCRs advertised.
If I ever bought another 22 LR, my first choice would be a Pathfinder in 3" or 4", if they made them, from the Strattford era, with the tapered barrel. I am NOT a fan of Charter's adjustable sights though, so I'd probably be wishing for something almost impossible to find. Had a blued, 3" "Pocket Target" (the original name), with the skinny grip and it was cute as a bug and handy as a Bearcat, but easier to get a grip on and faster to load.
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
357 LCR weighs seven ounces less than the SP 101. Not willing to carry that extra weight, 24/7!
MRSP difference is $60, which isn't a big factor.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
I'd love to see a pic of the work done. I've never been in love with the Charter BD fixed sights. They work, but there's room for improvement.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
My 421's were COWW alloy. They showed good penetration, actually surprising amounts of it for such a "slow" round.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
An adjustable rear sight off a Smith J frame, like a Kit Gun, will fit a surprising number of guns with just a tiny bit of mill work in the "hog wallow" of most fixed sight guns. Worth considering. My Colt Army Special would be so equipped if I weren't such a coward!
On Charters 22's- I happened to handle a Charter "Off Duty" 22lr the other day. Barrel is maybe 1.5" and the gun is physically tiny even compared to my J frames. One of those with a 3 or 4" barrel would be a great field gun.
Last edited:
I get the weight difference, but not the mere $60 cost difference.
The LCR omits a LOT of manufacturing cost, which is one of the amazing design aspects. I think they have gotten ahead of themselves cost-wise. I grabbed the 3" LCRX for $400, which I felt was OK at that time. They now cost nearly as much as the more costly to make guns they were seem to have been meant to supplant.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Do they they now cost more to make OR can they get more for them now?
Between inflation reducing the buying power of a dollar and the high demand for all things gun related, I'm not sure where the answer is.
Ruger may simply be grabing more profit per gun now because the market will tolerate it.
Between inflation reducing the buying power of a dollar and the high demand for all things gun related, I'm not sure where the answer is.
Ruger may simply be grabing more profit per gun now because the market will tolerate it.
1) Target Bulldog, steel front sight let in to the aluminum barrel shroud;
2) 3" SP101 with a Smith J-frame adjustable rear sight, but before I made the taller replacement front sight;
3) Stainless Mag Pug 357 with integral front sight removed/replaced with a Fermin Garza front sight;
4) Same gun with the fixed sight I made to replace the original "adjustable sight;"
Last edited:
Yeah, that.
I guess I don't blame them, but like I said, for the small difference I'll get the SP101. Hypothetically speaking, as BOTH are out of my budget range at the moment.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Ruger has a long history of finding innovative ways to reduce production costs without sacrificing quality. I see the LCR as a continuation of that innovation.
The SP101 has been in production since 1989 and is a proven design, albeit rather heavy for its size. The LCR went in a different direction, but it also shows a great deal of innovation.
I don’t know how much profit margin is available in the LCR design but I suspect there’s a healthy margin between production cost and retail price. I can’t blame Ruger for getting what the market will bear. Companies exist for only one reason and that is to make money. You take your profit when you can because there will be times when you lose money. You make hay when the sun shines or you starve when it rains.
The SP101 has been in production since 1989 and is a proven design, albeit rather heavy for its size. The LCR went in a different direction, but it also shows a great deal of innovation.
I don’t know how much profit margin is available in the LCR design but I suspect there’s a healthy margin between production cost and retail price. I can’t blame Ruger for getting what the market will bear. Companies exist for only one reason and that is to make money. You take your profit when you can because there will be times when you lose money. You make hay when the sun shines or you starve when it rains.