Well, it can shoot; I’ll give it that.
Now for my complaints:
- the front sight is hard to keep in focus,
- I can’t get all my fingers on the grip, and
- it’s a bit snappy on recoil.
Yeah, I’m being smarmy. These things are par for the course with any snubnose revolver.
It’s got a very smooth trigger, perhaps better than Smith & Wesson’s newer J-Frames. In fact, I’ve noticed a steady improvement in the triggers on all of Ruger’s wheelguns the last couple of years.
As far back as the 1950’s, Elmer Keith was singing the praises of Ruger’s single-action Magnums (Sixguns, p.75-76), though he’d bemoaned the fact that Bill Ruger hadn’t yet seen fit to chamber them for .45 Colt. I think he’d have been equally impressed with their later double-action offerings.
Ruger’s revolvers have always been known for their durability, and if they’ve generally lacked the smoothness of action I’d expect from a Smith & Wesson, they’re excellent working guns at a fair price.
And they’ve gotten better over the years. When recommending a gun for a new shooter on a budget, I most often find myself suggesting the SP-101. It’s built on a frame slightly larger than a J-Frame, and it’s stainless steel. It handles .38’s with little recoil, and even mild .357’s are manageable in moderate doses. The sights are good for a gun its size, and it’s built like a tank.
While it’s a worthy competitor to the Chief’s Special, the SP-101 feels fairly hefty when compared to Smith & Wesson’s Airweights, and the LCR is their attempt to fill that gap.
So, how is it? Well, it’s not winning any beauty contests. It’s got an odd, oblongish shape, and it’s made largely of plastic.
(I should note that these were my exact complaints about the Glock two decades ago, and my prediction that those were a “passing fad” seems to have been…perhaps a tiny bit inaccurate.)
The LCR is light. Though it looks about the same size as a hammerless J-Frame, it feels a bit smaller. The trigger guard tapers aggressively towards the front, but there’s still enough clearance for the trigger finger, and it points naturally.
The trigger face is smooth and narrow, and the handle allows for a good high grip. Though it feels like my finger was reaching at a downward angle to reach the trigger, a straight pull was no problem.
Ruger has installed thick, mushy rubber stocks on the pistol, no doubt to ameliorate recoil. They cover the backstrap, and there’s a thick “bump” of rubber at the top where the webbing between thumb and fingers rest.
Recoil isn’t as snappy as I expected. For the most part, I shot very mild wadcutters, and though shooting the gun wasn’t uncomfortable, I was getting a bit fatigued after four cylinders. Plainly put, this isn’t a gun you’re going to want to shoot much.
Then again, that’s not the point. To expect this pistol to shoot like a K-Frame or a Hi-Power is not only unfair, but more than a bit disingenuous. A gun like this exists so that you may have a weapon on your person at all times. Everyone needs a good pocket gun, and a small-framed revolver is more powerful and reliable than most automatics of similar size.
The LCR appears to meet that need nicely.
A note of caution: the one weak link in Ruger’s design for this gun involves the small crane. While the cylinder is in battery, it’s not an issue, but make a habit of “slapping” the cylinder shut, and it will likely warp in short order.
Treat it right, shoot it just enough to stay proficient, and it should be a dependable sidearm.