Ruger LCR in 9mm

[Garufa]

What I think Ruger needs to do with this line of revolver is eliminate the need for moonclips. They have done this with the blackhawk revolver line by creating a cylinder that is for 9mm without the need for moonclips, they should have done the same thing with this revolver,create the correct cylinder for the cartridge. If they had done this I would be ordering one today. Then in a later release create the da/sa version, like they did with the other LCR version (LCRx).

 

How would you extract the empty shells?  Blackhawks, like all single actions, have a manual ejector so moon clips are not needed.

 

They could copy the Chartler Arms rimless revolver that requires no moon clips if they wanted to pay.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Garufa

[Patton]

What I think Ruger needs to do with this line of revolver is eliminate the need for moonclips. They have done this with the blackhawk revolver line by creating a cylinder that is for 9mm without the need for moonclips, they should have done the same thing with this revolver,create the correct cylinder for the cartridge. If they had done this I would be ordering one today. Then in a later release create the da/sa version, like they did with the other LCR version (LCRx).

Actually, most 9mm revolvers (I assume this one is the same) do not require them as long as the cartridge is the right length to space of the case mouth inthe cylinder. However you need a way like the BLackhawk to punch them out of the cylinder. The S&W 547 was unique in that it actually caught the rim.

[JReedEsq]

In the end though I expect it t have a brief flurry of interest with moderate purchases and then fade into obscurity.

 

Maybe, but everytime I see a J-frame in 9mm, I'm amazed at how high the asking price is and it's sold the next day.  I think the niche is someone like me who owns and shoots primarily semis but just likes to have a revolver around.  I have lots of 9mm +P in my safe and cheap 9mm practice ammo is much more plentiful than cheap .38 special.  I'm with Eric on this one.  I'd probably have bought this if it had been available when I bought the .38.  I think it's a great idea, but I probably wouldn't buy now, since I (we) have the .38 special.  The LCR is primarily my Wife's pistol, and she doesn't buy ammo, so we probably won't get her something different just so she can shoot my 9mm ammo.  

Edited September 23, 2014 by JReedEsq

[dcloudy777]

What I think Ruger needs to do with this line of revolver is eliminate the need for moonclips. They have done this with the blackhawk revolver line by creating a cylinder that is for 9mm without the need for moonclips, they should have done the same thing with this revolver,create the correct cylinder for the cartridge. If they had done this I would be ordering one today. Then in a later release create the da/sa version, like they did with the other LCR version (LCRx).

 

Why would you eliminate the best feature of the gun?

 

All revolvers intended for defensive use should use moonclips.  It's just a much, much better idea. 

All revolvers intended for defensive use shouldn't have exposed hammers either, but that's another subject.

[Joe357]

I used the blackhawk just as an example. I know the chapter arms rimless revolver doesn't use them, but I couldn't think of it when writing. As far as moonclips being used on all defensive revolvers I will have to disagree, I use speed loaders and have for years. jmho.

[hipower]

Why would you eliminate the best feature of the gun?

 

All revolvers intended for defensive use should use moonclips.  It's just a much, much better idea. 

All revolvers intended for defensive use shouldn't have exposed hammers either, but that's another subject.

 

I think such a blanket statement as this is wide open for disagreement.

 

It may be your opinion. But it's not mine. And I daresay others here will disagree also.

[dcloudy777]

I think such a blanket statement as this is wide open for disagreement.

 

It may be your opinion. But it's not mine. And I daresay others here will disagree also.

 

Oh I'm sure they will... they already have.  That's cool... it's a discussion forum not a "everybody thinks the same way" forum.  :up:

 

I've used both speedloaders and moonclips quite a bit in various gun games, training, and various shooting.  The moonclips are faster, simpler and easier to use, with less "disaster potential" than speedloaders, and offer much more positive extraction. 

[Patton]

The moonclips are faster, simpler and easier to use, with less "disaster potential" than speedloaders, and offer much more positive extraction.

I tend to agree. However, I don't think of a 5 shot as being known to easily, emergency reload either way. My 6 shot 3 and 4 " k frames I can reload really fast.

[graycrait]

The issue with this revolver will be its moon clips.  If they are sturdy and hold rounds well like my long gone Ruger Speed Six 9mm then it will be great.  However, if the moon clips are flimsy and lose bullets when they are in your jacket pocket then it will a no go.  Flimsy moon clips that will not hold cartridges securely will make this a range toy.  I went to the Ruger store and saw the the moon clips will cost 14.95, I think per 3?, but are out of stock.  

 

If you want to see what a flimsy moon clip is like take a Taurus 905 for a spin.  I wanted to like the 905 and owned two over the years but could not get over the moon clips.

 

Why did I trade the 9mm Speed Six? That was a very fun range gun and I had 18 moon clips for it and the moon clip tool, but in the end it was heavy and impractical in my mind when compared to a Glock 19.   

 

I am guessing that the LCR 9mm will be "right snappy" too.  For less money and higher capacity I think the new LC9S might be easier to shoot and possible more practical unless you carry a revolver in your jacket pocket or have issues with racking a slide. 

Edited September 24, 2014 by graycrait

[Patton]

I am guessing that the LCR 9mm will be "right snappy" too.

I have heard numerous complaints before on Taurus' moon clips bending and falling apart. With this newest LCR being about 17oz I would expect the recoil to be about the same as the original LCR. My 1970's, 16oz Charter Arms is actually small than my 13.5 oz LCR and has less recoil.