Ruger LCR 9mm

[TNWNGR]

I'm betting Ruger gets the moon clips right.

Agreed. The full moon clips could be a real plus or negative dependent upon overall QC at the factory.

[Patton]

Keep in mind, too, that most 9mm ammo tests are probably from semiauto pistols (unless you have found a test using a snubnosed revolver in 9mm.) Semiauto pistols don't have cylinder gaps where pressure (and, consequently, velocity) can be lost. Further, it seems that many tests use longer barrels than a snubnosed revolver would have. Therefore, I have to wonder how much more 'snort' a 9mm fired from a snubnosed, LCR sized revolver would have over a .38 (or .38 +P especially) fired from the same platform.

For those seeking ammo compatibility I can see that a 9mm snub would be an attractive option.

Very little is lost in the cylinder gap as long as it is still in factory specs. In fact, put a derringer up against an auto, on a chronograph, and you will see that energy is lost in the operation of the slide. All be it very little, it would be the equivalent of a cylinder gap.

After studying all the manufacturers data I came to the conclusion that a 38spl has on average a 100fps less velocity than the comparable 9mm. Remember that a revolver is measured from the muzzle to the cylinder gap and the auto is measured to the breech. If you compare Speer Gold dot the 9mm comparison to .38spl is closer to a 200fps difference. Edited October 15, 2014 by Patton

[mikegideon]

Agreed. The full moon clips could be a real plus or negative dependent upon overall QC at the factory.

 

Just basing it on Ruger's magazines. They seem to understand the importance of handling ammo reliably. If I had to bet on a company doing it right, Ruger would be one of my first choices. I'm not a big Ruger fanboy either. I just have a few of their guns.

[zybysco]

I'm a big fan of the J-frame and do not have much trigger time on the LCR, but I have a question for LCR owners.
After the LCR came out, I played with one. What completely turned me off to them was when I intentionally short-stroked the trigger (simulating a mistake under stress), it sort of locked up the action.
Whereas, on a J-frame, you just pull the trigger again.
Was this a dud LCR or are they all like that?

Anyway, to swerve back to the topic, considering how in-demand S&W 940s are, this gun might sell pretty well.

If I short stroke mine, then I just have to pull the trigger again.

[JAB]

Very little is lost in the cylinder gap as long as it is still in factory specs. In fact, put a derringer up against an auto, on a chronograph, and you will see that energy is lost in the operation of the slide. All be it very little, it would be the equivalent of a cylinder gap.

After studying all the manufacturers data I came to the conclusion that a 38spl has on average a 100fps less velocity than the comparable 9mm. Remember that a revolver is measured from the muzzle to the cylinder gap and the auto is measured to the breech. If you compare Speer Gold dot the 9mm comparison to .38spl is closer to a 200fps difference.

 

Okay, you fellahs made me curious so I looked on Ballistics by the Inch to try and find 'real world' differences.  I chose the .38 Special and 9mm barrel length and bullet weight from their tests that most closely matched.  Using that criteria, I compared their results using 125 grain Federal Hydra-Shok in a Colt Detective Special with a 2.125 inch barrel to their results using 124 grain Federal Hydra-Shok in a Rohrbach R9 with a 2.9 inch barrel (which already gives a slight barrel length advantage to the 9mm.)  According to their data, the velocity for the .38 was 858 feet per second and the velocity for the 9mm was 927 feet per second.  According to the muzzle energy calculator I found online at http://www.georgia-arms.com/mecalc.html that adds up to 204.4 ft lbs of energy for the .38 and 236.7 ft lbs for the 9mm when comparing loads and barrel lengths that are as similar as possible given the results available.  That comes out to be 32.3 ft lbs difference.  That seems, to me, like a pretty negligible difference and, IMO not really worth increased chamber pressures (and the accompanying increased recoil.)  With modern ammo designed for their respective chamberings I would think that the 'end results' in penetration and expansion would be pretty close to the same.  Given the trade-off between having to carry moon clips or having the option of reloading from a speed strip or even loose cartridges (without encountering difficulties in ejecting spent cartridges), I'd still prefer the .38 - but everyone isn't me.

 

In fact, I would hazard a guess that going from .38 Special to .38+P would increase velocity (and muzzle energy) more than going from .38 Special to 9mm.  Of course there are also +P loads available in 9mm but I would think that shooting a 9mm +P load in a lightweight, snubnosed, partly polymer revolver would start getting pretty harsh in the recoil department as well as making accuracy and quick follow up shots more difficult.  Also, the Ruger website doesn't say whether or not the 9mm version is +P rated (although I found an article or two, not published by Ruger, claiming that it is.)

 

I do hope that the 9mm chambering sells well because it is still an interesting idea and it is always good to have options.

Edited October 15, 2014 by JAB

[mikegideon]

SAME projectile and SAME barrel length. Max pressure 38 spl+p vs. 9mm+p...

 

 

[Patton]

That is interesting; the 9mm's extra 285 fps is more than even I expected. I do know that the NYPD was getting an extra 200fps more out of the 9mm 3" BUGs than the .38spl BUGs. A 135gr 38spl +p and a 124gr 9mm +p.

[mikegideon]

Note that those are max pressures, and no ammo manufacturer is going to load to max. I'm betting some are close. The quickload thing was just an exercise to rule out variables, and compare the two calibers. Also note that the 9mm is using a hair LESS powder to develop twice as much pressure. That's cause by the difference in case capacity.

Edited October 15, 2014 by mikegideon

[JReedEsq]

That fact of the matter is that 9mm is a little more powerful, more consistently available and significantly less expensive.  We have the .38 but If my wife ever gets the time to shoot more often, we'll have to get the 9mm.  I have 3 other 9mm pistols and that is the only revolver in the house.  I don't claim that 9mm is a huge ballistic leap over .38 special, but I definitely would have picked the 9 if it were available a few years ago.  It just makes perfect sense for someone like me who primarily shoots semi-autos but is willing to acknowledge that most pocket semi-autos have their limitations.  

[JAB]

Note that those are max pressures, and no ammo manufacturer is going to load to max. I'm betting some are close. The quickload thing was just an exercise to rule out variables, and compare the two calibers. Also note that the 9mm is using a hair LESS powder to develop twice as much pressure. That's cause by the difference in case capacity.

 

I see the value in what you are saying but that is still theoretical, max load numbers.  I looked at Ballistics by the Inch because I was interested in real world loads fired from real world guns.  Besides, I once again doubt that anyone is going to want to fire a max load 9mm +P from a lightweight, snubnosed revolver.  Not trying to be argumentative - and I recognize that 9mm has more velocity and energy potential than .38 Special or .38 +P - but in a real world load that the average shooter is going to 1) be willing to practice with in a lightweight, snubnosed revolver and 2) be able to shoot accurately with fast follow up shots in that same revolver I remain unconvinced that there would be much difference in 9mm and .38.  Personally, if I did want a snubnose with that big a jump in velocity/energy and were willing to pay the resultant price in recoil and manageability then I'd just go with a .357 Mag and be done with it without being restricted to using moon clips.  As I said before, though, I am not everyone.

Edited October 15, 2014 by JAB

[JAB]

 It just makes perfect sense for someone like me who primarily shoots semi-autos but is willing to acknowledge that most pocket semi-autos have their limitations.  

 

And that, to me, would be the strongest argument in favor of a 9mm snub.  If my 642 were the only .38/.357 revolver I had then ditching it in favor of a 9mm snub would make perfect sense - not because I believe the real world ballistics to be that much better but because it would mean stocking one fewer caliber of ammo.  As it is, though, I have other .38/.357 guns and would be more prone to getting rid of my 9mm guns (which also isn't likely to happen) than to get rid of the .38s and .357s.

[mikegideon]

I see the value in what you are saying but that is still theoretical, max load numbers.  I looked at Ballistics by the Inch because I was interested in real world loads fired from real world guns.  Besides, I once again doubt that anyone is going to want to fire a max load 9mm +P from a lightweight, snubnosed revolver.  Not trying to be argumentative - and I recognize that 9mm has more velocity and energy potential than .38 Special or .38 +P - but in a real world load that the average shooter is going to 1) be willing to practice with in a lightweight, snubnosed revolver and 2) be able to shoot accurately with fast follow up shots in that same revolver I remain unconvinced that there would be much difference in 9mm and .38.  Personally, if I did want a snubnose with that big a jump in velocity/energy and were willing to pay the resultant price in recoil and manageability then I'd just go with a .357 Mag and be done with it without being restricted to using moon clips.  As I said before, though, I am not everyone.

 

Just comparing the two calibers straight up. The 9mm is significantly more powerful, and will be in two otherwise identical revolvers. And yes, with a 2 inch barrel, a significant amount of powder is going to burn after it leaves the gun. But note that it burns faster in the smaller capacity case.

 

Don't believe quickload data? I guess that's an option :) 

[Patton]

To me the 13.5oz LCR .38 lacks a little in the power department and the .357 at 17oz is still way too much recoil; the 17oz 9mm should be a good compromise. I suspect the 17oz 9mm may have a little less recoil than the 13.5oz 38spl.

[A.J. Holst]

If I didn't have any revolvers in .38/.357 and most of my autos where 9mm I'd seriously consider it.

I had a .38 LCR and thought the trigger was superb out of the box. I liked the weight and shootability of the gun.

From my observations buying plinking ammo, 9mm off the shelf has always been $4-$6 cheaper / 50 than comparable .38

What I want to know is why SD ammo in 9/.38/.357 all happens to run $1 - $1.25 per round.

[JAB]

Just comparing the two calibers straight up. The 9mm is significantly more powerful, and will be in two otherwise identical revolvers. And yes, with a 2 inch barrel, a significant amount of powder is going to burn after it leaves the gun. But note that it burns faster in the smaller capacity case.

 

Don't believe quickload data? I guess that's an option :)

 

Not saying that I don't believe quickload data.  Just saying that the data shows the greatest, possible difference in two theoretical loads.  I tend to give more weight to the numbers gained from firing real ammo from real guns which is why I lean toward the info I got from BBtI.  :2cents:

[JReedEsq]

What I want to know is why SD ammo in 9/.38/.357 all happens to run $1 - $1.25 per round.

 

I've also noticed that JHP seems to cost about the same no matter what caliber.  

[TNWNGR]

I've also noticed that JHP seems to cost about the same no matter what caliber.

Yep and that's been pretty consistent for a number of years now, sort of taking advantage of a captive market. BTW I agree with your view of having a 9mm P revolver if all of your pistols are 9mm P. That in a nutshell has always been the appeal of a 9mm P wheel gun, its just not played out well long term yet. Only time and unweaning public interest will tell this story.

[mikegideon]

Not saying that I don't believe quickload data.  Just saying that the data shows the greatest, possible difference in two theoretical loads.  I tend to give more weight to the numbers gained from firing real ammo from real guns which is why I lean toward the info I got from BBtI.  :2cents:

 

You can't "closely" match barrel lengths with snubby barrels and get valid data. Real world is great IF to have identical barrel lengths. A half inch difference in that range can be pretty big. What we are trying to determine is the difference between the two calibers in the SAME gun. Computer simulations have real limitations, but are real good at some things. So, I'm not saying the quickload data is right. It rarely is until you tweak it against real world loads in a specific gun. But, it's fairly reliable for something like the test above. I was just trying to prove to myself that the 9mm+p really is an intermediate caliber between the 38 and 357. I'm convinced that it is. There's more data than just the quickload example above to back it up.

 

When it comes down to it, anything with a 2" barrel is gonna whimpy compared to a service sized revolver or auto.

[JAB]

You can't "closely" match barrel lengths with snubby barrels and get valid data. Real world is great IF to have identical barrel lengths. A half inch difference in that range can be pretty big. What we are trying to determine is the difference between the two calibers in the SAME gun. Computer simulations have real limitations, but are real good at some things. So, I'm not saying the quickload data is right. It rarely is until you tweak it against real world loads in a specific gun. But, it's fairly reliable for something like the test above. I was just trying to prove to myself that the 9mm+p really is an intermediate caliber between the 38 and 357. I'm convinced that it is. There's more data than just the quickload example above to back it up.

 

When it comes down to it, anything with a 2" barrel is gonna whimpy compared to a service sized revolver or auto.

 

But you aren't determining the difference between the two calibers in the SAME gun because NO gun is actually being used.  As you said, it is a simulation.  I'm saying that I'll take REAL results from 'close' barrel lengths over theoretical simulations of guns and loads that don't even really exist, at all, period, in any way, shape form or fashion.  If you prefer the latter over the former then that is for you to decide and none of my business.  I, on the other hand, will continue to place more trust in results gained from firing a real bullet from a real load through a real gun.  I'm not trying to be a jerk, be dense or be argumentative but I really can't understand how a fantasy result from a computer simulation could be seen as more 'valid' than physically shooting real ammo through real guns and measuring the real results.

 

You are right in that the added 1/2 inch or so might make a difference.  In this case, as I said before, any 'advantage' in that match up would go to the 9mm - and it still only made 32.3 ft lbs more energy than the .38.  To me, that is a significant bit of real world data that makes me suspect that what we might 'expect' from the higher pressure, etc. of the 9mm based on data and simulations does not actually prove to be true in physical reality.

 

You are also right in that a snub isn't going to make the kind of energy a service sized gun will make.  I also think that the differences would be more pronounced when a couple of inches are added to the pipe.  Further - and perhaps even more importantly - the hotter loads are going to be much more 'shootable' from a larger gun.  So, again, I am not saying that 9mm isn't potentially more 'powerful' than .38.  I am saying that - in loads that most people would be willing to regularly shoot through a small, light handgun such as a snubnosed revolver - I do not believe there is going to be much difference in the end results.

Edited October 16, 2014 by JAB

[Guest livefreeordie1]

Looking in the Speer manual #14, the fastest load shown for a 124 grn bullet out of a 4" barrel is 1249 fps (standard pressure).  The hottest load shown for a 38 spec +p with a 125 grn bullet is 1098 fps out of a 6 inch barrel.  My wife has a 642 in which she carries Winchester PDX1 130 grn +p that I've chronographed at approx 980 fps average (which is surprising since the box says 950 fps, maybe my chrono is out a bit).  I've loaded 124 grn 9mm gold dots that chrono at 1210 out of my Kahr CM9 and around 1270 out of a Ruger P89.  There's no doubt in my mind that 9mm is definitely a step above 38 spec +p.  That doesn't mean I don't think 38 isn't enough gun, I'm comfortable that wife wife is well protected with hers.  She likes the simplicity of a wheel gun, and the fact that she can visually check if it's loaded at a glance.  I prefer semi autos because of the slimmer profile and higher capacity.  It's all a matter of preference.

[mikegideon]

But you aren't determining the difference between the two calibers in the SAME gun because NO gun is actually being used.  As you said, it is a simulation.  I'm saying that I'll take REAL results from 'close' barrel lengths over theoretical simulations of guns and loads that don't even really exist, at all, period, in any way, shape form or fashion.  If you prefer the latter over the former then that is for you to decide and none of my business.  I, on the other hand, will continue to place more trust in results gained from firing a real bullet from a real load through a real gun.  I'm not trying to be a jerk, be dense or be argumentative but I really can't understand how a fantasy result from a computer simulation could be seen as more 'valid' than physically shooting real ammo through real guns and measuring the real results.

 

You are right in that the added 1/2 inch or so might make a difference.  In this case, as I said before, any 'advantage' in that match up would go to the 9mm - and it still only made 32.3 ft lbs more energy than the .38.  To me, that is a significant bit of real world data that makes me suspect that what we might 'expect' from the higher pressure, etc. of the 9mm based on data and simulations does not actually prove to be true in physical reality.

 

You are also right in that a snub isn't going to make the kind of energy a service sized gun will make.  I also think that the differences would be more pronounced when a couple of inches are added to the pipe.  Further - and perhaps even more importantly - the hotter loads are going to be much more 'shootable' from a larger gun.  So, again, I am not saying that 9mm isn't potentially more 'powerful' than .38.  I am saying that - in loads that most people would be willing to regularly shoot through a small, light handgun such as a snubnosed revolver - I do not believe there is going to be much difference in the end results.

 

To each his own. :) 

[JAB]

To each his own. :)

 

Exactly. :pleased:

[Patton]

You keep neglecting the fact that the 9mm version weighs 17oz. I would be willing to bet that it may recoil the same or less than the lighter 13oz version. I have several small revolvers and I cannot emphasize how much every ounce helps reduce recoil.

These may be the most comparable loads out there to one another.




And

Edited October 16, 2014 by Patton

[mikegideon]

In the second example, the 9mm muzzle energy is 1.65 times the 38 muzzle energy. The quickload example was 1.75 times for 3" barrels. We are starting to see a trend that the 9mm has better than 1.5 times the muzzle energy of the 38.

[dcloudy777]

In the second example, the 9mm muzzle energy is 1.65 times the 38 muzzle energy. The quickload example was 1.75 times for 3" barrels. We are starting to see a trend that the 9mm has better than 1.5 times the muzzle energy of the 38.

 

If Ruger would have done it "my way" and cut the cylinder to fit the 9mm and set the barrel back, they could have got another 1/2" of barrel for the same size gun and made the energy even better.  :pleased: