As you've learned by now, the S&W 642 is the comparable model. However, I highly recommend that you test fire both before making a decision. My father-in-law has the 642. It's light, compact, and very reliable -- heck, it's a Smith. BUT, it hurts to shoot. You may dismiss that on account of the caliber. But, its weight, stiff frame, and grip make it tough. Specifically with respect to the grip, you'll notice that the two sides of the grip are flush with an exposed metal frame.
Ouch!
Recently I was able to test fire an LCR and I found it amazing as to how different the two guns are when shooting. I did some research to find that the LCR's primary designer (some European name) was able to design the polymer frame to absorb a lot of the recoil. The long-strand fiberglass injected polymer is pliable -- there's a significant amount of flex in the material. That absorbs a bunch of recoil. But perhaps most notable is the LCR's grip, the Hogue Tamer, which includes a thick gel pad insert in the back of the grip. So instead of having the metal frame destroying your hand, you have that grip with the gel insert.
As for durability concerns, Ruger stress tested an LCR, putting more than 10,000 rounds through it. When American Rifleman called and asked to test one out for an article in a 2009 issue, Ruger sent them that pistol. It functioned flawlessly and the gun was given the highest rating. I love mine.
I found a 642 to shoot and it was punishing. Haven't tried an LCR yet but the reviews have me very, very, very interested.
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2