LCR flame cutting after 500 rounds?

[John Wayne]

I would never buy a gun that had a "life expectancy" of 1,000 rounds, and I do not think any reputable manufacturer should ever let something like that hit the market.

I understand that lightweight alloy-framed ultra-compact guns in full-size calibers do not take the same beating or last as long as their full-size all-steel counterparts, but 1,000 rounds isn't even enough to familiarize yourself with the gun or verify that it's reliable!

I am very glad I did not buy an LCR. When I was in the market for a compact .38, my local shop did not have one in so I bought the SW 442 instead. I have been very pleased with it, the action has smoothed out considerably and it is as tight as ever after over 1,000 rounds. I usually shoot a handload of 125 gr. LRN over 3.0 gr. Trail Boss (50-100 rounds per range session), then shoot 2 cylinders of +P 158 gr. JHPs chrono'd at 800 fps. Keep in mind this is 1k rounds in less than a year, and the only signs of wear are a little holster wear and where some of the anodizing has worn off the area around the recoil shield.

Why fault people who want to shoot 300 rounds through a compact gun? Many people have limited range time, and when they get to go they have to pay to use the facilities. It is understandable to want as much practice as possible within that time span.

 

[Ed Ames]

but 1,000 rounds isn't even enough to familiarize yourself with the gun or verify that it's reliable!

If you can't verify a revolver is reliable in 25rds you are doing it wrong. Hell, if you can't test most of what needs testing with a pencil and a dollar bill you're doing it wrong.

That said, nobody in this thread has said that the LCR won't last 1000 rds of normal practice. I would guess they'll last through a million rounds of practice ammo, if you choose the right practice ammo.


+P going through paper does nothing these won't:

 

[Headless]

I don't think practicing with plastic bullets is quite the same quality of training as live fire with the same ammunition you carry. If they don't shoot the same, you may in fact learn some very bad habits mucking around with that. I fire 100 rounds a month from my 642 to stay sharp with it. That lets me hit tennis balls 4 of 5 times out to about 20 yards. I don't think snap caps, pencils and plastic bullets are going to do that for me. Face it, a gun that can't handle 1000 rounds before giving up the ghost is a complete POS and should not be for sale, much less for sale for 400$+.

 

[dom1104]

Big Bill - LCR is a .38 Special. It's not designed for +P ammo. It's too bad it took you a case of ammo to figure that out - the hard way.

Is this even true? I was sure it was 38+p.

And yeah, I wont be buying one. I took at a look at one today, side by side with a 442 and a 642 and a sp101.

The 101 is definatly too heavy for pocket, but the LCR is out for me. Just too many questions, and doesnt have the classic feel of the S&W.

I agree. if it was 299 or something, that would be a little different. It just doesnt seem... "Worth" $489.

Anyhow, besides the fighting, this thread has been very informative.

I asked the gunsmith if he had ever heard of this happening before, he said he had experianced it, and his advice mirrored 1911Tuners.

 

[Ed Ames]

I don't think practicing with plastic bullets is quite the same quality of training as live fire with the same ammunition you carry

Ummm...okay?

A long time ago I had a chance to shoot a S&W model 37. That's one of the original ultra-light airweights, about 12oz of .38sp. I was at an outdoor range that had a target frame at about 7 yards and a set of metal gongs set up on the berm, at about 70 yards.

I fired a cylinder load at the paper 7 yards out.

I reloaded, and fired at the gong. *clank*
*clank*
*nothing*
*clank*
*clank*

I reloaded... *clank*
*clank*
*clank*
*nothing*
*clank*

(yeah, I was aiming for the top and probably hitting the bottom.)

All of that done at the max rate of fire allowed by the range. It really pissed off the guy with a Ruger semi-auto at the next bench, and surprised the "that thing can't hit the broad side of a barn" owner.

You know how many times I had fired one of those guns before? How many rounds of practice it took to reach that point?

Well, in all honesty, probably 15,000 rounds... mostly of .177 pellets from a CO2 pellet revolver, with much of the balance was from a target-grade .22LR pistol. I had never fired a J-Frame before. Oh, I'd fired a few centerfire handguns before that point, but I'd probably fired more rounds from a cap&ball revolver than from any centerfire revolver.

Get your practice where you can. Guns is guns and people make too big a deal about the differences.

 

[Chuck Perry]

Rated for +P only means that it was proofed at some pressure above the SAAMI industry standard for .38 +P...once. That's one round fired and the gun didn't come unwrapped, and the headspace held. That's all it means.

I thought proof loads, traditionally, are tested at very high pressures to insure a margin of safety should there be an ammo problem. Say double that which the chambered round is rated at. The factory's test the design with one of these to "proof" the gun. To my understanding a gun rated for +P means just that- it is safe to repeatedly fire +P loads.

Neither does "Life Expectancy" mean that the gun is going to suddenly stop working at that round count. It means that you may need to think about sending the gun in for a checkup and a tuneup as you approach that level of use. Firing a gun is pretty abusive...no matter how you cut it. The higher the presure levels and recoil impulse...the more abusive it gets. A maintained Honda Civic will go 200,000 miles if driven normally. Try holding the engine at redline for a 500 mile road trip, and you probably won't get there. That's not the sort of thing that a Honda Civic is designed for.

My Speer manual quotes SAAMI specs of 17,000PSI for standard 38 Special and 18,500PSI for +P. The 357 Magnum is listed as a SAAMI maximum of 35,000PSI. An increase of 1,500PSI doesn't really scream "red line" performance to me. Honestly, if the gun is going to need a trip back to the factory after 500 +P rounds, it sounds like the same thing would be necessary for less than a 1,000 standard pressure rounds!

 

[phinfan]

Some final points:

I do not think anyone buys a LCR, or a 642 or any ccw firearm for "target" use. That is not to say that some cannot be fairly accurate, but not exactly what you would pick for target applications.

In the manual it states that the hammer, and hammer pivot pin must be lubricated every 1000 rds, do you think that is just a typo?

Attention LCR owners, do not lubricate after 1000 rds, throw out, and buy a new one!

If you took the time to read the many personal accounts of the LCR on the web, you would find 9 out of 10 were very positive, with some having already put more than 1000 rds through them in the first year.


There was a thread started on this forum by NoleMan (which I used as a reason to buy) in which he said American Rifleman also did a 10,000 rd +P test on it, and it still looked good shot straight, and locked up tight, you can read it yourself. Kind of a far cry from being a 500-1000 rd gun I think.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=472455

 

[Headless]

You know how many times I had fired one of those guns before? How many rounds of practice it took to reach that point?

Well, in all honesty, probably 15,000 rounds... mostly of .177 pellets from a CO2 pellet revolver, with much of the balance was from a target-grade .22LR pistol. I had never fired a J-Frame before. Oh, I'd fired a few centerfire handguns before that point, but I'd probably fired more rounds from a cap&ball revolver than from any centerfire revolver.

Get your practice where you can. Guns is guns and people make too big a deal about the differences.

Practicing with cheap ammo (i use a .22 pistol) is certainly useful, and I would never discount it's value - after all, the vast majority of what you learn when target shooting is sight picture and trigger control, and you can learn those easily on a .22 or pellet gun. In fact, it's easier on lower recoiling guns because you can see where you are messing up without having to deal with the flash/bang/recoil of a large caliber. However, firing a pellet gun doesn't teach the necessary skills to rapid fire a heavy recoil .38 snub revolver and remain accurate. These are mostly point shooting skills past the first shot, and dealing with the recoil and firing accurately isn't something that you learn with a .177 cal air pistol.

It's true, the first time I picked my revolver up i did 'fine' with it, slow fire, at the range; after all, I had plenty of experience firing handguns by then - but I don't consider that realistic training and I wouldn't feel prepared to defend myself if i'd only shot my revolver 50 times, even if I had shot another gun 25,000 times (which is exactly the situation I was in when I bought my revolver). Maybe this is simply a failing of my skills, but my revolver shoots very differently than my other guns and if i get too used to shooting another pistol, I lose the 'feel' for my revolver. If you can pick up any gun, loaded with any ammo, and shoot it accurately the first time you touch it, rapid fire (what was the 'legal limit' on how fast you could fire that model 37 anyway?), then you have a gift that should not be squandered.

Hitting a gong at 70yards is fine, but do you think you could have emptied 5 rounds in 3 seconds and hit a tennis ball with 3 of those rounds, even as it was rolling from the first at 15 yards that day? Without any experience shooting a heavy recoiling pistol? Realistically, this isn't something that is learned through firing a low recoil weapon. I think that firing plastic bullets is likely to make you shoot to a different point of aim unless you are lucky enough to find a plastic bullet load that hits to the same POA as your carry load. Believe it or not, I've tried the plastic training loads and I didn't find that they shot to the same POA as my carry load (which is doubletap +P 125gr)

 

[Ed Ames]

I think that firing plastic bullets is likely to make you shoot to a different point of aim unless you are lucky enough to find a plastic bullet load that hits to the same POA as your carry load.

I'll just address this because the answer will be the most helpful.

The goal is smoothness and control. Smooth is fast and all that. So your target needs a point of aim for you to aim at.

The projectiles don't need to hit the point of aim. Not even close. There is no training benefit to POI matching POA. Arguably there is a disadvantage because you'll need to replace your bull more often if you shoot it up. Much cheaper to replace a blank sheet of paper, and cheaper means you'll do it more often, which means you'll keep better track of your results.

The projectiles need to group consistently. The fact that they group consistently 12" low relative to another loading is utterly irrelevant. Place your bull, concentrate on smoothness, and measure your groups.

There is a HUGE training benefit to being able to do something every day, cheaply, without wearing out either yourself or your tools. Correct repetition leads to smoothness. Those plastic bullets allow you to practice at home if you have a basement or you aren't on top of your neighbors, which means you can practice year round, every day, with your actual trigger and grip and sights, which gives you the feel for your actual gun and means you will be far more prepared for your relatively infrequent range trips and even more infrequent actual moments of need. It's not the only sort of training you need...but unless you have daily access to a range you'll get more actual training value from a box of those and 1000 primers than 1000 rounds of expensive SD ammo.

As for whether I could keep a ball moving... frankly, given that hitting anywhere near a tennis ball with a decently powerful round will cause a ball to jump just from dirt hitting it, I don't really know. I'm sure you would do much better than me (and I'm not being factitious) but sadly I don't have the opportunity to shoot at any place that would allow that so that's kinda natural.

 

[Headless]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Ed. I don't see training with a weapon that shoots 12" off from your real load as advantageous.

When I am shooting, i'm trying to get a feel for exactly where the bullet will go every time I fire the gun, using the sights or not. Throwing in a bunch of projectiles that act totally differently than my actual carry load just confuses the issue. I've got trigger control, sight picture down already. If i have time to target shoot at the BG, then i'll do just that, i suppose. Groups are good.

But this isn't about slow fire target shooting, which is why I find it interesting that the only point you responded to of mine was in regards to just that.

I'm not disputing that training with a low recoil cheap alternative isn't valuable, nor that daily practice is valuable. But, in my view, if you train yourself constantly to shoot with the sights and expect your shots to hit 12" low, then under stress, when you revert to your training, you're likely to either fixate on a sight picture (because you rely on it to know where you will hit), slowing you down, or you'll start shooting 12 inches high because that's the natural feel you've cultivated. Especially if your every day of training for a year was with low power plastic bullets and you've only got 100 rounds through the gun with the REAL point of impact/aim matched up. This comes into play especially considering in a self defense situation, I probably won't be using my sights, so won't be able to know for sure in any way OTHER than by 'feel' whether I am going to hit my target or not. You have good points about practicing, but my concern isn't about target shooting or learning sight picture or trigger control; this is beyond that point.

 

[Ed Ames]

Yep...no harm in different views.

I agree that this isn't about slow fire target shooting. I disagree that it's the only point I responded to. I wasn't talking about slow fire target shooting at all.

When I'm shooting, I'm aiming for smoothness and control. Smooth becomes fast, and control becomes accuracy. I never try to "chase the last hole" because that way lies madness. Repeatability means I can hit what I want. I don't have to see a bullet hole exactly where the sight picture was resting to know if I'm doing it right.

The result is that I can raise the gun and hit my target pretty quickly. Not competition quick maybe but under a second for an aimed shot. Aimed. And it's not as though I can only pull the trigger once every two seconds. The sights are there for a reason. I can think of no good excuse not to use them in the real world. I spent the time learning how to raise the gun to a correct sight picture, and how to shoot accurately with both eyes open, to give me the edge that sights offer. Honestly, not using the sights and controlling your shots is why cops constantly empty 17+ round magazines into the air around the person they are shooting at. I'd rather not follow their example. Bullets that miss are nothing but a liability.

Interestingly, I've found that I'm not too bad at snap shooting, but that's carnival tricks not real world.

And yeah, you revert to training. If your training is to watch for the last hole and try to correct for that, you'd better hope your attacker is wearing white.

 

[Cosmoline]

Is this even true? I was sure it was 38+p.

That was also my understanding. Any .38 Special revolver that is too delicate to fire .38 +p is either a rare antique or defective. This isn't a magnum-pressure round we're talking about.

+P going through paper does nothing these won't:

Of course it does. It bucks and tosses the revolver in your hand. It smacks you around. Learning to deal with that, esp. from a small wheelgun, is most of the challenge.

Nothing is wrong with shooting weak rounds to practice trigger control, aiming, etc. But it's not really giving you the whole experience.

Guns is guns and people make too big a deal about the differences.

Only at a very foundational level. I may be able to bullseye a squirrel's heart at fifty yards with my CZ death laser, but that same squirrel will laugh at me as I try to hit it from ten yards with my carry piece. In my experience small concealable handguns are the most difficult to shoot well and master. They're also the ones you're most likely to end up relying on in a pinch. Having one that's something of a delicate flower that you're afraid of shooting too much puts you at a serious disadvantage where you can least afford it. You'll be afraid of practicing with full power carry ammunition for fear of hurting the piece. So when it comes time to use that +p stuff in the real world, it will be a new experience for you quite unlike your training. That's what I always try to avoid.

Whether the LCR is such a delicate flower remains to be seen. Other Ruger revolvers I've used have been anything but delicate, which is why I love them.

 

[Ed Ames]

Meh.

I mean, I kinda agree... you should practice with a gun that handles the way your carry gun handles. But if you think that you are somehow more prepared because you blow $40/wk on premium self defense ammo to punch holes in targets than you would be if you spent $40/wk on primers to fire those plastic bullets you're just fooling yourself.

I shoot everything from .22 (or even pellet guns) to a .454 casull and frankly I don't see that big a difference. The non-practiced realities (adrenaline dump, injury, etc) are far more important, and the only way to minimize those effects is frequent (as in daily or every couple of days) and dedicated practice of the basic skills...something you can do far more easily if you relax the "gotta prove to myself that this round will feed through my...revolver...still" policy and practice with proper practice ammo.

It's about using the proper tools for the job.

 

[Cosmoline]

That's why it's wise to handload. A little Unique and 2400 go a long long way for handgun loads.

I shoot everything from .22 (or even pellet guns) to a .454 casull and frankly I don't see that big a difference.

You've got to have some astonishingly strong arms and hands! The Casull has left me hurting bad. I suspect it gave me a hairline fracture once, my middle finger was aching for a month. The .22 has not done that LOL And yeah I can tell a pretty big difference in the way they handle. I grant you, for a HUNTING application it's all about that first round and with a big scoped revolver you've got a lot going for you. But when it comes to a gunfight, or predator defense for that matter, things happen so fast. My goal is, to the extent possible, to make drawing firing and hitting accurately second nature. No surprises. So when the Speed Six bucks and pitches in recoil I need to be able to work right through it and keep up the pace. For me that takes a lot of practice and as much range time with it as I can get. Every time I'm over checking loads for the rifles I make a point of capping off at least 25 and preferably 50 from my carry piece. And every time I've got a little personal rust to cut through before I get back to form. I just don't see that working as well if I substitute the same platform shooting .22LR.

That said, there's nothing wrong with having a plinker as well and shooting it a lot. It's a fantastic idea. What I object to is the notion, often overheard from salesmen, that you really don't need to be able to shoot full powered ammo from handgun X because it's just going to sit in the holster for years and you'll probably never use it.

 

[Ed Ames]

Yeah, handloading is even better, but often the issue isn't so much load as opportunity to shoot. Relatively rural areas that allow shooting near home are nice, but for the unfortunate majority of us shooting means an expensive and relatively constrained trip to a public range...and strict rules against rapid fire, drawing from holsters, and everything else even remotely useful. Insurance-mandated "reality" sucks.

Astonishingly strong? LOL...no, but I'm cheating a bit since my .454 is the little Alaskan. Short barrel means less recoil. Plus I think firing a 2.75" X-frame in .460S&W reset...no, broke, my recoil sense and possibly more. Shooting the snub .460 was one of those "in the black, on the paper, who knows I'm done" experiences, and it left my hand and arm aching for several days. The Alaskan is treated a lot more like a concealed carry/SD gun than a scoped hunting gun, and the normal loads I use (340gr JHP to 360gr FP) are stout but not enough to keep me from being yelled at by the "rangemasters" where I shoot for breaking their "no rapid fire" rule...while maintaining a reasonable group size. I don't think I'll ever be able to double-tap with it...but it can be drawn and fired as quick as a 1911 and the *skill* involved in making a follow up shot is no different for it than for a model 10 or any other DA revolver.

As for "probably never use it" salesmen...good point. OTOH, I think you've got to apply the right standards for the weapon type.

With autoloaders, the standard advice is to fire 200+ rds of your chosen SD ammo (which in turn should, for lawsuit avoidance, be factory ammo) in order to prove function... and to continue pouring copious amounts of that premium factory ammo through the gun to maintain a level of certainty that the gun and ammo will operate together. Revolvers simply don't need that level of ammo compatibility testing. It isn't that there are no issues...but the issues (e.g. bullet setback) can be checked for after firing a few rounds. It is perfectly reasonable to use practice ammo when practicing with a revolver. Which is where I was coming from. I think practicing with hundreds or thousands of rounds of premium +P ammo with a revolver is a waste of money and will result in a lower level of skill than if you spent the same money (and more time) with proper practice ammo..... including those plastic bullets.

Not saying anyone has to agree with me of course.

 

[Magnumite]

I have about 300 rounds through my LCR. No +P loads but about 100 148 gr DEWC loads and about 200 158 grain @800 fps loads (4" barrel). There in no indication of cylinder end shake developing (frame stretching), barrel forcing cone erosion, nor cylinder crane looseness.

This is a modern firearm using modern alloys, not old technology. Look close at the frame of the LCR in the video. Those are white powder burns. That is a hot powder at high pressures. I bet he was shooting handloads far beyond +P pressures.

 

[Solitude]

Solitude...no source. Just a best WAG based on the size, weight, and construction of the gun. It also depends heavily on the ammunition. Low-pressure/recoil impulse=longer service life.

OK, thanks for the forthright answer. I will give your opinion on this issue the weight I think it deserves.

I actually own an LCR, and have fired about 500 round through it so far, about 400 rounds of regular pressure and about 100 of +p. I have seen no wear issues so far, indeed it looks and functions exactly as it did when brand new.

From this experience, I believe that the "life expectancy" of this little revolver will be substantially more than you expect. But I could be wrong.

 

[Headless]

The result is that I can raise the gun and hit my target pretty quickly. Not competition quick maybe but under a second for an aimed shot. Aimed.

I believe this is where the disconnect is; this statement seems to indicate that you think that 'aimed' fire necessarily means you are using the sights, but I consider a shot from outside the sight picture 'aimed' as well, as long as you are still 'aiming' the gun to hit a target. In this way, point shooting without a sight picture can result in 'aimed' shots. Un aimed shots would be shooting wildly with no regard for where the bullets hit.

And it's not as though I can only pull the trigger once every two seconds. The sights are there for a reason. I can think of no good excuse not to use them in the real world.

Well, what if it's dark? Even with night sights, what if your sights are covered in mud or otherwise occluded? What if you can't extend the gun in front of your face to line up the sights due to exterior interference or without risking losing control of the gun? What if you are blinded in your dominant eye during your encounter? Would you be better off trying to shoot off-hand so you can line the sights up correctly? Or would you awkwardly hold your gun over the weak eye with your strong hand to get your sight picture?

The possibilities for not being able to use your sights in an SD encounter are endless, and I've read several more than one reports from people who have been in self defense shootings where they indicate that they didn't use the sights at all, yet still scored hits on their targets.

When things go down the toilet, you may have the time and ability to use your sights, or you may not. If you can teach yourself to point shoot, you will not need a full second and a clear sight picture to get that first shot off, and that is a huge advantage, especially in low light situations on targets that are moving quickly relative to you. If you can teach yourself to point shoot rapid fire under heavy recoil, then you will improve the speed of your follow up shots considerably - especially if you are shooting in failing light, or while attempting to move to cover which will require you to focus on something other than your sight to navigate through your environment.

I spent the time learning how to raise the gun to a correct sight picture, and how to shoot accurately with both eyes open, to give me the edge that sights offer. Honestly, not using the sights and controlling your shots is why cops constantly empty 17+ round magazines into the air around the person they are shooting at. I'd rather not follow their example. Bullets that miss are nothing but a liability.

I also spent plenty of time learning the correct sight picture, stance, and how to focus on the sights with both eyes open. These is a good skills to have - but I also recognize that shooting for practice at the range is nothing like shooting in a defensive situation, and that's why i moved on from bullseye style target shooting and have been cultivating a sense for point shooting.

I believe that the reason that cops empty their 17+ round magazine into the air around the person they are shooting at when they get into a real shooting situation can be more attributed to the fact that the training for the average police officer consists entirely of range-style sighted fire, and all they have ever trained with is 'slow, smooth, steady sight picture', just like you described. Then, in the real world, when another person started shooting at them, they did what they had to - moved to cover, returned fire as quickly as possible... and unfortunately had no real feel for point shooting so missed their target completely. I actually believe that more focus on point shooting inside 10 yards would improve hit percentages in real world situations immensely, and actually think that this underscores my point even further.

When in a defensive shootout, you don't need a perfect 10-ring shot to the heart that takes you over a second to line up, you need 3 shots inside the 6 ring, centered on the target, as fast as you possibly can. In other words, 3 'good' hits are better than 1 'perfect' hit that takes you so long to line up that you are shot before you can pull the trigger. This is the disconnect between sighted bullseye shooting and rapid fire point shooting; one assumes that you will always have the time and the vision and the maneuverability to line your sights up and shoot every time; the other prepares you for the times when you will be unable to use the sights, and it doesn't 'un-train' your sighted fire shooting, whereas shooting a ton of ammunition that hits to a different POA than your carry load WILL un-train your natural feel for how to point shoot that weapon accurately.

Point shooting, i look towards emptying all 5 rounds from a snub as fast as I can pull the trigger and still ending up with 3 or 4 hits on a moving target ~3-5 inches across at 6-10 yards, without any sight picture at all. That kind of 'feel' for where your pistol will shoot requires that you can practice extensively with your carry load. If you practice to always use the sights and take a second per shot to fire, you may find that you are at a severe disadvantage when the time comes and you cannot for whatever external reasons use your sights.

Sighted slow fire is great for stationary targets 20 yards away, but inside 7 yards i am going to be point shooting every time, especially if it's dark and I am in the defensive; that first round needs to be out as quickly as possible, and it needs to be decisively placed.

Some reference material from a quick google search that supports this concept:

"Shooting Distances

From Sept 1954 to Dec 1979, 254 officers died from wounds received in an
armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than
15 feet.

Contact to 3 feet ... 34%
3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47%
6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same
during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going
back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in
75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

Contact to 10 feet ... 51%
10 feet to 20 feet .... 24%

Lighting Conditions

The majority of incidents occurred in poor lighting conditions. None
occurred in what could be called total darkness. It was noted that
flashlights were not used as a marksmanship aid. Also, dim light firing
involves another element which is different from full light firing, muzzle
flash.
. . . .


Sight Alignment

In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers
reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

As the distance between the officer and his opponent increased, some type of
aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from
using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and
utilizing fine sight alignment.

The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.

http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Shooting/Combat.htm

That's right - all that training in bullseye target shooting, and 70%+ said they never looked at the sights when it really mattered. It's one thing to be on the offensive with your weapon already in position, and another entirely to need to draw and defend yourself while under attack. I'd bet good money that those police officers would have score much better than a measly 11.5% of shots between 3 and 7 yard if their training did not drill sight picture and instead focused on threat based targeting and point shooting.

 

[Solitude]

I emailed Ruger and asked if the LCR has a "life expectancy of 1,000 rounds". The following was their answer.

"Ruger firearms have a very good reputation for service life. With proper handling and care, you should receive many years of service from our products. However, any firearm may be irreparably damaged in short order by abuse or neglect, so it is impossible to state the life expectancy of any Ruger firearm.
Prototypes were tested at over 10,000 rounds fired (158+P) and through over 40,000 dry fire cycles."

I think this a very reasonable response. No manufacturer can account for some of the things their customers might do! So absent abuse and neglect (which Ruger does NOT define as firing 158gr +P ammunition, even a lot of it) I think the 1,000 rounds thing is unlikely.

 

[Ed Ames]

Headless, I'm in cell phone only mode today so I'm not going to give the full tit-for-tat your post deserves.

You keep trying to imply that I'm focusing on "slow fire" or bullseye type shooting. Not even close to true. You also keep trying to say that learing how to shoot properly will somehow prevent you from actually shooting when you need to. My contention is that proper training will build basic skills that allow for smooth automatic speed...and a "feel" for how guns shoot, that is just as good as what you are doing for short ranges (where, frankly, man sized targets are huge) while leaving you better prepared for just about every other type of shooting.

Let's take the other side. Have you considered the possibility that training to draw and empty a gun at any moment is what gets BART riders accidentally executed on video?

 

[fireside44]

No offense, but "saturday night special" is a term made up by people trying to deny low-income individuals their RKBA.

Online, Merriam-Webster has an entry listed from 1968 that reads:

"a cheap and easily concealed handgun"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from all I can tell, the term has likely existed long before any anti gun legislation using said term was introduced.

"Ruger firearms have a very good reputation for service life. With proper handling and care, you should receive many years of service from our products. However, any firearm may be irreparably damaged in short order by abuse or neglect, so it is impossible to state the life expectancy of any Ruger firearm.
Prototypes were tested at over 10,000 rounds fired (158+P) and through over 40,000 dry fire cycles."

"It is impossible to state the life expectancy of any Ruger firearm" followed by "Prototypes were tested at over 10,000 rounds...."

Double speak.

They tested prototypes but not production models on a brand new design?

10,000 rounds equals about three years of regular shooting in my world, give or take a year.

 

[9x19sig]

Wow, someone started the 1000 round life expectancy theory (is it 4:20 already?), and now people are dissecting Ruger's response that the LCR has been tested with over 10,000 rounds of 158+p.

I'm gonna go out on a limb when I say this, but, I'm guessing that all the people who are taking a negative stance are S&W fanboys who aren't too happy that Ruger is actually being innovative when it comes to revolvers. Oh knoes it's made out of plastics and stuffs! Take cover!

Ruger for teh win.

 

[Ed Ames]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from all I can tell, the term has likely existed long before any anti gun legislation using said term was introduced.

See http://ellegon.com/features/data/fallacies/ ... it's not far wrong.

I'm gonna go out on a limb when I say this, but, I'm guessing that all the people who are taking a negative stance are S&W fanboys who aren't too happy that Ruger is actually being innovative when it comes to revolvers. Oh knoes it's made out of plastics and stuffs! Take cover!

LOL, I don't think you could be more backward. Not if you were trying. It isn't that we (or I) think these guns are bad...it's that we (or I) think they might actually have been designed correctly.

The whole point of these things is to push the limit of lightness while still being usable as a back-up SELF-DEFENSE tool. Every ounce, every fraction of an ounce, that Ruger dedicates to handling 10,000+P loads is a simple mistake. A failure of vision.

The reality is that most of these guns will see a sensible amount of use. Most will be fired a few hundred times over 15-30 years of hard use. A few will have the snot beaten out of them as rental guns or the like, and if Ruger wants to be nice they'll fix them up periodically as a gift to the owners, but the vast majority will never reach 1000rds of normal ammo. Targeting 10X that as a safety margin is somewhat reasonable as conservative engineering or lawyerpleasing but it isn't good design. Good design is targeting 1000 and dealing with the fringe that beats the snot out of their guns on a case by case basis, because if Ruger did that then EVERYBODY wins with a lighter and better fit to purpose gun.

 

[9x19sig]

If a Ruger LCR had flame cutting after 500 rounds and nobody was there to hear it, did it actually make a sound?

 

[Headless]

Let's take the other side. Have you considered the possibility that training to draw and empty a gun at any moment is what gets BART riders accidentally executed on video?

Come now, where in the world do you get this idea from? Are you really trying to insinuate that point shooting rapid fire leads to a cop shooting an unarmed man while he has him subdued? Really? That officer was likely trained the same way you do, which is aimed, sighted slow fire, sight picture every time, so if anything you could say that it's the other way around...but you and I both know that whether someone shoots using sights or point shooting has nothing to do with a police officer accidentally killing a man who is subdued and on the ground underneath him.

You keep trying to imply that I'm focusing on "slow fire" or bullseye type shooting. Not even close to true. You also keep trying to say that learing how to shoot properly will somehow prevent you from actually shooting when you need to. My contention is that proper training will build basic skills that allow for smooth automatic speed...and a "feel" for how guns shoot, that is just as good as what you are doing for short ranges (where, frankly, man sized targets are huge) while leaving you better prepared for just about every other type of shooting.

Like it or not, getting a sight picture every time you shoot is 'slow fire' compared to rapid point shooting. I'm sure you fire pretty quickly while getting a sight picture after every shot, but there's no comparison to not needing the sight picture at all. If you are getting your 'feel' for guns from simunitions, your 'feel' is going to be 12 inches low unless you have managed to get your low power rounds to hit the same POA as your carry load. What you are describing as your training IS bullseye slow fire shooting. You are aligning the sights every shot and going for the tightest groups possible; this is the exact opposite of threat based engagement and point shooting where you don't even use your sights. I train both ways; plenty of slow fire bullseye with sights at the range, and one of my favorite things to do is 50 yard .22 pistol shooting, but that's a totally different ballgame than how I train with my snub nose revolver the vast majority of the time. Sure, I still put a few cylinders through in slow fire, sighted shots at 25 to 75 yards, but that's not how this gun was designed to be employed, so I don't see why it should compose the majority of my training time, especially if it's more likely to put me stationary and trying to line up the sights in a situation where I need to be mobile and putting lead on target without using the sights.