Ruger LCR .22

J

jackknife

Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
17,489
New Ruger LCR.22
I finally broke down and bought one. I'd been eyeing them for quite quite a while now, and the Academy Sports down the road from me had knocked down the price to 399.00.

I took it home with me and in the past month I've put a few bulk boxed of Federal 550 round boxes through it. I love this gun. The trigger pull does not feel as heavy as it is, and its really smoothed out with a lot of shooting. Cleaned an oiled after every range session.

The gun shoots right where the sights point, and in over a thousand rounds, theres been zero malfunctions of any kind. I bought a high ride hip holster for it, as its a little too bulky to pocket carry like my North American Arms mini revolvers. But its so light that it rides all day on my hip with no discomfort of any kind. My warm weather wardrobe is Magellan fishing shorts worn untucked, and the Ruger LCR rides along totally out of sight under the shirt tail. On cooler days, a very light windbreaker or vest covers it. If I wear pants other than jeans with larger pockets and slightly baggy fit, it does fit in pants pocket decently. I may trim down the bottom edge of the grip some to reduce the profile/printing. I'll also have yet to try a good pocket holster.

What has been the real surprise though, is the accuracy. With very little practice, you can stay on target on a small half size silhouette out to 20 yards. At 7 yards you can pump off the rounds in a fast double action into the 8 ring and in. At 5 yards shooting one hand, rapid hits in the center of mass is no problem. The shooting characteristics of the gun are great. Ruger did a lot homework on the ergonomics of the grip and action and sights. The inlaid white line on the front sight shows up in dim light very well.

I have to admit that in the past month I've had this gun, I haven't carried my NAA mini's but once. I wonder if the LCR is the gun that retires my NAA's after 30 plus years to the back of the sock drawer? Three more rounds than my NAA minis, faster double action, and with a couple Tuff Strips in the pocket, a ton faster to reload.

Now, all I have to do is practice until I can hit the gong at 80 yards like Hickock45!:eek:
 
Jackknife I hope you're happy with your purchase. I've contemplate the LCR line of Rugers, but at present time I just can't get behind heavily polymer revolvers myself. I'm too much a traditionalist on this subject, and I'm among the youngest members here.

Now if Ruger came out with an LCP in .22 rimfire, I'd be all over that.
 
Charlie_K said:
Jackknife I hope you're happy with your purchase. I've contemplate the LCR line of Rugers, but at present time I just can't get behind heavily polymer revolvers myself. I'm too much a traditionalist on this subject, and I'm among the youngest members here.

Now if Ruger came out with an LCP in .22 rimfire, I'd be all over that.
Click to expand...

I hear ya! If Ruger made the LCP in even .32acp or .25acp I'd be on it. In .380 its just too snappy for arthritic senior citizen mitts.

On polymer, I've been a very die hard S&W guy my whole life, but the LCR does impress me. And I trust Ruger factory service. The fact that LCR has been out a number of years now, and has a great track record for reliability pushed me over the edge. And I love compact revolvers.
 
Jack, while I like traditional guns I can see where the polymer framed guns have benefits. I’ve been eyeballing the LCRx, either in .22lr or Mag. I thought it’d be a great modern “kit gun”, or a great grouse and rabbit gun while wandering around. Extremely lightweight and from the sounds of it, very accurate too. Is yours the hammer less version?
 
315 said:
Jack, while I like traditional guns I can see where the polymer framed guns have benefits. I’ve been eyeballing the LCRx, either in .22lr or Mag. I thought it’d be a great modern “kit gun”, or a great grouse and rabbit gun while wandering around. Extremely lightweight and from the sounds of it, very accurate too. Is yours the hammer less version?
Click to expand...

Yes, its the standard little LCR snubbie. Nothing to snag while being pulled from a pocket or under a shirt in a great hurry. The LCRx with the extra inch of barrel and better sights would be a great kit gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 315
That's a great price. They are at least $75 more here.

I've been tempted to buy an LCR or LCRx. Cool guns.

I wish they had made it 10 rounds though.
 
Mitchell Knives said:
That's a great price. They are at least $75 more here.

I've been tempted to buy an LCR or LCRx. Cool guns.

I wish they had made it 10 rounds though.
Click to expand...
I think 8 isn't bad at all considering many pocket revolvers are 5 shooters versus 6. Can't remember, is the S&W 617 a ten rounder? I have the older 6 shooters in that model (M18 and M17). I prefer blued steel and the 4 inch barrel.

I lust for the LCRx in 22LR. But I have so many guns now that I can't shoot them all. It would make a good little trail gun and possible revolver for squirrels and rabbits if you're a good shot.
 
22-rimfire said:
I think 8 isn't bad at all considering many pocket revolvers are 5 shooters versus 6. Can't remember, is the S&W 617 a ten rounder? I have the older 6 shooters in that model (M18 and M17). I prefer blued steel and the 4 inch barrel.

I lust for the LCRx in 22LR. But I have so many guns now that I can't shoot them all. It would make a good little trail gun and possible revolver for squirrels and rabbits if you're a good shot.
Click to expand...

Yes the 617 is a 10 rounder. Had one for a few years, but ended up selling it. Just too big and heavy for a rimfire that was never go ing to be carried. Just a range guy. For me the 63 size is the go-to kit gun, but then I've been spoiled by them since 1980 when I got my first one.
 
J jackknife The only 617 I would consider is the 4" model for the very reason you mentioned. The 6" 617 is much more barrel heavy. I do like the 4" m17 (6 shooter) with the underlug however.
 
22-rimfire said:
J jackknife The only 617 I would consider is the 4" model for the very reason you mentioned. The 6" 617 is much more barrel heavy. I do like the 4" m17 (6 shooter) with the underlug however.
Click to expand...

Mine was a 4 inch. It was still a heavy gun and strictly a range toy. It was a sort of in between everything gun. It was accurate, but not accurate enough for club target shooting as it was no match for a Ruger MK whatever or any real target pistol. It was too heavy for a trail gun as it weighted as much as a 1911A1. It sure as heck wasn't suitable for any concealed carry. It just was too big an odd duck, so I sold it off. If I want a real target pistol, I'd just get a Ruger or splurge for a S&W 41 like my wife used in all her club completion.

The J frames and the LCR's seem to be a just right size for very good accuracy, yet small enough for very convenient carry, with he revolver reliability with rimfire. I', not real sure why, but I have found through experience that revolvers and lever action rifles like the Marlin 39's, hardly ever have a dud round. My old Ruger MK1, and the bull barrel target MK2, the S&W 41, Beretta 21, all would produce a dud at least once on the range every trip with bulk box ammo. But with the S&W or Ruger revolvers, I can't even remember the last time I had a dud round. And this last trip to the range Used the last box of the 2009 dated Federal 550 round bulk that was purchased while still living in Maryland. I'm now not the 2010 ammo rotation. In the 1,000 plus rounds though the LCR already, there hasn't been a single dud.

Weird.
 
There are certainly trends to revolvers choices. In my mind, Smith & Wesson has hit it about right with the M63 they are currently making. They probably need to re-introduce the 4" model. If you carry a gun in the woods, M617's do get a bit heavy not that many revolvers tend to get a bit heavy with prolonged carry on the belt.

I'm real satisfied with the Ruger LCR and as mentioned, would like to own a LCRx model in 22. But there comes a piled higher and deeper point with guns for me. Knives are the same way, but they tend to be smaller and easier to store that you forget about them.

Steel frames really aren't necessary with 22 handguns. There is a historical bias toward steel, but Ruger broke new ground with the popular LCR series. I know I still have a steel bias in general with revolvers. Colt made their little single action 22's years ago with the aluminum grip frame.... gradually they moved to all steel even when it was not necessary for strength issues with the 22 rimfire. Ruger has held stead fast with their frames over the years with 22's.
 
22-rimfire said:
There are certainly trends to revolvers choices. In my mind, Smith & Wesson has hit it about right with the M63 they are currently making. They probably need to re-introduce the 4" model. If you carry a gun in the woods, M617's do get a bit heavy not that many revolvers tend to get a bit heavy with prolonged carry on the belt.

I'm real satisfied with the Ruger LCR and as mentioned, would like to own a LCRx model in 22. But there comes a piled higher and deeper point with guns for me. Knives are the same way, but they tend to be smaller and easier to store that you forget about them.

Steel frames really aren't necessary with 22 handguns. There is a historical bias toward steel, but Ruger broke new ground with the popular LCR series. I know I still have a steel bias in general with revolvers. Colt made their little single action 22's years ago with the aluminum grip frame.... gradually they moved to all steel even when it was not necessary for strength issues with the 22 rimfire. Ruger has held stead fast with their frames over the years with 22's.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I really love the 3 inch barrel on my kit gun, and Had the 4 inch one before that from 1980 to 2007. I didn't notice that much difference if any in accuracy between the two. But the there inch carries better. If they brought back a longer barrel option, I'd love to try a 5 inch for a trail gun. Another two full inches of sight radius and a bit more velocity. Definitely a better pointer. The could be an interesting gun.

As for the polymer, I think its proven now to be a very viable frame material. I was prejudiced against the 'plastic' guns for longtime, but now, after having owned a Glock, a Ruger LCP, and now an LCR, I accept that it does work. If the polymer frame of an LCR can stand up to .357 magnums, its a cinch with a .22. Maybe more manufactures will comet with budget .22 revolvers with polymer frames. With modern injection molding technology, they could be made for really cheap.
 
Smith used to have a 5" version (M63-4). I own one. I bought it back in 2011 which I believe is about the time they discontinued it in favor of the 3 inch version (M63-5) currently offered. Same guns except barrel length. Fitted holsters were a problem with the 5". There are lots of 6" holsters around but not so many 5" holsters unless you have on made for you.
 
The .22 LCR is one of those that grows on me. My son works in a gun shop and got a free one from Ruger. I admit the looks are "un-revolver like" but the dang thing shoots great.

We have several unfired S&W Kit Guns but I hesitate to shoot them. I had a Model 43 Airweight Kit Gun flat latch that I just couldn't gather up the courage to shoot, it appeared to be unfired. We never planned to become collectors....forged S&W's are special.
 
JB in SC said:
The .22 LCR is one of those that grows on me. My son works in a gun shop and got a free one from Ruger. I admit the looks are "un-revolver like" but the dang thing shoots great.

We have several unfired S&W Kit Guns but I hesitate to shoot them. I had a Model 43 Airweight Kit Gun flat latch that I just couldn't gather up the courage to shoot, it appeared to be unfired. We never planned to become collectors....forged S&W's are special.
Click to expand...

JB, the un-revolver looks are what kept me from them for soooo long. Growing up with Smith and Wesson revolvers of the 1950's and 60's, I was used to a certain refinement in fit and finish, and most of all, feel. A style. The LCR looks like a Glock was sneaking around and impregnated a revolver and the LCR was the bastard offspring. A definitely mutt looking thing from the 'other' side of the tracks that no family lays claim to.:eek:

BUT...it is all Ruger, that is to say, it shoots like the dickens. The bullets go right where the sights are pointing, it always goes bang, and it functions flawlessly. In other words, it shoots like a Ruger. Like the ugly stray mutt that follows you home, you feed it, it hangs around, protects the homestead, and next thing you know you're real attached to it. :D

But JB, you need to go shoot those S&W's. It's what they were made for. The S&W kit gun is a little jewel of a revolver, and a joy to shoot. Like taking a vintage old Porsche 356 or Morgan out for a spin. :thumbsup:
 
J jackknife

I know I should shoot them. Those front sights on the old ones are 1/10" wide which makes for a more precise sight picture. My eyesight is not helpful, age is not nice to us....

One thing about the Kit Guns, as much as I love the frame size, I just never shot them as well as a Model 18. I did learn to hold my wrist with my weak hand, worked better on J frames than a regular weaver type grip for me. The newer hi viz type look awful but I can see them :D

The new Glock 44 looks pretty good too though..
 
Last edited:
JB in SC said:
J jackknife

I know I should shoot them. Those front sights on the old ones are 1/10" wide which makes for a more precise sight picture. My eyesight is not helpful, age is not nice to us....

One thing about the Kit Guns, as much as I love the frame size, I just never shot them as well as a Model 18. I did learn to hold my wrist with my weak hand, worked better on J frames than a regular weaver type grip for me. The newer hi viz type look awful but I can see them :D

The new Glock 44 looks pretty good too though..
Click to expand...

The difference in mechanical accuracy between the 18 and 63 isn't much. The killer is, with the smaller frame guns, your trigger pull is more critical. I used to shoot my 18 a lot. When I started to use the 63 that I bought in 1980, I noticed the big difference. If I really concentrated on the holy trinity of sight picture, breath control, and trigger squeeze, I could shoot the 63 just as well. But I had to work at it. The smaller J frames are touchier for the trigger squeeze. Way easier to carry though.

I had the same problem you had with the sights, and when they finally brought the 'new' 63 out with the 8 shot cylinder and ,most of all the high visibility sight, I bit. like you say, ugly as hell, but I can see that bright red dot really good!:thumbsup:

Getting old ain't for sissies.:mad:
 
If you wear prescription glasses shooting and have trouble seeing the front sight, consider "computer glasses" where in essence the focal length is adjusted to arms length or so. For me, I can still see the target well enough and the front sight is much clearer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top