So I love mine! What I REALLY want is a 6-shot full-size .357 version. Like a GP100 but with the recoil and weight management of the polymer frame, and the AMAZING LCR cam trigger.
Still they’re putting out another variant:
I won’t lie, I like .327 Federal Mag, but probably not enough to trade in the standard-fare .38/.357 cambering for one less round.
Still I love that Ruger is ringing every option out of what is probably the best pocket revolver on the marker.
.327 Mag? Please explain this to me in simple terms.
Way back in the days of black powder Smith and Wesson invented a.32 caliber revolver cartridge. Deciding that it was too weak for thier needs, the people at Herrington and Richardson made a bigger, stronger version (much like Elmer Keith did with the. 38 S&W special to make the .357 s&w magnum ) and they called it the .32 H&R Magnum.
This cartridge still has limited popularity today as a way to make a 5 shot .38 into a 6 shot .32, but many didn’t consider the. 32 magnum powerful enough for defensive use, so Federal did another update, and since people called the H&R cartridge “.32 magnum”, federal called it “.327 Federal Magnum”. It really hasn’t been used much since inception, but i’m always happy to see more good guns in it.
The video (or whatever) isn’t coming through for me. Could you direct me to a link. (Probably some new “feature” of my antivirus software.)
Check out Ruger’s YouTube for the video.
A couple of years ago I had a chance to fire a .357Magnum LCR. I have a .38Spl+P version. By round number 3 I was debating whether I wanted to shoot rounds 4 and 5. It was damned unpleasant and if I recall, we were only shooting Remington factory loads. I am not normally recoil sensitive, but OUCH! The .327 should soften the recoil but provide a decent defensive round.
I personally find the LCR the most controllable lightweight small revolver on the market.
That being said, the. 357 is still no kitten, tho 38s 8 the slightly heavier. 357 model isn’t too bad.
I agree, .327 will probably be milder still, but it’s still a substantial round.
I was researching this a while back, and the consensus from the folks who had chronographs was that you could not get a .357 magnum to perform up to par in that short a barrel. And yuck – the recoil was awful. The 38 Special +P rounds available for short barrels are supposed to be pretty good – from a ballistic standpoint. (Again, I don’t have a chrono, but these have been extensively reviewed in various places.)
The 38 Special +P rounds are bit peppery. (I’ve only had the chance to shoot about 50 rounds through one LCR in that caliber.) Not sure it is a gun I would want to shoot all day at the range. Haven’t run plain 38 rounds through it, though that might make practice more palatable. My take on a gun that small is it is for carry, I need to be comfortable with it under most circumstances, but with that short a barrel I better not be shooting at long distance. It would probably be a backup. Maybe. I know it isn’t popular today in the age of GLOCK, but I love the simplicity of revolvers.
And for 357 magnum, I like something with more steel to help with recoil. But that’s me.
In the end, most of these discussions come down arguing about whether or not chocolate is superior to vanilla.
To the rabid pro-gun wingnuts that litter this message board with pictures of weapons, and the even more ridiculous web administrator who launches into pseudo-intellectual arguments defending the “inappropriate” use of the term gun-death …
Thanks for being such great supporters of firearms on a day when another bunch of innocent people got killed by a gun. Let’s hear you launch into your tirade of how it wasn’t the gun, it was the person holding it … how you’re protecting some outdated constitutional amendment … and how someone’s innocent life is actually just a metaphor for your utopian concept of “freedom.”
Anonymous, thanks. I appreciate your good intentions, but reality is we talk about those awful mass shootings because they’re rare in a nation of 300+ million.
So casually you use the word, “rare.” As if a rarity justifies it all. In the aviation world plane crashes are rare. The FAA picks apart plane crashes to figure out what went wrong. In hospitals, operations on the wrong limb are rare. The IHI dissects the steps that bring people to operating theaters to make sure incidents like that don’t happen again. The flippancy with which gun supporters talk about rarity with gun deaths, but then go ape shit when any reasonable tweak happens to keep guns out of the hands of people like that shooter (by “that shooter,” you can have your pick of any said individual …) baffles me. I don’t know if you have kids, family members, but you really think you could say to those families that something to keep a gun out of that guy’s hands wouldn’t have prevented this? Every other recurrent, frequent failing in society is met with attempts to make change, to prevent. And yet the rabid activism by gun supporters to do anything in the face of this violence that may threaten their ownership of arms is total hypocrisy. Get your heads out of your little bunkers and think about what you’re supporting here. How is this any more or less rare than other things that trigger national outrage and lead to preventive action?
Of course the anti-gun people do nothing to analyze events like this. They simply wring thier hands and demand whatever pet law they already had on their wish-list, which has zero relevance to the event, all while chiding logical people, and saying “we have to do something”.
BTW, after the Sandy Hook shooting the “reasonable tweak” as you call it, was to ban private sales (in the wake of a shooting where the killer murdered his mother, and stole said guns). The same hue and cry was done by Michael Bloomberg when he spent millions of dollars to ban private sales in Oregon. He told the voters it would stop shootings like this, while law enforcement and gun rights advocate said it was hogwash.
Further we said that areas that ban guns on property are magnets for these kinds of killers.
I hear that the killer was targeting Christians (tho I note that at this point much of what we hear is false) he chose a college where students faced expulsion for mere possession of a firearm on campus, and not a Church where he would likely find more targets, but no laws or regulations preventing said targets for being armed.
So who’s being rational here?
Total nonsense. How you can continue to stand by this hogwash in the face of such overwhelming evidence that guns kill people baffles most of America, baffles most of the world. Don’t talk about mental illness, private sales, public sales, what needs to be stored where, etc. You have an object that has limited practical use, and the capacity to cause great of damage in the wrong hands. What justification is there? Maybe someone on here will just acknowledge that the M.O. of every “gun advocate” is to prevent any sort of legal action on the use/sale/carry of guns in any form. Why does this strike so many Americans as completely bizarre? Because at the end of the day you are largely a group of adult men and women who have such a deep fixation on an object that you’re willing to disregard the consequence of human life for it. What else could there be? Freedom — the other banner that every gun proponent throws up relentlessly. And how ironic that those cries for freedom are often shouted loudest by people who post on the government-regulated internet, in home with government-regulated electricity, in car that are government regulated for safety, in neighborhoods with government-regulated water quality. Hypocrisy. Thinly veiled fascinations with violence. Paranoia. It swirls in this seedy, dangerous, manipulative mess while billions of tax dollars go into federal penitentiaries, lives are lost, drug violence thrives, and people suffer. And the gun proponents speak of, “freedom.”
For somebody who knows nothing, and relies on others to think for him, you sure talk a lot, and don’t seem to have the capacity to listen.
Why don’t you shut up for a bit, read my archives, use the search bar to the right, and listen to a few of my podcasts.
Maybe you’ll learn something, rather than the stupid straw men idiocy you just spouted.
PS: this thread is about the Ruger LCR, and the. 327 magnum. If you want to talk politics, go post on one of those, you are perfectly welcome here if you act in a respectful maner. Also commit to a screen name, it will make you seem like you want to actually have a discussion.
So yeah further off-topic post will be reported to my spam software, which will eventually lead to your ip being blocked. I’d rather not do that.
Cute, an anti who doesn’t want to discuss, just disrupt.
Whoever you are, I’m sorry about your mental problems, but once you can function in society, you’re welcome back.