Ruger’s lightweight snubbie, the LCR is known for having one of the sweetest stock triggers in revolverdom. Last year, they added a model with an external hammer – the LCRx – for those who really want to shoot single action. Now they’ve taken the LCRx and gone long, intro’ing a +P version with a 3-inch barrel, adjustable sights and a full-length Hogue grip (MSRP $529). It’s definitely packable, but would make a nice home defense gun, no? Press release after the jump . . .
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE-RGR) announces the introduction of the LCRx™ with a 3-inch barrel, the newest variation of the revolutionary Lightweight Compact Revolver (LCR®). Chambered in .38 Special +P, this LCRx features an exposed hammer that allows it to be fired in either double-action or single-action mode.
“The newest LCRx is the perfect revolver for backpacking, concealed carry, home defense, or just plinking,” said Chris Killoy, Ruger President and Chief Operating Officer. “The 3-inch barrel, adjustable sight and modest weight create a great all-around gun.”
This latest addition to the LCR line maintains all the features of the original LCR, including a uniquely engineered double-action trigger pull and patented Ruger friction-reducing cam fire control system. The double-action trigger pull force on the LCR builds gradually and peaks later in the trigger stroke, resulting in better control and a trigger pull that feels much lighter than it actually is. The LCRx also incorporates crisp single-action functionality for precise shooting.
The LCRx rear sight is fully adjustable for both windage and elevation, and the full-length Hogue® Tamer™ Grip without finger grooves makes for comfortable shooting. The LCR chambered in .38 Special +P has three main components: a polymer fire control housing, an aerospace grade aluminum monolithic frame, and an extensively fluted stainless steel cylinder. When it was originally introduced, the Ruger LCR revolver was one of the most significant new revolver designs in over a century, and it has since been awarded three patents.
In addition to the recently introduced 9mm model, the Ruger LCR is available in .38 Spl +P, .357 Mag., .22 WMR and .22 LR double-action-only models. The exposed hammer LCRx is available in .38 Spl +P. All LCR models feature replaceable ramp front sights with white bar and some models feature a laser-sighting system from Crimson Trace®.
For more information on the Ruger LCRx with 3-inch barrel, or to learn about the extensive line of award-winning Ruger firearms, visit Ruger.com orFacebook.com/Ruger To find accessories for Ruger firearms, visitShopRuger.com.
357 or GTFO
I have the DAO in .357, its nice but would prefer the .38 for CC especially on the ankle.
The longer barrel would have better powder burn for the .357 cartridge. I’m waiting to see if they come out with a 4″ or even 6″, heck I’m sure handgun hunters would like to have an 8″ revolver that isn’t 5 pounds.
I am disappointed that the 22 MAG isn’t higher capacity. I think the 3″ with SA/DA should be in 22 as well.
What I really want is a GP-100 with the friction-reducing cam trigger from the LCR.
You would have to get a GP100 Wiley Clapp model for anywhere near the LCR .38 smooth trigger pull and not sure if available new, limited run, might find one used. And also costly but worth it! Took it out a couple of weeks ago at an outdoor range and shot 158 grain HP loads out it. WOW was it loud!, considerable muzzle flip but so much fun killing targets!
I know this tread is long dead, but I had to add my two cents worth: I’m hoping for a 4inch, 5inch or 6inch, for the same reason another commenter mentioned…a light weight hunting / hiking companion with more accuracy and less muzzle blast. I would buy one for sure. If asked, I’d say go with the 5 inch. But even a 4 inch would be an improvement. I’ve even looked into a custom barreled lcrx, but because of the way it’s built, it’s not practical. Others can argue the merits of light weight vs. shootability, but the old adage of “the gun you have with you is better than the one left at home” applies big time. Also, a lightweight gun with a longer barrel is a better shooter than a lightweight short barreled one. I’d use it for a carry gun on the farm, hiking, hunting sidearm, etc.. One huge advantage of a revolver on the farm is the ability to easily change ammo. The best bullet for putting down a cow is not the best one for self protection, etc.. HELLO RUGER… ARE YOU LISTENING?
Mr. FlaBoy,
I have an LCRX 3″. I really like it a lot. I am a revolver guy. Mine is very accurate shooting single action. Shooting it in double action is where it falls off. It is so light, the relatively heavy DA trigger pull can easily pull it off the sight picture. I would absolutely carry mine on the trail. Shoot it in single, and save the double for up close emergency. The sad thing about shooting it in double, is that I can draw it very fast from a Galco Speed Paddle, but then I have to concentrate on the sight picture more than usual. All in all, I would recommend it.
I agree, but I have a feeling they will do it. Probably just testing that waters first.
What a great idea. I nearly bought a 357 2″ barrel but couldn’t get over the crappy ballistics. 3″ not so bad. I know Rossi made one but who else had 3″ barrel snubbies? 4″ barrel seems too big to conceal.
9mm +P gives up nothing to .357 out of a 2″ barrel. Check Ballistics By the Inch.
Ruger makes a 3″ SP101.
http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/specSheets/5719.html
A 3 inch tube with adjustable sights? Between the hammer spur and the sights it looks like Murphy can get in your mix at just the wrong moment. Hammer spurs and adjustable sights belong on service grade or target grade wheel guns. Not belly guns.
Bob the hammer and fix the sights and I’d be interested. I’m channeling my inner DG here, but make it in .44 special and I’d throw money at it.
You want the Ruger Redhawk Alaskan…
Wow. That’s a big a$$ed revolver. Does it come with a carriege mount?
For the .44 Special? Not necessary. The Ruger Redhawk was built for the .44 Magnum, which has a pressure level of 35K PSI and up.
The pressure spec for the .44 Special is 15K PSI and up for modern revolvers. This pressure level is down on par with the .38 Special.
The .44 Special would be the cat’s meow for a CCW gun. Fling a 240 grain pill downrange at 800+ fps. You can stoke the .44 Special up to near .44 Magnum pressures – there’s enough room in the case to pull this off. The .44 Special was originally loaded to duplicate the ballistics of a black powder cartridge, the .44 Russian, which is why the pressures are spec’d so low.
Like the .45 Colt, the .44 Special is capable of soooo much more performance in modern firearms made with modern steels and tighter chambers.
All good points jwm. I really like the idea of .44 Special.
Nevertheless, .38 Special +P shooting a 158 grain soft lead hollowpoint semi-wadcutter (or full wadcutter for that matter) is about as effective as any caliber/load. I certainly would not feel undergunned with that caliber/load.
That’s my favorite .38 load. But I can’t use it in my airweight j frame because it allows bullet creep and can jam the revolver.
I see these short barreled revolvers as the perfect carry gun. And since any fight is going to likely be at knife range they really are the answer. A five shot .44 special would be just that much better than a .38.
Unfortunately, the only company making a gun that fits that description is Carter Arms. Taurus used to, but that wouldn’t be much better.
Bufallo Bore offers a very similar load, and they swear no crimp jump even in the lightest revolvers (they specifically quote 340PD in their muzzle velocity figures, which is as light as you can get). I also haven’t observed crimp jump with their rounds in practice in my testing with said 340 PD (fairly limited by virtue of it not exactly being pleasant to shoot +P ammo of…).
int19h, I’ll get some for my j frame and test them. +p loads hurt out of these airweights, but I’m willing to take the pain if they’re reliable. I have BB copper loads for my k frame for condor country.
I’ve used BB loads in my mak. You feel the sting after a box of those.
Uh, no. The .38+P does not equal the 9mm +P, .357, .40, .41, .44, etc. It bugs me when someone says unequal calibers are equal simply because they want them to be.
.38 Special +P does not produce the kinetic energy of the calibers you listed. Nevertheless, the load that I described is every bit as capable of stopping a human attacker in short order as 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 Long Colt and .45 ACP. Proper loads in .357 Magnum are obviously better. And .41 and especially .44 Magnum of course are far superior. However, Magnums generate a LOT more recoil and deafening reports.
I stand behind my statement: I would not feel undergunned with a .38 Special +P revolver with a 3 inch barrel shooting 158 grain soft hollowpoint semi-wadcutters when facing human attackers.
Thugs must laugh at us. Penetration, stopping power, caliber, gel test, hollows or wads, laser sight, capacity, fps etc etc. They know that a bullet, any bullet, will put a bloody tunnel in them. Either a 4″ or 14″ deep tunnel will ruin their weekend plans. We’ve seen the security cameras showing the yo-yo-yo hoodie thugs scatter like cockroaches at the 1st sight of the clerk’s gun…any gun. A famous Florida philosopher, George Zimmerman, recently said “there’s a lawyer attached to every bullet”.
A 3 inch barrel, good trigger, weighing in at a pound and grip I can hold on to will work for for me. I’ve killed rabbits at 35 yards with a 357 with my weak hand with a 3 inch barrel and good sights. A one pound 38 Special may not work or others. It will kick with authority. I train with reloaded 38 Short Colt ammo and finish off each session with some carry loads.
These are not guns for beginners. If you have to have a small revolver a S&W all steel J Frame that weighs at least 22 ounces is as light as I would go in 38 Special. The Cowboy ammo shoots OK with it as does Hornaday’s light Critical Defense. I really would go with a larger pistol if at all possible. The little guns are great once you have the confidence to use them.
I strongly suggest the longest heaviest pistol you WILL carry.
Red
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are out numbered by the people that vote for a living.
The double-action trigger pull force on the LCR builds gradually and peaks later in the trigger stroke
In some quarters, that’s called “stacking,” and it’s not a compliment.
Those adjustable sights bother me for some reason. They look like they hang off the gun like they know they don’t belong.
And like they might get whacked out of line?
I MUST have one!
I’ve been saying for a while now that they should make an LCR “kit gun” just like this. Not sure about the rear sight, though; it looks a bit fragile in that photo. But, since I’ve been asking for it, I guess I have to put my money where my mouth is and buy one. Well played, Ruger.
The beauty of this as a tacklebox/glovebox/toolbox gun is, unlike a more traditional revolver that’s got classic good looks, the LCR is so ugly, you won’t care if it gets beat up a little.
Neat!
.38 Spl is one of my favorite calibers to shoot because I can reload it super cheap.
I’ll probably get one.
FUGLY
FUGLY — which is Welsh for Ruger. Really. You can look it up.
The article makes it sound like trigger stacking but actually the double action trigger on the original LCR is pretty nice. In some ways I like it better than my Smith 627 and it’s been worked over.
This revolver with a 3 inch tube looks pretty good. I didn’t see where they said how much it weighs. The original is 13 oz. I think.
16 oz
Fugly is in the eye of the beholder.
You do have a point though.
Why not make a 357 version? Always something.
I’m sure they will. Ruger has a habit of spacing their releases out over many months. They rarely ever release a complete product line all at once. They like to test the waters one model at a time.
Same reason they didn’t introduce this one two yrs ago… Just wait.
Ruger consistently makes some of the most butt ugly guns ever. Good guns, but damn ugly.
I think the Smith combat magnum has this beat.
The S&W is no doubt a much prettier gun in a beefier caliber, but it’ll cost you nearly twice as much, and includes the awful S&W internal trigger lock. Twice as heavy, too. Better for shooting, not so much for carrying.
I’d prefer one of each, so I can make a proper comparison. 😉
I wish they’d make one in .44 Special.
Or a larger version in .45acp.
Seriously, .44 special or .45acp in a smaller lighter package would rule the market (especially with no frame mounted key lock.)
I’d flat buy one in .44 Special, but they’re going to have to do something about those sights to “tuck ’em in” a little more. Don’t they look like they’re just hanging out in space to y’all?
If it was a .357 or .44 Special, I’d be interested.
Gimme a 3 inch, 8 shot .22 wmr.
Don’t know if full 3″ qualifies as a “snubby” but Ruger makes a GP100 stainless steel .357/38 revolver, the weight makes recoil a non issue. I have original .38 LCR revolver
for concealed carry. The Ruger friction-reducing cam fire control system creates perfect trigger pull, feels light & smooth. As far as revolvers, Ruger is one of the best behind maybe Colt and Smith & Wesson, but far more economical. I have all flavors of Ruger Revolvers from 9mm to ,357, all have very good triggers. I’m good with any of them for self defense.
Have been shopping the Ruger LCR line since they came out as alternative 30 oz. 2 1/2″ 19
Rather have NY reload at same weight
Like the 3″ barrel, velocity increase and shoot ability over the 1.8″ barreled version is appealing
38+P not so much, want 357 just to have an ammo option
The sights are just hanging out on a “pocket gun” and just looking for a place to
snag
I’ve using that name on this website for years, make up your own.
All y’all screeching for .357, just wait a few months. Remember how long it took for the original LCR to be offered in .357? Well, neither do I.. but my point is they didn’t come out immediately with both calibers in that gun either. Sort of thing.
Ruger is laughing all the way to the bank and their well executed game plan is the ol’ 60’s planned obsolescense. I’m not being critical, I respect their savvy. The LCR caliber parade rolled through 38 special, 357, 22lr, then 22wmr. (I ended up with the 38 & 22). Then comes the LCRx hammer and I find myself wishing my LCR-38 was an LCRx-38. But before I can buy one, they come out with the LCR-9, wow what a temptation! I love the idea of a 9mm quickly reloaded via moon clips, but I want an LCRx-9!!!! My biggest gripe with the LCR’s has been the two finger grip. Now what do we see this week but an LCR with what appears to be a 3 finger grip (I’ve already checked ShopRuger and the Hogue website but the longer grip is not listed yet), an adjustable sight and a 3 inch barrel. My head is spinning. Hey, Ruger here’s my account#, we’ll just set up a monthly automatic withdrawal plan – Sigh!
not crazy about the sights but i’m a fan of the 3″ and of ruger guns.
When shopping for a ‘kit’ gun 2 years ago I settled on the 3″, 8 shot 22 lr Smith & Wesson model 63. Great little revolver (I only need a thicker grip to fill my hand better, still shopping).
I utilized the ’email the CEO’ link ruger had on their homepage, as they had come out with the LCR in 22 around the same time. I basically told him if they had come out with it with adjustable sights and an exposed hammer, he would have had my buisness. Taking things the way Ruger has been lately, I feel like I’m being listened too. Waiting on the LCRx in 22, and I’ll take it in 2 or 3 inches!
Shooting the LCR made me go from extreme skeptic to a believer…. BUT Ruger, give me a 6th shot and I’m looking at a great IDPA stock service revolver. Cut it for moon clips (the way S&W does so you can use them or not) and I’ll be first in line to get one.
-D
Love my .357 LCR with XS front sight. But for adjustable sights and longer radius I’ll still use the SP101 4.2 inch. Its much more comfy with full house magnums, and will happily eat them all day.
I watched the official Ruger video on this revolver, at the end of which the salesman fires five rounds. He had to readjust his grip after every shot, suggesting that this lightweight would be a real handful in .357. I too am not enamored of the adjustable sight, since as a ccw weapon at 7 yards or so the sights will be more of a hindrance than a benefit. Otherwise I like this pocketable revolver. I wonder if Ruger will bring it to California (as a result of California’s microstamping law, Ruger cannot introduce any new pistols and is allowing the registration of all of its rostered pistols to expire. The P95 Is the last survivor, and it will likely disappear next May.)
Every one of the light, magnum revolvers I’ve shot (regardless of who made it) is both a handful and a pain in the hand to shoot. The short-barreled revolvers flip like a SOB on you, and aren’t exactly target guns.
I don’t know why the gun makers obsess about shipping “magnum” revolvers for CCW. I’ve got nothing against the .357, .41, .44, but there’s no need for these rounds in a CCW/self-defense handgun. They have the ability to actually over-penetrate (the .357 penetrates like nothing else out there in a handgun), all of them end up pushing unburnt powder out the muzzle in short-barrel guns (resulting in a blinding muzzle flash) and the added recoil and noise isn’t useful.
I’d like to see revolvers for .38 Special +P, .44 Special, .44 Russian, .45 Colt, etc. Older, low-pressure cartridges (which means that the revolver can be built more lightly – thinner cylinder walls, thinner barrels, etc) with heavy, big-cavity, jacketed HP bullets. Once you go to high pressure cartridges, you need to beef everything up, the revolver becomes heavier (or the recoil becomes wickedly sharp and painful), etc.
If the .45 ACP is good enough for a semi-auto (230gr at 850 fps, give or take), then any pill headed downrange at 850+ fps should be at the starting point for a CCW/self-defense round.
“Self Defense is 7 yards.”
No one tells the bad guy where to stand. It could be 7 inches or 70 yards. An LCR with a green laser will do it’s job at 70 yards if you do yours. I expect the number of7 yards will trace back to Dennis Tueller’s writings. Find young man and give him an rubber knife and offer him 20 bucks if he can stab you with the rubber knife before you can draw a AirSoft replica of your carry gun and get off a shot that would stop him.
I know this old man will be out a saw bill a lot of the time and most kids won’t get hit by the AirSoft if I don’t start to draw before they make a move towards me. I’ll win a few and loose a lot. I am just not a quick as used to be.
In my part of the world I can be out looking at a cotton crop and someone can start taking shots at me from the road a half mile away. The only cover I have is cotton plant 6 inches tall on the whole 640 acres. I really hope if I am ever in that spot I have something bigger than a Ruger LCR. If that’s what I have; that’s what I’ll use.
Red
If you shoot 3 feet in front of a duck, then shoot 3 feet behind the duck, on the average you killed the duck. You won’t have a duck to eat.
Hey D.G. I agree with your basic premise. That’s why I bought the LCR 357 magnum with 1.875″ barrel. It’s the only LCR model ( so far ) that has an extra 4 ozs. of stainless built in – & still a light gun……greatly assists with recoil. On top of that, I only use lightweight 38 specials in it…..for quick, on-target, low recoil defensive shots. I’ve found my arrangement to be quite manageable. Beyond that, a “want” of mine is for this LCRx 3″, full grip model in 22lr – 8 cylinders. I’ll be awaitin’ for it.
I believe the correct terms would be one cylinder with 8 chambers.
I am smitten. My credit card runneth over.
I think what most would really embrace would be a LSR (Light Service Revolver) design from Ruger. This would be a medium to full-size, medium weight handgun using the same concepts as the LCR – innovative design and use of materials, easy to factory assemble without skilled craftsmen, rugged, reliable, affordable, and with a great trigger.
Love to see a 5-shot in .44 Special, a 7-shot in .357/.38, 7-shot 9mm, 8 or 9-shot in .22 WMR, and a 10-shot in .22lr. Weight would be, what? 23-oz to 26-oz, depending on barrel length?
Make it in 9mm and I’ll pay MSRP.
That is a beautiful looking revolver.
I agree with all the wishes for the LCRx 3-inch in .357 and .44 Special, and will buy one of each when/if Ruger jumps through all the hoops to allow us inmates of California to buy one. I can’t help but point out though that S&W scandium/aluminum alloy 5 shot revolvers have been (past tense, out of print now, but still available if you’re determined) in .357 Mag 3-inch (360 M&P 3-inch) and .44 Special 2 1/2-inch (396 Night Guard). Both are great shooting revolvers, very light, very packable and not too abusive. Yeah, they’re around twice the price of the LCRx, and I’m much in favor of the polymer/aluminum hybrids which the Smiths are not, but they are out there.
Pat
I have owned several ruger revolvers over the years – Security Six, GP100 and SP101. I simply don’t see the practical use of this LRx-3 gun. Some observations:
With the light weight aluminum frame, 38 +P defense loads will be unpleasant to shoot, even with the larger grip. As a home defense gun, there is no point to the lighter weight, and a 3″ barrel stainless steel SP101 would be much more comfortable to shoot (and practice with), and superior in all respects – after simple installation of the cheap Wilson or Wolff lighter hammer spring (and possibly a little inexpensive gunsmith internals polishing).
As a “kit gun” for hiking or camping, for most people, there is no advantage over the SP101 3″ or 4″, which are easily carried on a belt holster, and again, much easier to shoot with +P. The only exception I see being for a young or small person. or someone with lower arm strength who needs a lighter weight hiking/camping gun, and will mostly shoot standard 38 Special rounds. There’s a market there, but a small one.
As a concealed carry gun, again there is no point. The extra barrel length over a ~2″ snubnose is long enough to be a hindrence in a fanny pack, IWB holster, or shoulder holster. Ruger may have realized that they they made the original LCR 1.875″ barrels too short for decent powder burn even with fast powders, but are too stubborn to admit that error. Muzzle flash with that short of a barrel is excessive with most factory loads. They should have made the barrels 2-1/8.” The 2-1/4″ SP101 does fine with a fast burning powder. And of course in concealed carry, the rear sights can hang up on the draw from a pack or on clothing.
Ruger’s adjustable sights on this gun, just like the same design on most of the GP100s and a few of the SP101s, have been criticized for years by gun reviewers as fragile and prone to drift. They are often replaced with (expensive) aftermarket sights. I have no idea why Ruger hasn’t redesigned these to be sturdier and hold adjustment. It would be easy. Instead they offer the silly Wiley Clapp ones on a few guns, which weaken the top strap considerably and add a significant stress concentration point with the dovetail cutout. If you want an adjustable sight gun for longer range target shooting, of course the 4″ SP101 is superior, as is the 4″ GP100. Again the exception being for someone with low arm strength who must have a lightweight gun.
Of course Ruger will come out soon with a .357 steel-frame version at about 19 ounces, which will be a much better choice for ANYONE considering this gun. It will be much easier to shoot well, and of course handle all 38 Special loads as well as .357. Even for those with lower arm strength who need a light revolver, it will still be quite light and will be a better choice than this aluminum framed gun.
Ruger’s design philosophy is sometimes “let’s make it and see what sells.” That’s why they have discontinued so many guns in the past, which is frustrating for their owners and gunsmiths who need parts. And they also are resistant to correcting design errors. For example, the new GP100 Match Champion looks a lot like the old Security Six with the extra weight reduced from the overly heavy GP100. All the GP100s could go on a weight reduction diet and get the same trigger group work and be superior revolvers.
Be awesome in .22 mag!
I bought one yesterday. It’s too muddy to try it out. With laser rounds it shoots awfully low and it looks like the front sight is lot higher than the rear one. We”ll see how it shoot on the range. It wouldn’t be big deal to replace the the rear sight with a fixed sight. An extra tapped hole would probably be needed. The sights are good ones as far as making a good sight picture. I know what I used to be able to do with a 3 inch barreled revolver with sight not quite this good. One handed shots on cotton tailed rabbits at 30 yards with my weak hand most of the time. I hope I can still do it some of the time with a good two handed hold.
I plan to make custom grips and add 8 or 10 ounces of lead as high as I can in the grips to tame it down a bit.
I can’t find a single case of Ruger lock failing in a locked position. I Oklahoma I would carry a S&W with an altered lock. I am confident I can make the case a pistol that can fail in a way it won’t fire fails to be a self defends weapon. I would rather not have to make that argument so all my S&W’s are used. I’ve also seen inside the new S&W revolvers and they were dry as a bone.
I find the cylinder release awfully small and hard to use but it seems to be loosening up. The trigger pull is smooth and HEAVY!
-more-
Red
The LCR 9mm has been a huge success. A round more powerful, than the 38, close to the 357. but easy to handle. None of the High Flash, Loud Noise and harsh recoil. The 9mm already shoots faster than micro 9mm with similar barrels. I do NOT want a 357. In a light weight snubbie with a long barrel. Make it in 9mm or just get the SP101 in 9mm. And forget the 327. My God, you have to be almost rich to even shoot the Loud SOB.