Poly revolvers
- Thread starter Northrider
- Start date
testuser79
New member
Surprisingly, polymer revolvers just don't save much weight or expense.
You'd think the weight savings would be more significant. The weight difference between an aluminum airweight and the LCR is only 1.5 ounces. Cost of the polymer frame revolvers are practically the same, as well, maybe slightly more expensive for the plastic model when comparing an airweight to an LCR.
As was pointed out, aluminum scandium alloy frames are a good deal lighter than even a polymer revolver. The problem is cost.
Maybe it would make more difference if a larger frame revolver were produced in polymer?
You'd think the weight savings would be more significant. The weight difference between an aluminum airweight and the LCR is only 1.5 ounces. Cost of the polymer frame revolvers are practically the same, as well, maybe slightly more expensive for the plastic model when comparing an airweight to an LCR.
As was pointed out, aluminum scandium alloy frames are a good deal lighter than even a polymer revolver. The problem is cost.
Maybe it would make more difference if a larger frame revolver were produced in polymer?
Last edited:
Price wise, I've noticed the LCR is over $400. The stock grip on the LCR is too wide IMO. I know they sell a thinner (boot) grip for it, which is extra $.
I got my SW 642 for $345. The stock grip is thin for CCW. Much better deal IMO, unless money is no object. I don't really care about the lighter trigger of the LCR. The trigger on the 642 is fine. It is designed as part of the safety feature of the weapon. A couple ounce weight difference is not a big deal to me.
I got my SW 642 for $345. The stock grip is thin for CCW. Much better deal IMO, unless money is no object. I don't really care about the lighter trigger of the LCR. The trigger on the 642 is fine. It is designed as part of the safety feature of the weapon. A couple ounce weight difference is not a big deal to me.
Cheapshooter
New member
Nope, SAAMI pressure for the 327 Federal is higher than 357 Magnum, or 9MM. The two calibers now chambered in the steel subframe Models.
For 327 Magnum they would have to build one even stouter. With the lackluster acceptance of that round, I doubt they would build a new gun around it.
Nakanokalronin
New member
I've owned several J-Frames, a Taurus 85 and an SP101 and the LCR is the hands down the winner in recoil, weight and out of the box trigger. I've shot the Taurus poly offering as well as the Smith poly option, but the LCR is still the best.
Ruger was putting locks on the LCR under the grips, but they seemed to have moved away from it. My .38spl LCR below weighs 13.1 ounces empty. The coating on the cylinder is also excellent. I have at least 450rds. through this and there's no drag mark anywhere on cylinder yet.
Ruger was putting locks on the LCR under the grips, but they seemed to have moved away from it. My .38spl LCR below weighs 13.1 ounces empty. The coating on the cylinder is also excellent. I have at least 450rds. through this and there's no drag mark anywhere on cylinder yet.
Onward Allusion
New member
What makes no sense to me is why poly revolvers cost the same or more than their steel counterpart. I'm guessing some folks think polys are automatically much lighter than steel.
Nakanokalronin
New member
My LCR is lighter than the Airweight J-frames I owned and has less recoil. I only paid $360 total shipped for mine since my FFL didn't charge me for the transfer. I'm not up on every snub out there, but is there a 13oz. snub in that price range?
Nakanokalronin
New member
I had a 642. The LCR has a better trigger out of the box and was still better after polishing the internals and adding an Apex spring kit to my 642. I also like how the front sight is easy to change as well as coming with the 2 finger Tamer grips. Why Hogue decided on a 3 finger model for the J-Frames is beyond me. Probably has to do with the frame design.
Either way, there's plenty of choices for everyone.
Either way, there's plenty of choices for everyone.
Last edited:
I don't routinely carry, living in Communist NJ, only when I'm on trips to free states.
So I buy handguns that will last. I can appreciate someone buying a poly revolver as a tool they would be willing to replace or throw away when used up, but that doesn't appeal to me.
If I needed the weight savings, I'd pony up the extra bucks for a scandium model...though I'm not crazy about their durability for heavier loads (even though I own a one, lol) but at least they would still be functional and safe in 50 years; even if I'm not around, I believe my sons would appreciate them.
So I buy handguns that will last. I can appreciate someone buying a poly revolver as a tool they would be willing to replace or throw away when used up, but that doesn't appeal to me.
If I needed the weight savings, I'd pony up the extra bucks for a scandium model...though I'm not crazy about their durability for heavier loads (even though I own a one, lol) but at least they would still be functional and safe in 50 years; even if I'm not around, I believe my sons would appreciate them.
Cheapshooter
New member
Who says they will be used up?
The "working" parts, barrel, and subframe are metal. Aluminum and steel on the LCR 38, and all steel on the 357 Magnum.
How many tens of thousands of rounds have been fired through various Glocks without "using them up"? Even the lowly Hi-Point was proven nearly indestructible in several torture test videos.
So I don't see how the polymer parts of a revolver will be adversely effected by a lifetime or two, or three of use.
Nakanokalronin
New member
Poly revolvers are fairly new and seem to be getting the same reaction and remarks like Glock received back in the 80's.
Cosmodragoon
New member
Cheapshooter wrote:
The .327 is a sweet round but those are important challenges. (I still think they dropped the ball when it came to bringing that zippy little devil to market.) A 6-shooter in .32 H&R mag would get over some of that hump and make a sweet pocket gun but I'm not holding my breath.
Meanwhile, I'm curious to see if we get anything more stout than a .357 in poly or if we'll be seeing larger-frame or higher-capacity models.
The .327 is a sweet round but those are important challenges. (I still think they dropped the ball when it came to bringing that zippy little devil to market.) A 6-shooter in .32 H&R mag would get over some of that hump and make a sweet pocket gun but I'm not holding my breath.
Meanwhile, I'm curious to see if we get anything more stout than a .357 in poly or if we'll be seeing larger-frame or higher-capacity models.
Nakanokalronin
New member
I wouldn't doubt it. The Russians made a full size revolver with a poly lower long before the snubs we know today: http://world.guns.ru/handguns/double-action-revolvers/rus/izhmeh-mp-412-e.html
The LCR was introduced only 5 years ago, so time will tell who will make what. I don't care for Taurus or this type of revolver (even from S&W), but it's a poly revolver in 45 Colt.
When I bought my LCR .38 (used) I was a little skeptical. After shooting the gun, it has a much better trigger than any snub I have owned and is so light you can carry it without even knowing it's there. No, it won't win any beauty contests, but it makes a great carry gun and it shoots so well I enjoy practicing with it.
DannyB1954
New member
I went with the S&W 38 bodyguard myself. Mostly because the built in laser is closer to the bore than on the LCR.
Cheapshooter
New member
Yup, got one. Contrary to the self proclaimed critics, it is very accurate with 45 Colt ammo, and efficient @SD range with handgun specific buck shot.
Mine has been shot quite a lot with both the 45 rounds, and shot shells, without any issues. Great gun.