glassguy said:
I like the S&W 638 because it is single/double action and will shoot +P ammo. The Ruger LCR on the other hand is double action only but available in .357 and 9mm.
The Ruger LCR is available in a
.38Spl+P model that is significantly lighter than the .357/9mm versions (13.5 oz vs. 17.1 oz) because the frame is aluminum alloy rather than stainless steel.
S&W markets a similar shrouded-hammer model in .357Mag, the steel-frame
Model 649, but it is substantially heavier than the Model 638, which has never been offered in .357Mag because the aluminum alloy frame cannot take the punishment.
The company has marketed spur-hammer (360) and DAO (340) J frame models with lightweight scandium frames in their M&P (steel cylinder) and PD or Ti lines (titanium cylinder), but AFAIK they've never offered the shrouded hammer this way, and their scandium revolvers are substantially pricier than the aluminum Airweights like the M638.
Speaking as a S&W fan, I have to admit that IMHO the LCR has a significantly superior DA trigger out-of-the-box (I have not shot the DA/SA LCRx), and it is more comfortable to shoot with stock grips. The downside is that those cushy LCR grips are physically larger than J frame "boot" grips and are also stickier, so they make the gun harder to pocket-carry, and may hang up on the draw. Aftermarket wood LCR grips will address the stickiness factor, but they don't entirely address the size discrepancy.