New Ruger LCR 9mm
Has anyone fired or tested the Ruger LCR in the new 9mm? They come with 3 moon clips and must these be used to load the revolver?
I am looking for a CC for my wife and want to get her a revolver because she has problems pulling back the slides on my Beretta Px4 and my Ruger LCP. She is a non shooter and other than some range training will probably never fire it. I want to reduce the recoil and have even thought about getting her the 22mag. I know people will laugh at a 22 WMR for a CCW but it would serve her better than a rock and might at least slow someone down so she could run. I prefer the 9mm semi autos for my CCW but she isn't comfortable with the size, weight and recoil. Looking for some advice so start jumping on me. I'm a big boy, I can take it.
Mike S.
I am looking for a CC for my wife and want to get her a revolver because she has problems pulling back the slides on my Beretta Px4 and my Ruger LCP. She is a non shooter and other than some range training will probably never fire it. I want to reduce the recoil and have even thought about getting her the 22mag. I know people will laugh at a 22 WMR for a CCW but it would serve her better than a rock and might at least slow someone down so she could run. I prefer the 9mm semi autos for my CCW but she isn't comfortable with the size, weight and recoil. Looking for some advice so start jumping on me. I'm a big boy, I can take it.
Mike S.
0
-
www.gunblast.com has reviewed it and has video. You can fire it without the moon clips but the shells won't eject with the ejector rod. Recoil looked mild. My wife wants one in .22 Mag or the 9mm version as well. I'm going to get her some real training and she will be practicing...it's pointless to buy a gun for protection, fire it once and leave it in a drawer or even to carry it without regular range time. 0 -
I doubt it will have less recoil unless it is full of subsonic loads. 5 shot moon clips have got to be cheaper to buy than magazines. Played with the S&W 1950 in 45 ACP with half moon clips, 3 rounds. They work but I liked 45 Auto Rim better.
I think a 38 Special could be loaded down to her tolerance level and still be effective.0 -
msmalley1227,
I would stick with the 38 special, and there should be no difference in recoil, that is discernable. I would even consider the LCR-X model with an exposed hammer.
Best
EDIT 1
Beantown,
You know I like the S&W's as much as you do, but the triggers in the LCR's that I have shot are nothing short of phenomenal. I have shot a lot of j-frames, and nothing ever like this.
Best0 -
Here's a direct link to the review reference above:
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-LCR9mm.htm
Didn't even know these existed. . .now that I do, I'm seriously considering buying one. I haven't fired this one in 9mm, but the Ruger LCR in .38 is solidly built, and has a good trigger pull. This should basically be the same.
To answer the questions, yes you can fire this without moon clips, but then you won't be able to eject the spent shells and will have to poke them out of the cylinder with a pencil or something like that. If you're not carrying extra ammo on you, you couldn't reload even if you wanted to so I guess that won't matter, though I don't see why you wouldn't want to use a clip. The Ruger moon clips can be loaded without tools, which is nice. They're also fairly inexpensive.
On recoil, I hate to disabuse you, but contrary to popular mis-belief, 9mm luger is quite a bit more powerful than .38 special +P. It actually lies about midway in power between .38 special and .357 magnum, with corresponding recoil. EG, here are representative muzzle velocities from a 2" bbl snubnose:
.38 special, 125 grain: 800 fps
9mm luger, 124 grain: 1000-1100 fps
.357 magnum, 125 grain: 1200 fps
Note that the better 9mms get pretty close to .357 magnum ballistics from a snubnose. Part of this is that 9mm is a more "efficient" round; it works a bit better in shorter barrels, where as .357 tends to lose more velocity from short barrels.
In any case, recoil of 9mm luger from a lightweight 17 ounce revolver like this Ruger is brisk. Its not what I would term "punishing", at least not for an experienced adult shooters, but its definitely not light. If your wife has trouble with recoil from a .38 special snubnose, she definitely is NOT going to like a 9mm, which has noticeably MORE recoil from the same platform.
I'd echo the above. Best bet is probably low velocity .38 specials which offer relatively mild recoil.
Personally, I am not an advocate of short barreled .22 magnum handguns for defense. .22 magnum is an excellent round, but its a RIFLE round, requiring a long barrel to get its velocity. From a snubnose, the velocity is significantly decreased, and with a 2" barrel .22 magnum only gets a little bit more velocity than .22LR. IMO you might as well just go for .22LR, since the ammo is cheaper, the guns are higher capacity, and you get less muzzle flash.0 -
An often overlooked CCW combination is a short barreled .38 Special with 148 grain full wadcutter target loads. These are soft recoiling and present the full diameter face of the bullet for energy transfer. Any of the well made small revolvers - S&W "J" frame, Colt Detective Special and family, or Ruger LCR - should work quite well. In this case you would have 148 grains at 700fps, which is not much less than the old Colt 1860 .44 Army round ball load. 0 -
Hornady just announced they are bringing out a 9mm Critical Defense Lite..less recoil. They have the Lite version in .38 Special too. In 9mm supposedly it gives 27% less perceived recoil. 0 -
On "reduced recoil" loads, just remember that when it comes to recoil, you can't defy the laws of physics. In any given platform, recoil is proportionate the power of the round. Reducing recoil also reduces the effectiveness of the round.
Sure, you can buy (or create) "low recoil" 9mm rounds and put them into a snubnose revolver, but that sort of begs the question of why you're even bothering with a 9mm revolver at all.
IMO, the whole point of a 9mm snubnose is to share ammo with your other 9mm pistols, and also to get more power than you can get with .38+P out of a snubnose, but without having to go to .357 magnum (which again, IMO, offers several serious drawbacks from a 2" bbl gun).
As it happens several manufacturers already make "reduced recoil" 9mm luger rounds (Winchester and Federal both do), but there is a limit to how low they can reduce the recoil with these but still have ammo powerful enough to reliably cycle most semi-auto guns. As a matter of practice, even these reduced recoil 9mm rounds are still as powerful or more so than most .38+Ps and offer more recoil.
So if the problem is too much recoil from 9mm snubnose, I think the natural "answer" there is just to go to .38 special. If ordinary .38s have too much recoil, you can go to reduced recoil .38s.
One good thing about revolvers (as opposed to autos) is that they'll run any bullet shape and they'll also function 100% with even markedly reduced power loads. Target-type 148 grain .38 special wadcutters are one time-honored way to reduce recoil, and many think that the wadcutter shape offers good terminal performance too.
Hornady now puts out a reduced recoil 90 grain hollowpoint .38 special load, and I think something like that might be a good choice. The bullets themselves come in pink boxes, have pink rubberized tips, and supposedly a portion of proceeds are donated to breast cancer research, which I think gives some indication of the target audience for these loads [;)] :
http://www.hornady.com/store/38-Special-90-gr-FTX-Critical-Defense-lite/
Federal also has a reduced recoil 110 grain .38 special, another possibly good choice.
One last thing: In my experience, the single most important thing you can do to reduce perceived recoil from a snubnose, is to make sure there is a good fit between the grip and shooters hand.
The abbreviated "boot" grips that come standard with most snubnose guns now are extra-nice to carry, but these three-finger grips significantly magnify perceived recoil. Switching these out for a nice full-sized rubber grip SIGNIFICANTLY decreases perceived recoil. Also, although this should be obvious, it not and does bear stating explicitly: With these tiny lightweight snubnoses, the shooter has to grab onto the gun HARD. A tight squeeze with the shooting hands, tenses up all the muscles of the forearms and tightens the wrists, reducing 'snap' of the gun during recoil, and the associated unpleasantness. Loose "girly" grip is OK for some guns, but that won't cut it here.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments