I just got back from the LGS, and I went there intending to buy the Smith 642, but left with the Ruger LCR. My reasons were:
1) Felt more comfy in the hand.
2) A nicer trigger out of the box.
3) Nicer grip, Hogue vs a thinner rubber on the Smith.
4) I wanted a black vs the stainless, they didn't have the 442 in stock.
5) I could feel the lightness of the Ruger over the Smith.
6) and finally, the appearance, to me anyway, I liked the rounded shape of the Ruger over the sharper edges of the Smith.
Things I'm a little hesitant on are:
1) Rumors of burning on the front of the cylinder?
2) The warranty comparison of Ruger vs Smith?
3) Physical endurance vs the Smith?
Back from the range after a successful test fire session. I shot 70 rds of peppy
reloads thru the LCR without andy issues. I compared it to my Kahr and found
the Kahr was a little more manageable then the LCR for recoil, as I could reacquire
my target somewhat quicker with the Kahr. Maybe because it's a different caliber?
Just the same, I found that I could easily shoot this another 100 rds or more
and not have any issues with being affected by the recoil. The trigger on my Kahr
is a little smother, but I still shot the Ruger as well as the Kahr. Maybe I'm just
used to my Kahr more then the LCR. The photos below show the package, which
includes a signature gun glove for transporting and storage, and another photo
shows the DeSantis pocket holster I purchased as well. The two targets are the
results of a 10 round shoot-off between the LCR and my PM-9. Both targets
were shot at a 1 round every 2 sec's pace, at 20 feet. The group for the LCR looks
a little tighter except for the one flinch I had. If I had to choose between the LCR
and the Kahr for carry it would really depend on the mood I am in. Both are nice
carry guns that I would recommend to someone looking to buy. I know the 642 is a
proven quality piece, but I simply liked the feel and looks of the Ruger a little better.
So far, I am happy with the purchase.
Haka