Would /k/ approve of a Ruger LCRx .38 (COPPERED) for $360?

>>34532743
forgot to mention this would be an edc. Closing down a store at night and need a small carry gun

>>34532751
>Plastic
>Revolver
>Still costs 360$

Anon why?

>>34532743
The 357 will always be superior since the extra weight makes shooting 38 +P better and the fact that you can still shoot 357 if you want to. There are plenty of really good defensive loads for 2" revolvers.

File: 1499781354706.png (1MB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 700x394px

>>34532815
Woag ur a fag

>>34532815
you could use the same logic for glocks and yet everyone on /k/ has five of them

>>34532819
If you've ever fired .357 out of a .38sp sized snub you'd know you wouldn't want to shoot .357 out of a .38sp sized snub

>>34532743
Compared to a Glock 43, it's ~.3 inches taller and longer and about 3 ounces lighter unloaded. The G43 is slightly less wide, and reloading with a mag (If you carry a spare) is easier than using moonclips (inb4 revolver elitists shit everywhere). Iron sights on it suck like crazy. Glock stock sights are better (inb4 anti-glock fags shit everywhere). The G43 has far better third party support, if you wanted to upgrade anything (otherwise holster selection is just fine). Biggest difference between the two will be the trigger, which is far better on the G43 compared to the double-action pull (inb4 single action elitists join the shitposting). Compared to the price, about $80 more for the G43 at least for my local prices without deal hunting. Comparing pros-cons, the G43 seems to win.

In reality it 100% comes down to personal opinion. If you hate glocks so much you refuse to touch it and it intimidates you with it's ugly body from within your bedside drawer, you probably won't carry it often so what's the point. Likewise if you can't shoot a glock for shit but can hit targets all day with the revolver, pick the revolver. I recommend renting and testing them if possible, or try to shoot a friend's gun that's similar to get an idea. At the very least, go finger the guns and see how they feel and how you like it in your hand.

>>34532898
Why would you get a plastic when the weight at such small frame is minimal? Why would you pay so much for a tiny piece of plastic?

>>34532911

Plastic is definitely cheaper and easier to make than other materials. But people are being stupid and are willing to pay as much if not even more for plastic.

I'd approve. I'd like $250 or $300 even better, though.

Ruger's LCRx is a fine little gun. The low-friction cam arrangement they have also makes for an incredible trigger. It's also a stark contrast to the LCP, which is a little bucket of jamming and shitty trigger nightmares.

I'm not sure if I like the hammerless LCR or the LCRx with hammer better. I've shot both, no complaints. The LCRx hammer is at least not particularly obtrusive if you like to shoot single action occasionally. I don't think I'd ever carry a .357 snubbie, just too much energy wasted out of the muzzle. .357 belongs in a 6" barrel.

And by the way, pretty sure it's just the grip and trigger guard that are polymer on the LCRx - the frame is aluminum and the cylinder is stainless.

>>34533003
Because maybe some people prefer """plastic"""

>>34533064
It is plastic they just give it a fancy name and claim that it is so much more durable than the regular plastic.

Even though it gets really brittle in cold weather and can melt in extreme heat.

>>34533064
Perfer plastic or not that is besides the point. "Polymer" is cheaper than good wood so you are being scammed if you pay the same price for a firearm with plastic stock than if it was wooden

>>34532743
Would look better if it had reddish wooden grips (cocobolo maybe) and all the metal was copper plated

>>34533093
He's not going to be in extreme heat or cold he's just going to carry it around doing his everyday routine

>>34532985
Kek, you're fucking retarded. Real life isn't Call of Duty, nothing is that clear cut, and you didn't mention any of the advantages of revolvers.
>G43 is slightly less wide
>what is cylinder width vs frame width
>3 ounces lighter unloaded
>Better ignore massive loaded weight difference to prove a point
>G43 has far better third party support
Ah yes, everybody tricks out their subcompact these days
>trigger is better on the G43
>what is double action safety and reliability
>No mention of revolvers reliability and nicer shape for carry

>>34533098
You talk like a fudd.

File: 7c6.png (11KB, 211x246px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 211x246px

>>34532985
>Biggest difference between the two will be the trigger, which is far better on the G43 compared to the double-action pull

Ask me how I know you've never fired an LCR

>>34533186
My point is 360$ for a tiny plastic item that is easy to manufacture is a scam.

Just like plastic magazines that cost 70$

You are paying 360$ for a gun that was made for 50$

>>34533261
Prove me wrong.

Is polymer easier to manufacture? If yes then shouldnt polymer guns be cheaper?

>>34533003
>Plastic is definitely cheaper and easier to make than other materials.
Nylon-6,6 with fiberglass fill is about the same cost as steel or aluminum.
A revolver is actually arguably the hardest gun to make out of polymer.

>>34533139
I will not anodize and switch grips I need to save for shooting property first. Now to actually believe that previous statement

>>34533266
Except it's just the trigger guard and grip that are plastic on an LCR you dingus. The frame is aluminum. Do you really think Ruger saves that much money on a few ounces of aluminum vs. plastic? It's a comfort and weight issue not one of cost. LCRs are light and /comfy/

>>34533294
OOOOOOO i am arguing with a retard. Plastic is easier to shape than steel.

There is a reason why the gun manufacturers are shilling this plastic garbage as hard as they do. They lower the cost of manufacturing by half while selling you fudds overpriced shit

>>34533266
Only the lower receiver of the LCR is plastic. All of the other parts are either aluminum or steel. The fact that you think it cost $50 to manufacture when even a Glock--a gun that's far simpler and that paid off its R&D costs decades ago--costs $130 to manufacture in 2016 shows that you have little knowledge of manufacturing or engineering.

>>34533266
>>34533287
Yes polymer is cheaper to manufacture and companies jack the price up because jews or something but why most people go with polymer is because it's lighter.

>>34533304
It saves a lot of money because plastic is easier to shape. Its not just material itself.

Polymer firearms are manufactured much faster.

>>34533311
>he thinks plastic is inferior

Go find me a 10mm that holds up to actual prolonged use of hot ammunition as well as a Glock 20. Take your time; you will need it.

>>34533316
You get it! Polymer has the advantage of being lighter and it should also be cheaper.

But the firearm manufacturers do not want to give us 200$ glocks when they can charge us much more.

As soon as tacticool fudds stop paying so much for polymer we can drive down the price of firearms to what they are actually worth

OP here.

Does aluminum/polymer framing on the revolver actually fuck with the gun in any way? Is it just a matter of principal wherein steel >>> polymer? Is it purely aesthetic/cosmetic?

>>34533098
Wood is a polymer. Specifically a composite of the polymers lignin and cellulose. "Synthetic polymer" used in guns is typically a composite of nylon plastic and carbon fiber or glass. Please say "synthetic polymer" or "nylon plastic" in the future. Thank you.

>>34533336
I never said it was inferior. Its just much cheaper to manufacture so the price is ridiculous.

>>34533348
Biggest difference you'll see is it will kick harder because it's lighter.
Also if you drop it in midnight Alaskan winter conditions it'll shatter into a gorillian pieces.

>>34533349
How about just 'plastic'?

>>34533348
Polymer guns work just fine. But at the size of your snub nose revolver you should not worry about weight and just get steel.

Steel firearms hold their value better because they are more valuable.

>>34533093
You're retarded. Since you're a fudd and love wood lets put it this way. Balsa =/= pine =/= oak =/= mahogany =/= ironwood =/= bull oak
All wood is not the same.
All plastic is not the same.
All aluminum is not the same.
All steel is not the same.
You would be hard pressed to find someone stupid enough to claim that 1018 and 1080 are interchangeable.
Likewise, nylon and HDPE are nowhere close to interchangeable, but good luck melting down some bins and trying to use them for a receiver.

https://www.curbellplastics.com/Research-Solutions/Technical-Resources/Technical-Resources/Plastic-Material-Selection-Guide
http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/plasticselection.htm
http://endura.com/material-selection-guide/

Best one:
http://www.eplastics.com/ePlastics_material_selection_guide.pdf

>>34533370
All guns are overpriced.
A vast minority of the cost is materials and manufacturing.

>>34533394
Why are you so triggered? I am okay with polymer firearms but i am not buying them at the price that they are being sold at.

I already explained that they are easier to manufacture and should be cheaper because of it.

A polymer version of the same rifle should be about 100$ cheaper not the same or sometimes even higher price

>>34533348
Revolvers with a polymer frame need an insert for the cylinder to function, so if the receiver deforms (inb4 high yield strength, so plastic deformation is 'unlikely') around the insert, then the cylinder goes wonky and the gun is trash no matter what you do. If the receiver is made of steel or aluminum, then either the pin will shear or the receiver can we welded.
Polymer designs are not better or worse than steel/aluminum/brass/titanium/composite designs, just different. Except in the case of revolvers, where it's stupid to use and is actually worse unless you use a shear pin for the cylinder that is so weak as to prohibit rough use.

>>34533431
see: >>34533413
The actual cost of a firearm has very little bearing on it's price. The cost of the company is substantially more.

It's a bit like asking why a potato costs so much when water is so absurdly cheap and they need very little fertilizer. The answer is because you're unwilling to grow them yourself.

>>34533505
In short.

Polymer firearms are pricey because people are willing to pay as much for them.

>>34532985
Are you fucking stupid? I own the LCR in 357 and regularly shoot 357 in it. It's not that difficult. Just don't be a pussy and have grip strength.

>>34533431
>Why are you so triggered?
I forgot to answer your question.
Becasue you said: >>34533093
>claim that it is so much more durable than the regular plastic.

There is no such thing as regular plastic, unless you're talking about polyethylene variants in which you should have said common plastic.

And everything gets brittle with cold, and ofc thermoplastics melt with heat. Thermoset polymers are harder to work with and are either brittle or very plastic (both bad for guns) and can't be recycled.

>>34533604
The Tamer grip also helps a lot. It's really fantastic, I handload red-hot 38+p for my LCRx and it's noticeably nicer to shoot compared to a Smith airweight

>>34533637
Polymer is less durable than wood. The wood is harder to break, does not get brittle in cold and handles extreme heat

Stop making it sound like polymer is as good and better than other materials in everything.
It has serious flaws but great advantages in weight

>>34533505
This makes my commie ass want to take up gunsmithing.

>>34533708
>Polymer is less durable than wood. The wood is harder to break,
Except it's the total opposite of this. Go drop a wood stock and a polymer stock ~25 feet onto rocks. See which one shatters into a bunch of splinters and which one needs some bondo.
>does not get brittle in cold and handles extreme heat
Except it's the total opposite of this too, how much fuddlore have you been smoking? Wood warps and cracks with drastic temperature changes. This is very well documented.

>>34532743
Id say it's a good budget choice op. Don't listen to people talking shit on revolvers and polymer. As long as you get accurate and quick with it go for it. Most conflicts involving firearms don't last past an average of 3-4 rounds so a revolver is more than adequate

>>34533708
>wood receiver
wew lad
Furniture can be made of anything.

>The wood is harder to break,
Break is not an engineering term.

>does not get brittle in cold
It doesn't get notably more brittle in cold, but that's because it's already brittle.

>and handles extreme heat
sorta. Too many qualifiers for that to matter.

>Stop making it sound like polymer is as good and better than other materials in everything.
Was not my intent.
Every material property is a trade off (other than arguably weight).

>It has serious flaws but great advantages in weight
It's almost like different materials have different properties, if only we had a triangle and tetrahedron to visualize this concept.

>>34533765
This. The average defensive shooting is over in 3-3-3; 3 shots at 3 feet over 3 seconds. The others are shit like gang attacks where you really need a rifle and some distance or a gang of your own.

>>34532743
wtf is the point of a copper cylinder

>>34533801
Fuddperational aesthetics. Welcome to the tomorrow of yesterday

>>34533765
>>34533798
>revolver
Make sure you get it in 357. it's stupid not to.
You're trading capacity for form/preference, so make sure to pick the statistically best cartridge.

>>34533801
It's only a coating.

Might as well ask here.
Thinking about buying a Baikal Toz for my first .22 lr. They cost about 210 bucks here. Would anyone recommend it?

>>34533822
Statistically best at breaking your wrists? There's no reason not to get a .357 if it's the same price, but it's not like anyone is seriously shooting .357 magnun loads out of these things that are any hotter than +p .38 spl.

File: 569502356ed34ce628c0a97a10def234.jpg (49KB, 640x364px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x364px

>>34532743
I approve of copper/bronze colored guns. I don't approve of Ruger's revolvers.

I just want more guns with this finish, but without all the tryhard hoorah moldy labia shit on it.

>>34533841
>Statistically best at breaking your wrists?
Statistically best at killing/stopping the recipient (in 1 shot), and using the least shots to do so (when more than one shot is used).
Everything that is 30acp and above is the same, except 357 is slightly better.

>>34533871
Yeah, show me on the FBI statistics where it says .357 is any good out of a <2" barrel in a polymer framed revolver that might reach low orbit if you let go of it during recoil. Improper applicaton of statistics is for those other guys, not us.

>>34533896
Holy shit... I didn't realize the 357 velocity curve was that shit.

>>34533871
>>34533896
Noguns shoo.
The real reason you don't want a short barreled .357 in a defensive situation is theeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeearing damage.

>>34533896
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27wDLjY5JSs

Paul Harrell proves that .357 is still really effective out of a snub nose.

>>34533738
>commie
didn't know subhumans were crawling among us

I hope you get gassed

File: 357.png (172KB, 1004x1038px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1004x1038px

>>34533922
357 is only shit out of a snub, where fast rounds are wasted on contact shots anyway. +P is more than enough.

>>34533951
>didn't know subhumans were crawling among us
Where exactly do you think we are?
t. degenerate subhuman, but not a commie fucking shit

>>34533990
>Where exactly do you think we are?
California, new york, europe, africa, south america, china, and the sandlot.

>>34533990
this
>>34534002

>>34533951
Hehe, sorry for invading your safe space precious.

>>34533990
Post something lewd and degenerate so we know you're telling the truth.

>>34533964
>tfw nobody sells an 18" revolver
>inb4 joker.gif

>>34532985
You sir can get the fuck out of this thread with your helpful and reasoned response. We don't want your kind here.

>>34533212

revolvers can be fired from inside a pocket, and can be pressed against a person while firing.

>>34535674
That's part of their reliability, which I mentioned.

>>34532743
They're good revolvers. I've used the .327. Very light, smooth triggers, good rubber grips. Only part of the frame is polymer but the thing is 10oz unloaded, it's a great pocket pistol. I don't know if I'd carry the 38 but I'm looking for the 22 version that has 8 rounds. hickok45 has used 3-4 of them if you'd like to see it in use.

>>34533345
>tacticool fudds

Is that like a communist capitalist?

File: 5e05a__fudd1.jpg (80KB, 640x481px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 640x481px

>>34533708
>Polymer is less durable than wood.

As was pointed out to you above, wood is an organic polymer. Second, it depends on the types of polymers involved. If you bury a nylon polymer gun frame and a wood polymer gun frame in the dirt for a year, the nylon would be fine. The metal and wood gun..not so much.

>The wood is harder to break, does not get brittle in cold and handles extreme heat.

Wood DOES absolutely get more brittle in the cold. It will splinter and shatter just as easily as the same part made out of a polymer. As for heat, yes theoretically, a wooden object would survive longer before combustion and wouldn't melt, but Glock frames for instance, have a melting point of 420 degrees F. They have a thermal index rating of 284 degrees F (maintains shape and properties up to that point).

For reference, the hottest natural temperature ever recorded on earth is 136 F. The inside of a car parked for several hours in direct sunlight can reach temperatures of up to 200 F. Short of throwing it in a fire or cooking it in an oven, you won't damage a glock frame through heat.

>Stop making it sound like polymer is as good and better than other materials in everything. It has serious flaws but great advantages in weight.

If anything I'd say the only practical difference is weight and looks. Sometimes a heavier gun is desirable because it's more comfortable to shoot, and some people don't like the way synthetic polymer guns look, but their durability is absolutely not in question.

File: 82f174dffd69.jpg (133KB, 528x502px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 528x502px

>>34537522
>a wood polymer gun frame