View Poll Results: Which do you prefer: Ruger LCP or Smith J-frame?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Ruger LCP

    3 12.00%
  • Smith & Wesson J-Frame

    22 88.00%
  • I don't have a preference

    0 0%
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 98

Thread: Ruger LCP vs. Smith J-Frame: Pros & Cons?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0

    Ruger LCP vs. Smith J-Frame: Pros & Cons?

    This thread assumes you have or have had both and in trouble-free incarnations.

    I've been a Smith 642 fanboy for years, but recently I picked up a totally reliable Ruger LCP and I'm rethinking which one I want for EDC.

    Some comparison points:

    1. Although the LCP holds potentially slightly more rounds, and can be reloaded more quickly, the 642 should last longer and be able to handle hotter ammo.

    2. The sights on both suck, so this is of no consequence.

    3. The LCP is small enough to fit in a pocket, but there are plenty of concealment holsters for both, so this shouldn't be a concern.

    4. The Smith has a metal frame, the LCP has a polymer frame. The LCP has a noticeable and slightly uncomfortable recoil

    5. The LCP is flatter, making it less likely to print.

    Those of you who own both, which do you prefer AND WHY?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,630
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    LCP for sure.

    I don't have a J-frame Smith, but I do have a Colt Detective Special, which is almost the same thing.

    I recently bought a LCP .380 for one purpose: to carry when doing athletic things. I think seven rounds of .380 is too few and too light for Every Day Carry.

    LCP .380 pros over J-Frame .38:

    1. Much lighter than revolver.
    2. Much smaller and thinner than revolver.
    3. Two more shots than revolver.
    4. Possible to reload with spare mag; revolver, no.
    5. Easier to clean out pocket lint, dirt, etc.
    6. Cheaper to buy than revolver.

    Cons:

    1. .38 round is a serious defense load. .380 is marginal.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    721
    Feedback Score
    24 (100%)
    I had a LCP when they first came out. I struggled to shoot it past 7 yardsish . I have med hands and fumbled around with reloads. I do think it concealed better than my J frame but I can shoot this Jframe way better. Sites on both suck but edge would be the J (although mine has ctc grips) For me shootability and the .38+ps are enough for me to choose the revolver .
    Last edited by Guns-up.50; 06-29-18 at 15:40.
    "Courage is being scared to death ,but saddling up anyways" John wayne

    NO BETTER FRIEND NO WORSE ENEMY

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    suburbs of Philly Pa
    Posts
    6,189
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Glockster View Post
    This thread assumes you have or have had both and in trouble-free incarnations.

    I've been a Smith 642 fanboy for years, but recently I picked up a totally reliable Ruger LCP and I'm rethinking which one I want for EDC.

    Some comparison points:

    1. Although the LCP holds potentially slightly more rounds, and can be reloaded more quickly, the 642 should last longer and be able to handle hotter ammo.

    2. The sights on both suck, so this is of no consequence.

    3. The LCP is small enough to fit in a pocket, but there are plenty of concealment holsters for both, so this shouldn't be a concern.

    4. The Smith has a metal frame, the LCP has a polymer frame. The LCP has a noticeable and slightly uncomfortable recoil

    5. The LCP is flatter, making it less likely to print.

    Those of you who own both, which do you prefer AND WHY?
    1. Don't think longevity is better....or worse. Hotter ammo is fine but you're still using a 1.8in barrel. You won't get the use out of a +P unless it specifically for short barrels.

    2. Yes

    3. The 642 is thicker. Probably thicker than two LCPs side by side.

    4. Recoil on a snub nose isn't pleasant either. Especially if you plan to use off the shelf +P. While it may be ALUMINUM there is nothing cycling. Your hand absorbs all the recoil.

    For deep concealment I'd stick with the LCP. Overall easier to do.

    I have a 642 and use it as a pocket gun for when I walk my dog at night. All things being equal I'd probably take the LCP is I had to do it over again. Since at home I wear loose clothes the 642 is too big and heavy for elastic waist shorts/sweats



    Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,383
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    LCP for pocket BUG when you need a flat gun.

    J-frame for Ankle BUG or when you can tolerate the bulge of the cylinder.

    Here endith the lesson.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Desert SW, USA.
    Posts
    1,356
    Feedback Score
    0
    Well, I have a Scandium/Titanium PD 340 J-frame in .357, so my view is different. Go BIG or go home. Edited: YES, I've shot .357 in it. Just don't try to shoot a box at a time and it's fine. The right grips really tame the beast.

    I tried liking the .380 but just couldn't warm up to it. I did not feel comfortable with the LCP at all. It does not strike me as something that is nearly as safe as a Glock. I don't drop my guns, but I was scared to death that that little LCP would go off if it was ever dropped. The LCP felt like a dime store toy. I was not comfortable with it at all. So, for me, the J-Frame wins, hands down. Now, that baby Glock 9mm could be a serious contender. Simply put... Friends don't let friends carry .380. Sorry. I just might consider trading the PD 340 for a baby Glock or a Sig 365 some day. That's 9mm though... No .380 for me.

    My PD 340 weighs about the same as the LCP. No kidding. Now factor 5 shots of full house .357 magnum... In the right pocket holster, it barely prints more than the LCP. Game over.

    If you want a small auto... Get the baby Glock or Sig P365 in 9mm.
    Last edited by Det-Sog; 06-29-18 at 18:29.
    U.S. Army vet. -- Retired 25 year LEO.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    88
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    I voted for a J Frame in a CCC Uno holster, I carry one a lot here in Ca. I have a strange love affair with the little gun. I can wear athletic shorts and put it in my pocket without issue, and shoot it without removing it from my pocket if I find myself in a bad situation. The recoil sucks, I can get about 50 rounds out of it before my hand hurts. The down side is reloading.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    suburbs of Philly Pa
    Posts
    6,189
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Det-Sog View Post
    .

    Now factor 5 shots of full house .357 magnum....

    .
    But are you actually getting all the benefits of that full house 357 in a barrel just under 2 inches? Or is it just a lot of flash and noise? I know there are some rounds specifically formulated for short barrels. Not sure how much you're loosing going from a 4 inch to a 1.8 inch barrel but there is a loss

    Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Desert SW, USA.
    Posts
    1,356
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arik View Post
    But are you actually getting all the benefits of that full house 357 in a barrel just under 2 inches? Or is it just a lot of flash and noise? I know there are some rounds specifically formulated for short barrels. Not sure how much you're loosing going from a 4 inch to a 1.8 inch barrel but there is a loss
    Point taken, but it's still more than a .38 +P out of the same weapon. No, not as much as a .357 mag out of a 4"... But I'd argue it's somewhere in the middle, which is still a heck of a lot better than a .380...

    Even with just normal pressure .38's, the J-frame is tried and true. I'd have no problem just carrying it with hot wad-cutters. The NYPD steak-out squad made that combination work for years.
    U.S. Army vet. -- Retired 25 year LEO.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    903
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arik View Post
    1. Don't think longevity is better....or worse. Hotter ammo is fine but you're still using a 1.8in barrel. You won't get the use out of a +P unless it specifically for short barrels.

    2. Yes

    3. The 642 is thicker. Probably thicker than two LCPs side by side.

    4. Recoil on a snub nose isn't pleasant either. Especially if you plan to use off the shelf +P. While it may be ALUMINUM there is nothing cycling. Your hand absorbs all the recoil.

    For deep concealment I'd stick with the LCP. Overall easier to do.

    I have a 642 and use it as a pocket gun for when I walk my dog at night. All things being equal I'd probably take the LCP is I had to do it over again. Since at home I wear loose clothes the 642 is too big and heavy for elastic waist shorts/sweats.
    Pretty much my analysis, but my 442 is way cooler than a LCP. The LCP is the cheap Ruger copy of the even more low-rent P3AT. It has the sex appeal of 1982 Ford Fiesta and similar performance. It will never shoot well, as it aspires to be better than nothing.

    The 442 has been putting bad guys in the ground for 60 years. It is the gun you reach for when you sense trouble might be just around the bend. It is a pain to shoot, difficult to shoot well but invokes Greater confidence for me.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •