LCRX GAP PROBLEM

Dear sirs, I submit to you my problem.
I purchased a LCRX Ruger in .357 Magnum with a few problems, the biggest of which is the endshake.
In fact, it presents a gap of 0.013 (0.35 mm: I'm Italian) against 0.0098 (0.25 mm) of my SRH Casull and my S&W 627 Pro.
Considering that the ammunition to which the LCRX is destined is a THV (for which speed is everything ...) is not a small problem.
I know that for S&W these problems are solved with dedicated washers packages: I can not find anything like this for my LCRX.
Is there something similar (or however adaptable) on the market? Or on this weapon the problem must be solved in another way?
Thanks in advance to anyone who wants to help me.

Don

I have done a little research into your problem and can not find an easy answer. If you were in the USA, I think Many of us would probably agree that you should return the revolver to be looked at by Ruger. Since it appears that you are in Italy, that solution is probably not practical. I believe there are probably some different sized parts the manufacturer uses to adjust the end shake and cylinder gap on the LCR, but I haven't seen them for sale.

Have you tried to speak to Ruger directly via email? Maybe there is a Ruger company service center in Europe that could offer more advice, or a more knowlegeable person will offer advice here. Good luck.

How does the gun shoot?

Captain America said:

How does the gun shoot?

Click to expand...

Really: I don't know.

I have fired this gun too many few times for have a really good feeling; more than that, is my first time with a revo in this size (I'm a rifle guy and, when I go with revo, usually go with a S&W 627 Pro or with my SRH .454).

I've buy this backup because 1) IMHO have the best trigger in his class, I don't like S&W "J frame" trigger 2) I can put in the same ammo I do for my 627: a very soft wadcutter for the range and my homemade THV for "real" situation 3) in Italy we haven't the LCR in .357 Magnum.

Now, I am perfectly aware that in this weapon I will never reach a mv = 2560 fps like in my 4" 627, but I want to reduce the velocity loss more than possible.

Don Zauker said:

Captain America said:

How does the gun shoot?

Click to expand...

Now, I am perfectly aware that in this weapon I will never reach a mv = 2560 fps like in my 4" 627, but I want to reduce the velocity loss more than possible.

Click to expand...

I truly hope that there is a translation problem here, because it would be just about impossible to get that velocity from any revolver, let alone a LCRX. Perhaps you hit the wrong keys while typing?

I think he means from a 4" barrel and with THV rounds. Not out of line with this data: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/THV.htm

Think they're banned in the US as AP ammo.

Exactly.

My THV are hand-made solid brass bullets, 50 grains wheight.

In USA they are not legal but in Italy is different, we can't shoot for defense "hunting" bullet like HP or SP; THV are solid and there is no problem.

I put this bullet on 12 grains of VV N320 and out of a 4" barrel I have 780 m/sec (2560 fts) with a vmax near 800 with less recoil than a standard .38 Special.

Shooting free hands, at 25 m my worse group are 3 shot in 4", usually stay in 3", who is all that I want for a defense ammo.

IMHO they are the best option for a CQB pistol/revo bullet.

To answer your question about cylinder shims for endshake, I would start by looking here: https://www.triggershims.com/cylinder_shims.html

I believe the maker is a member here and may be willing to make some custom sizes for the LCR. Installing them may be difficult as well, I think special tools might be required to remove the LCR cylinder from the crane. This will make your cylinder gap problem worse; you might be able to correct it by removing the barrel and facing the shoulder off a bit. On an LCR, it's shrouded and shouldn't need to be clocked.

Good luck in your endeavor.

@ NikA:

Thank you for the link.

In fact, I think you have say the right: I have completely disassembled my LCRX (like all my other revo) but I'm not be able to remove the crane from the cylinder. I think in this gun you can't reduce the gap putting washers INNER, or perhaps this can't be done from a simply user.

I think the only thing I can do is to polish the crane FRONT for about 0.005 and fitting a washer of same tickness BEHIND.

In fact, crane's front is roughly (usually on some Ruger parts) and I've just made a light polish on it; probably I have to insist.

Your link is interesting because probably I can find the right washer for my experiment.

Don Zauker said:

Exactly.

My THV are hand-made solid brass bullets, 50 grains wheight.

In USA they are not legal but in Italy is different, we can't shoot for defense "hunting" bullet like HP or SP; THV are solid and there is no problem.

I put this bullet on 12 grains of VV N320 and out of a 4" barrel I have 780 m/sec (2560 fts) with a vmax near 800 with less recoil than a standard .38 Special.

Shooting free hands, at 25 m my worse group are 3 shot in 4", usually stay in 3", who is all that I want for a defense ammo.

IMHO they are the best option for a CQB pistol/revo bullet.

Click to expand...

I DON"T think so. One CANNOT get that muzzle velocity from any revolver, of any barrel length, without instantly exploding the barrel or the cylinder at the same time. You must re-examine your mathematics, or terminology, sir.

If you're really curious about how fast your pushing a bullet with a tighter gap I recommend you get a good baseline by shooting the gun the way it is, take good notes, and then check it again after you tighten up the gap. If you tighten the gap before you have baseline data you will have learned nothing.

woodsy said:

Don Zauker said:

Exactly.

My THV are hand-made solid brass bullets, 50 grains wheight.

In USA they are not legal but in Italy is different, we can't shoot for defense "hunting" bullet like HP or SP; THV are solid and there is no problem.

I put this bullet on 12 grains of VV N320 and out of a 4" barrel I have 780 m/sec (2560 fts) with a vmax near 800 with less recoil than a standard .38 Special.

Shooting free hands, at 25 m my worse group are 3 shot in 4", usually stay in 3", who is all that I want for a defense ammo.

IMHO they are the best option for a CQB pistol/revo bullet.

Click to expand...

I DON"T think so. One CANNOT get that muzzle velocity from any revolver, of any barrel length, without instantly exploding the barrel or the cylinder at the same time. You must re-examine your mathematics, or terminology, sir.

Click to expand...

Link to a chronograph test of a THV load fired from a semiauto pistol:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ilN-MxJhxyE

woodsy said:

Don Zauker said:

Exactly.

My THV are hand-made solid brass bullets, 50 grains wheight.

In USA they are not legal but in Italy is different, we can't shoot for defense "hunting" bullet like HP or SP; THV are solid and there is no problem.

I put this bullet on 12 grains of VV N320 and out of a 4" barrel I have 780 m/sec (2560 fts) with a vmax near 800 with less recoil than a standard .38 Special.

Shooting free hands, at 25 m my worse group are 3 shot in 4", usually stay in 3", who is all that I want for a defense ammo.

IMHO they are the best option for a CQB pistol/revo bullet.

Click to expand...

I DON"T think so. One CANNOT get that muzzle velocity from any revolver, of any barrel length, without instantly exploding the barrel or the cylinder at the same time. You must re-examine your mathematics, or terminology, sir.

Click to expand...

Dear Sir,

THV are not a my invention, or an opinion: is simply a fact, you like it or not.

In true, my ballistic result aren't nothing exceptional: original model obtained speeds not too far from mine with bullets of equal weight using as a basis the case of 9 x 19 (so with an extremely smaller boling room) and 4" barrels, all without exceeding the standard CIP / SAAMI.

It is true that semiautos haven't a gap, so no loose pression like a revo (here is the moio for which I want to have a gap in the "right limits") but it is also true that a revolver in .357 magnum is structured to withstand greater pressures; in fact, I could easily push myself further (especially with the LCRX, which has a more robust cylinder than the 627, on which I developed the ammunition) but, since more dead than death can not be done, I see no reason to insist.

Reloading is simply an applied science: you have only to study and improve.

arfmel said:

woodsy said:

Don Zauker said:

Exactly.

My THV are hand-made solid brass bullets, 50 grains wheight.

In USA they are not legal but in Italy is different, we can't shoot for defense "hunting" bullet like HP or SP; THV are solid and there is no problem.

I put this bullet on 12 grains of VV N320 and out of a 4" barrel I have 780 m/sec (2560 fts) with a vmax near 800 with less recoil than a standard .38 Special.

Shooting free hands, at 25 m my worse group are 3 shot in 4", usually stay in 3", who is all that I want for a defense ammo.

IMHO they are the best option for a CQB pistol/revo bullet.

Click to expand...

I DON"T think so. One CANNOT get that muzzle velocity from any revolver, of any barrel length, without instantly exploding the barrel or the cylinder at the same time. You must re-examine your mathematics, or terminology, sir.

Click to expand...

Link to a chronograph test of a THV load fired from a semiauto pistol:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ilN-MxJhxyE

Click to expand...

NOWHERE on that extremely short video are the units used explained. They could be inches per yard per year, for all we know.
Worthless info.

Don Zauker said:

woodsy said:

Don Zauker said:

Exactly.

My THV are hand-made solid brass bullets, 50 grains wheight.

In USA they are not legal but in Italy is different, we can't shoot for defense "hunting" bullet like HP or SP; THV are solid and there is no problem.

I put this bullet on 12 grains of VV N320 and out of a 4" barrel I have 780 m/sec (2560 fts) with a vmax near 800 with less recoil than a standard .38 Special.

Shooting free hands, at 25 m my worse group are 3 shot in 4", usually stay in 3", who is all that I want for a defense ammo.

IMHO they are the best option for a CQB pistol/revo bullet.

Click to expand...

I DON"T think so. One CANNOT get that muzzle velocity from any revolver, of any barrel length, without instantly exploding the barrel or the cylinder at the same time. You must re-examine your mathematics, or terminology, sir.

Click to expand...

Dear Sir,

THV are not a my invention, or an opinion: is simply a fact, you like it or not.

In true, my ballistic result aren't nothing exceptional: original model obtained speeds not too far from mine with bullets of equal weight using as a basis the case of 9 x 19 (so with an extremely smaller boling room) and 4" barrels, all without exceeding the standard CIP / SAAMI.

It is true that semiautos haven't a gap, so no loose pression like a revo (here is the moio for which I want to have a gap in the "right limits") but it is also true that a revolver in .357 magnum is structured to withstand greater pressures; in fact, I could easily push myself further (especially with the LCRX, which has a more robust cylinder than the 627, on which I developed the ammunition) but, since more dead than death can not be done, I see no reason to insist.

Reloading is simply an applied science: you have only to study and improve.

Click to expand...

And you are not applying any science when you claim the impossible from a revolver.
I seriously believe there is a problem in communication with this thread, in that the units cited are not believable.

My Lyman cast manual has a load for a 92 gr bullet that clocks 1920 fps at max pressure. He's loading bullets that are half that weight. I understand that you don't have exposure to loads of this nature, but is it really so hard to believe with all the evidence that's been presented that this is possible? Units in the video are clearly m/s, you can hear the sonic boom after each shot. I posted info on various THV loads in different calibers. Look up RCBD or any of the other various hypervelocity defense loads that have been marketed. Otherwise, this argument about whether this is indeed possible is a waste of time as it is not contributing to the thread.

This has become a beyond-belief thread. To cast ANY all-brass bullet at home (as he asserts) is frankly impossible, without access to an industrial furnace. The argument about the thread is NOT whether it is possible, but rather than it is in fact impossible. Simply hearing a "sonic boom" is irrelevant, since it can be the actual blast noise, instead. I repeat that there is a simple conflict about the units of measurement. The OP is immersed in the metric system, and we are not. That's where the confusion lies.

1) Nowhere in the thread was it suggested his bullet was cast; I believe THV bullets can be purchased as a commercial reloading supply in Europe.
2) A sonic boom sounds significantly different than blast noise. It's a much sharper crack rather than the boom of a gunshot, and can be clearly discerned when a supersonic cartridge is fired.
3) As an engineer, I regularly deal in metric units; I have no confusion over the data being presented. What's your excuse for not believing the data presented to you?

Basic physics tells us the kinetic energy, KE, is proportional to the mass times the velocity squared. 158gr .357 loads from a pistol get into the 1500fps range. Doing the math on a 48gr brass bullet (that'd be the THV bullet he's discussing), the same potential energy would accelerate it to about 2700fps. His numbers are in the right ballpark. Your understanding seems not to be.

I remind everyone that the topic of the tread is the reduction / arrangement of the gap in a Sturm-Ruger LCRX.

I think I have solved the question: as soon as I get the material, if the facts give me reason, I will publish a tutorial (maybe with photos) to illustrate how I did (without this claiming that mine is the "official" or "best" version: simply it will be mine).

To conclude with the history of THV, just a few clarifications:

1) in the video posted by arfmel (this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ilN-MxJhxyE ), also made in Italy by an italian (Massimiliano Bedocchi: from the name he is of my lands) the speed is expressed in fps: 2335, ie 711 m / sec. Because he is italian and shoots with a semiauto, at 99.9 % he's firing a 9 x 21 IMI (in Italy the 9 x 19 is outlawed), so his numbers ​​are completely in line with mine.

2) my bullets are handcrafted (at the price of 0.5 euro each) by a guy from Bergamo with alphanumeric control machines, like all other brass bullet (Cutting Edge, Barnes, and so on). NOBODY brass bullet is casting made. Incidentally, he has also wrong: bullet diameter is .358, which is why they have a pre-drilling directly into the cylinder (which is .357). Without this problem, with my 12 grs of N 320 I would get much higher speeds and with less pressure (anyway there are no signs of overpressure). That said, the power is still at the level of a good .357 "standard", much more than necessary for a defensive weapon, and the precision is surprisingly good, which is why I'm satisfied overall.

All this work because, IMHO, this is the best CQB bullet forever: is powerful, with absolutely no recoil, can penetrate ALL up to 3A ballistic protection BUT, because of its low momentum and sudden loss of speed, and his hypostability, it never come throughout.

Some picture available here: https://imgur.com/a/Rp5d4

Edit: in fact, for a professional user today THV are history. Now there is a new generation of rifle-style bullet (5,7 x 28 in primis) who put a gun in a new dimension. For that I know, you can have this ones but in Italy this caliber is outlaw. I'm a rifle boy and FOR ME a gun is only and always a backup, so IMHO my black small beast whit his 5 hot shots is the best thing to have with me if my SR 556 E or my Benelli M4 aren't available, breaked or discharged.

woodsy said:

This has become a beyond-belief thread. To cast ANY all-brass bullet at home (as he asserts) is frankly impossible, without access to an industrial furnace. The argument about the thread is NOT whether it is possible, but rather than it is in fact impossible. Simply hearing a "sonic boom" is irrelevant, since it can be the actual blast noise, instead. I repeat that there is a simple conflict about the units of measurement. The OP is immersed in the metric system, and we are not. That's where the confusion lies.

Click to expand...

:roll:
Ok, Woodsy, I give up. Your mind is obviously made up.



Don Zauker: welcome to the forum. I hope you'll let us know how you solve the cylinder gap issue.