Do you like full underlugs?

[valnar]

Me? I don't like them.

I am trying to sell my last full underlug revolver, a S&W 686 Plus. After shooting them for a few months, I've come to the conclusion that a full underlug may dampen felt recoil more, but it takes longer to reset my aim for a second shot (due to the extra weight). So out it goes. I also don't like the look of them.

Now, I do love my 686 Plus Mountain gun with the tapered barrel and simple shrouded ejector. He he. What a beauty!

So what's your opinion of full underlugs? Not just yes or no, but why?

-Robert

 

[C.R.Sam]

Nope.
Ugly
Slow me down.
More fatigue in a match.
Ugly.

Been lookin for a beater 581 or 586....if find, gonna cut the lug off and make it look like a 19 on steroids.

Sam

 

[Johnny Guest]

Not generally - - -

I voted NO, because it seems as if all I've been seeing lately have been the recent incarnations of neat older model S&Ws, fitted out with full lugs.

Actually, I've always liked the Colt Python. Then S&W came along with the L-frame, a good idea for a sturdier revolver than the K-frame but lighter than the N frame. But for sheer merchandising, they made it a shameless knock off of the Python.

It seems almost a travesty to link the model numbers of the current crop of .45 ACP revolvers with the fine old 1955 Target. And the K-22 was a classic plinker and target piece from the olden days. It seems - - well, almost defiled, with the umpteen shot cylinder and full underlug. Strangely, much as I liked the beautiful blue finish of the older ones, the stainless finish doesn't raise my hackles like the full underlug. Go figure.

I realize how very subjective it is to judge a firearm solely on physical appearence. My feelings go slightly deeper than that, though. I like the idea of a handgun being carried in a holster, either for targets of opportunity or for emergency use. It should be hefty enough for steady aim but I don't care for hanging a lot of extra weight out front purely for cosmetic purposes.

Just a traditionalist, I guess.

YM, of course, MV.

Best,
Johnny

 

[Shane]

Neutral

I'm in the middle--I don't really care much either way.

On one hand, I think the full underlugs are ugly and make balance too muzzle heavy.


But OTOH full underlugs do help reduce recoil and the muzzle heavy balance aids in keeping the muzzle steady IMO.


My solution: I have guns in both styles.


Although, I admit if I were to pick a favorite style it would be WIThOUT the full underlug.

 

[iluvG.R.I.T.S]

Hey Valnar how much ya askin for the 686?

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Nope I don't like them" doesn't even begin to touch the register of how much full underlugs disgust me!

 

[10-Ring]

I have no opinion one way or the other as long as the revolver is a managable size, well balanced and not too heavy.

 

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's To All-

I voted, "I don't care either way".

While I'm a strong advocate of the Smith & Wesson
model 19's, I currently own and shoot a 6" barrel
Smith & Wesson model 686-5; which could be
the finest .357 magnum I've ever owned? And there
has been a bunch of them, in my stable. The under
lug on the "new" Smith's doesn't bother me one bit!
As a matter of fact, I believe it actually helps tame
recoil a bit when shooting heavy magnum load's.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[firestar]

The underlug on the 4" bbl 586/686 is the only one that seems to work for me. The 6" Ruger GP-100 is WAY too muzzle heavy and feels like your holding a crowbar at arms length.

I have always liked thin tapered bbls better than short fat bbls. If it isn't for carry, the 6" bbl S&W 19 is about as nice as they come.

 

[J Miller]

"Nope, I don't like them", EXCEPT on 4" .357's.

I've had a 4" Python, Dan Wesson, and have fired a 4" L frame.
Guns like these and the Ruger GP100 have a frame size that makes the combo work for me. But only the 4" guns. The 6" barreled guns are way to muzzel heavy and cumbersome.

I agree that the full lug on the N frames of any barrel length looks like crap. It just throws the ballance off totally. The barrel on my 25-5 or a standard 29 is about the heaviest that ballances well.

 

[Majic]

Yup I sure do. I like the Python that started the full underlugged style.

 

[P95Carry]

Overall - a full underlug fan!

My M27-2 Smith however is just fine ''as is'' .... but the 686 I had and used for a lot of compo work was great ... even ADDED an extra weight over the lug.!!!

OK, I know it makes em muzzle heavy but hey .... it sure damps muzzle lift and I'm willing to accept the small weight penalty. Plus .. for me .... I do like to look.

I don't grieve if no full underlug (instance Super Redhawk) but............ but maybe I'm in the ''happy with either'' camp! Just love revo's anyways!

 

[4v50 Gary]

I don't really care. It depends on the gun itself. Some are better with and some without. A Python wouldn't be a Python without it. Same with a 586 or 686.

 

[MikeJ]

As 4v50 Gary stated, it depends on the gun, so I voted "I don't care either way." On anything longer than a 4" barrel I can't stand them. I have a 4" nickel 586 that I think looks quite nice with its full underlug and I'm getting ready to purchase a 3" Ruger GP100 with a full underlug which I much prefer over the short shroud in that particular gun. I really love 6" guns with the half underlug as they seem to be perfectly proportioned to the length of the barrel. Cheers, Mike

 

[Avery Goodschott]

There is a definite difference in the way the mtn guns point with their tapered barrels and half lugs. The heft is different - but preference isa personal matter.

I prefer my 4" 625's to be the full lug and a little front heavy.

 

[VictorLouis]

I don't care for them at all.

However, based on the responses so far, it appears that those like me are in the minority.

 

[Bren]

I like them on older 50-60's Pythons.

 

[BluesBear]

I think they look OK on Pythons. The lug seems to balance out the vent rib.
The S&W L frames were obviously trying to appear ti be bigger, better, stronger that K frames.

But, IMHO, S&W putting full length, underlugs on all of the N frames is because it's easier to cast it that way and there's less machining and skill involved.

Maybe S&W will go back to the graceful good looks of an older N frame barrel when they start making their barrels out of MIM.

Personally, as far as looks go, I'd rather just have the ejector rod hanging out in space like an old Colt than have that ugly lug.



Of course their new lazer engraving just makes the barrels even uglier.



Just my 2¢

 

[V-fib]

Like em. gives the rev a more modern look and helps with muzzel lift.

 

[Jim March]

HATE 'em. With a passion. Just hoses the balance.

If I had a full-lug gun won at a raffle or something, and it was tight and shot well and I wanted to keep it, I'd cut the lug off, borrow a slack-belt sander and clean it up myself.

 

[caz223]

On a 2"- 5 1/2" double action they look fine to me.
I suppose 6" and longer guns need them more to stiffen, and protect against barrel whip.
Full underlugs are fine, I guess.
But I voted don't care either way, because I don't.

 

[Rob96]

I have a 4" Ruger GP, with the full under-lug and like the way it feels. I don't like them on 6" barrels. But that doesn't matter, because if I buy anymore wheelies, they will be with 4" barrels.

 

[Hutch]

I don' lak 'em. I have several, but only because that's what I could get a deal on. A 617, a 625, and a 629 " " " CLASSIC " " " (please, that marketing term just crawls my frame...) If I could wave a wand and make the lugs disappear, I surely would, but I wouldn't pay what it costs to attempt to remove them.

 

[valnar]

Wow.

The poll is pretty even. I guess that's why the manufacturers make them!

Now if they offered a choice, like in the L-frame S&W models, I'd be more happy. They have both full and partial lug versions of the S&W 629, so why not others?

-Robert

 

[Mike-SoCal]

Full Underlug

Use only one revolver at the moment (Super Redhawk on the way): A Dan Wesson large frame .357 with a vent-ribbed, full underlug 4" barrel. Nice balance. Weighs in at 50 oz.