Dumb Full Underlug Barrels!!!!

[Confederate]

When 20Nickels left a message asking where all the S&W 686 Mountain Guns had gone, I started thinking that yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of full underlug barrels. It was okay when it was an option, but though full underlugs are good for the range, they're a pain in the patut to carry and the heavy barrel makes it difficult to bring rapidly on target. That would be a hassle, say, a bear suddenly shows up and decides the woods aren't big enough for the two of you.

One reason many people like shorter barrels is because they're easy to line up quickly and fire. A 4-incher magnum with a full underlug barrel is still managable, but when it gets to be 6-inches and greater, it begins being a pain. As dearly as I love my S&W 686 6-inch, if I had to hike with a .357 6-inch, I'd pick me dearly beloved Ruger Security-Six. And if I was to travel with a 6-inch .44 mag, I'd choose my Smith or Astra .44, with slim barrels.

I dug my 686 out this past week and have been playing with it, and the more I heft it, the more I appreciate my Security-Sixes.

The mountain guns came out because there was a demand for them, but the damand seems to greatly outstrip the supply. That got me wondering if these full underlugs were such a great idea.

What's your take?



These .44 mags, one a S&W (bottom) and the other an Astra, are about
the same size and are just the right for carrying.




This is a very heavy-barrel Security-Six, 2.75-inch. I've seen very skinny
barrels made about the same time, so I think Ruger was making them both ways.
I do like the heavier barrels in short guns, though.



The 686 is a beauty, but it's a pain to carry...in 6-inch version, anyway!

.

 

[rcmodel]

Great for range guns but they sure ain't "Pack'n Pistols"!

Everything I own now is non-lugged.

Of the whole bunch, the 4 1/2"" 1950 Target .44 Spl, 4" 66 .357, and 4" 625-6 .45 ACP Mountain Gun are my favorites for carry & shooting.

A 6" Model 19 runs a close second, but it's too long for setting down most places.

I never could figure out why S&W didn't make more Mountain Guns either.
Seem's like that's what folks still want to buy.

rcmodel

 

[Confederate]

If I could swap my 686's barrel for a standard barrel, I would do so in a heartbeat. And I really don't think S&W does a whole lot of market research. I think they think they can set the demands in a way similar to fashion designers who determine what fashions will be. Unfortunately, Ruger followed suit and now underlug barrels are all over the place.

 

[harmonic]

This is a 629 with 5 inch full lug barrel and weighs 45.5 ounces:

This is a 629 with 6 inch barrel, partial lug and weighs 45 ounces:

The weight difference on a full lug vs. partial lug is imperceptible. It's purely a subjective thing.

BTW, I've always been a fan of full lug revolvers. That's how Pythons and Diamondbacks have always been made.

Just so nobody has anything to whine about, I'll buy your full lug revolvers for 10 cents on the dollar.

 

[PotatoJudge]

S&W does make the 619 and 620, though they still have heavy contour barrels. Saves you 2.1 oz.

I like the looks of full underlugs and unfluted cylinders, that and I like shooting hot loads so the weight doesn't bother me.

 

[DougDubya]

I love the 4 incher 686 with its underlug. It reminds me of the Smythons.

That said, I'm glad for the 619 and 620's with their regular barrels.

 

[20nickels]

Harmonic,
It has nothing to do with perception and little to do with looks or I would not have started this thread;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4309380#post4309380

Small things in critical areas are the difference between a good gun and a great gun.

 

[Oro]

On the OP's statement, if I am in bear country and a bear shows up suddenly, and I'm for some negligent reason holding only a .357, I'd sure as heck rather have my 4" 686 over any 28, 27, 19, 66, Colt or Ruger 357 I can think of. I'd sure rather have my 4" than a 6", I agree. But the 4" with the lug may get on target a few thousandths of a second slower, but the follow on shots are a lot faster thanks to that lug . It helps counter recoil in a way thin-barreled ones don't - especially coupled with the lower bore axis vs. an N or other maker's larger framed 357 revolver.

A few ounces just don't matter that much when you carry wisely, and it makes a big difference when you hang it on the end of the barrel. The physical principal of angular momentum comes into play, and the position of that weight is greatly magnified as a recoil counter. As to carrying it around, I use a tanker-style shoulder rig and barely notice a 40 oz., 3" 629 hanging there (same weight as a 686), or a 41 oz 4" 686. Just plan appropriately and go out and experiment to find what works for you.

Yeah, a 6" is a slightly harder to carry comfortably, more because of dimensions, not weight. I have an N frame with a 6.5" barrel in .45LC. Sometimes I carry it. It's not as quick, but it's a fun gun.

If you bought a 6" or longer full underlug gun, I'd assume you were using it for target shooting or longer range handgun hunting. It sounds to me more that you are trying to make a gun designed for one purpose do another.

 

[outerlimit]

I never understood the full lug barrel thing. I think they look very ugly.

 

[tipoc]

Folks have their preferences. Mine is against the underlug, but I see the value for some.

tipoc

 

[Brian Williams]

Underlug, schmunderlug. I have a S&W 65 with a 4" standard(pencil) barrel installed. It is very fast on target and real quick to get back on target. The underlug is for those who do not want to spend the time and energy learning to shoot their gun and want to let the gun recoil and let the lug slow it down. I took a S&W 586 and ground off the underlug and it was great. I would love to find a 581 shooter grade and do the same to it actually to the point of looking like the lugless/shroudless 13.

 

[FullEffect1911]

I'm partial to half under lugs on longer barrels. Maybe they balance better, but really I think they just look much better.

Short barrels? I like my full under lugs. So i'm gonna go ahead and back the OP +1.

 

[Khornet]

Back to back comparison

Last week I had the chance to shoot my buddy's 686 and my Model 19. We both noticed that it was much easier and quicker to get the 19 on target, and we both shot it better. If we were not paying attention the 686 shot noticeably lower than the 19. Bot lovely guns though.

 

[StrawHat]

As I recall, the hype about the 686 when it was introduced was something like ...the handling of the M19 with the weight of the M27...

So by comparing it to the 19 (weight) you are not taking it the way S&W intended it.

As for the lug, I see it as a choice. If I like it, it stays. If I don't, I own hacksaws and files, I'll make it the way I want it.

Currently both of mine retain the full underlug.

The revolver was introduced as competition to the Python and gived the name Distinguished Combat Magnum (again, relying on 30 year memories) to encourage it's use in PPC competition. I shot a 4" and 6" 686 in competition for many years. The 6" gun eventually replaced my Davis competition rig as my main gun.

I am considering getting another just to see if I like it with the lug made to match the "normal" profile.

 

[Legionnaire]

The underlug is for those who do not want to spend the time and energy learning to shoot their gun and want to let the gun recoil and let the lug slow it down.

Hey, I represent that remark! Actually, I just like the way they look and balance. I like the full underlug on my 4-inch GP100. But to each their own, I guess.

... and I wouldn't turn down a light barreled Mountain Gun.

 

[Seafarer12]

But the all mighty Python had a full underlug barrel and god himself designed and built them so they must be the best, All you other guys are just wrong.

 

[Virginian]

I tried, but I just can't get too het up about it... one way or t'other. I have some with, and some without, and I still like all my guns.

 

[stiletto raggio]

Two things: .357s really don't recoil much except in very light guns, and for those of you who are worried about muzzle flip and recovery, you can always get it ported.

The .357 is only a magnum when compared ot the .38. It is not until you hit .44, hot .45s, 454s, etc that having a big heavy barrel really takes the strain off firing.

Porting, while not free, weighs nothing (less than nothing, actually) and is far more effective at reducing muzzle flip than barrel weight ever will be. Don't believe me? There is a reasons competitive revolvers can have big, heavy underlugs in Limited Class, but put a hole in the top of the barrel and it becomes Open Class.

I prefer tapered barrels (obviously). Come to think of it, The only revovlers I won without a perceptible taper to the barrel are single actions with uniformly thin barrels.

I bet a heavy underlug would really pay dividends if you were going to "pistol whip" a lot of people, though. Just saying...

 

[theNoid]

I myself prefer the full lugs, but hey we are all different and have different preferences.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I bet a heavy underlug would really pay dividends if you were going to "pistol whip" a lot of people, though. Just saying...

That's why I like them. Although I keep having to send my pistol scopes back to the factory...

 

[Dr.Who]

To each their own.... I compete with full lug revolvers. I feel the extra weight lessens muzzle rise, perceived recoil, and aids in keep barrel from getting too hot.... Not that I would notice the added barrel growth due to the heat of multiple rounds effecting accuracy. In my case the added weight is welcome. Just think of it as a Bull Barrell!

 

[20nickels]

I also compete with a 4" full lugged. For 6" barrels or carry I'll take the tapered every time. Long thin tubes just transition better.

 

[MCgunner]

On lightish guns, a full lug can dampen muzzle flip with heavy loads. On some revolvers like a 4" 686, I would rather have the lug, myself. It decreases recovery time on a combat revolver of that size.

 

[Bendutro]

Bah, full lugs DON'T balance. I greatly prefer the lug to end immediately after the ejecting rod. There's way more to it than sheer mass, it's the location of the mass. The polar moment and radius of gyration are all funked up and the gun loses pointability.

There's little to no reason for full lug other than folks like the look of it and it markets well to test groups.

 

[Confederate]

Amen to Bendutro.

You range guys are shooting at static targets. If those targets begin moving side to side and coming towards you, you will find your heavy underlug barrels to be a significant hinderance.

Having said that, go back and read my original post. I said: "A 4-incher magnum with a full underlug barrel is still managable, but when it gets to be 6-inches and greater, it begins being a pain."




A beautiful gun for the range, but quick line-ups on target are tough.



This Ruger is built for quick outdoor use.



Ah, this photo brings back
memories. This was how my
first Ruger 6-inch looked. Of
course I had to buy Pachmayrs!


I can tell you from experience that a 6-inch Security-Six will hook up with a moving target much faster than a 686 Smith or, for that matter, a 6-inch GP-100.

Ah, Bill Ruger, you were a true genius, but chasing after Smith and Colt was a big mistake. These barrels should be optional. Why are all the Mountain Guns gone? Because more people like them (I think) than the standard models currently out.

20nickels was right on, too. It's where the weight is that makes the difference.

.