I like the full underlug. Even though I own four N-frames (M28's and a M27) I like both the look and feel of the full lug barrel. Always have. Especially on the six inch models. I'm very fond of the 586 and 686 and own one of each. I also own a GP100. I know this is an old topic, but it hasn't been beaten to deatch recently and there's alwasy room for more opinions. Why, if so many people hate them, are they now so common? Are they better for extending the life of a revovler? Do they assist or detract from the shooter?
Full lugs. Your opinion?
- Thread starter Checkman
- Start date
- Status
Most people that like full lugs (including me) seem to like them because of the effect on balance. I'd be willing to bet that most manufacturers make them that way for aesthetic reasons, though. Makes the gun look a little bit more like those "automatic" thing-a-ma-jigs that sell so much better.
chaim
Member
I prefer the half-lug. Looks better, cuts weight. However, that won't stop me from buying a full-lug revolver.
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
I do not care for them and did spend a bit of time grinding off the lug of a 586 I had at one time, I sold it because I prefer fixed sights and round grips.
Feanaro
Member
Don't like them. I don't think they add any balance and they ruin the aesthetics for me. Sometimes, on a very few revolvers, it looks good.
Marshall
Member
Depends on the gun. 3" and shorter barrels, I like them. I like the 5" 686 and the 6" GP-100 that has them. All others, no.
Lou22
Member
I don't like the look of full lugs on longer barrelled revolvers. Also it (for me) makes the gun too muzzle-heavy. I've got a Smith 29 with the longer barrel. I considered a 629 but most came with the full lug.
Lou
Lou
Ultraman
Member
I voted Neutral.
I like them on some three inch barrels but not so much on longer ones.
I like them on some three inch barrels but not so much on longer ones.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
After about six inches, full lugs make revolvers too nose-heavy for my hand. I like the look of them better when they weren't on every gun in the display case.
To each their own I say! I love the looks of the 625 with with the full lug! The 625 Mtn gun does not do it for me! But, in my eyes there a mystique to a Blued N Frame that is P/R! Man they just look regal in my eyes! Or better yet 3.5" M27! Gotta love them N Frames!
Stainz
Member
The h-l just makes a revolver 'look' more aesthetically pleasing to me, witness the S&W MG's, like my 625MG & 629MG. I sold my first 625-8 4"-er partially because it just didn't look 'right'. A friend reminded me of the obvious - you look down the barrel, not under it, when you shoot it! I bought another one - the 625JM variant - in Feb - and I 'accept' it's f-l with 'joy'. Of course, my 296/696 siblings have always had a home... I didn't mind their f-l's!
My latest purchase - a 'real' .44 Magnum - was my 629-6 6" half lug - a great looking & pointing piece. My 686+ is the h-l 5"-er, too. Of course, my 6" 66 is a h-l-er, too.
Stainz
My latest purchase - a 'real' .44 Magnum - was my 629-6 6" half lug - a great looking & pointing piece. My 686+ is the h-l 5"-er, too. Of course, my 6" 66 is a h-l-er, too.
Stainz
carolinaman
Member
Hi there,
I fall into the neutral category.
If it balances the revolver than I don't mind them, and if it doesn't, I don't really care for them. It depends on the loaded weight of the wheelgun and how well the gun points and shoots.
Balance is everything.
Chris
I fall into the neutral category.
If it balances the revolver than I don't mind them, and if it doesn't, I don't really care for them. It depends on the loaded weight of the wheelgun and how well the gun points and shoots.
Balance is everything.
Chris
juneau803
Member
The full lug on my wife's 617 makes it a real tack driver. It's a little heavy but if you are looking for accuracy, it's a worth it.
Even though I like the full lug on the six inch barrels I have to agree that they are heavier then the half-lug models. But I'm a slave to fashion in that respect. It don't matter how it feels. What's important is that it looks GOOD. 
I grew up in the seventies and I remember two revolvers dominating the scene. First was Smith's Model 29. God bless Clint Eastwood and John Milius.But the other model I remember ,and the one that I wanted,was the Colt Python. I can remember in 1978, at the age of ten, bugging my dad to buy a 6" Python at our local gunstore. He didn't of course. They were out of his price range. Now I'm the grownup and they're out of my price range as well. However the 586/686/GP100 aren't. I guess some things you never outgrow.
I grew up in the seventies and I remember two revolvers dominating the scene. First was Smith's Model 29. God bless Clint Eastwood and John Milius.But the other model I remember ,and the one that I wanted,was the Colt Python. I can remember in 1978, at the age of ten, bugging my dad to buy a 6" Python at our local gunstore. He didn't of course. They were out of his price range. Now I'm the grownup and they're out of my price range as well. However the 586/686/GP100 aren't. I guess some things you never outgrow.
LoadedDrum
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 612
I like the full lugs. The half lugs don't look right to me, but they do look better than exposed ejector rods.
JMusic
member
I'm have mixed emotions. I have had 2 model 17's one with full lug and one without. I can shoot the non lug better and traded it to my brother in law prior to realizing this. Of course he wont sell or trade back. I have a 629 8 3/8, and had a non lug 29 with a 10 inch barrel, I liked the 629 better. I have several K model smiths non lug that shoot very well. I have a 6 inch Python. Excluding snubbies I doubt there is a difference other than weight. Most revolvers I purchase anymore are without the lug.
Jim
Jim
Sam
Member
A handguns utility is that of portability(worn not borne) although the weight of a lug is minimal it is extra weight than has no function other than weight even though some might plead aesthetics..
On a handgun intended for range or match use, lugs are fine. For carrying, I would rather carry 2 more rds of ammo than extra weight on the weapon.
Sam
On a handgun intended for range or match use, lugs are fine. For carrying, I would rather carry 2 more rds of ammo than extra weight on the weapon.
Sam
I'm a relatively novice when it comes to revolvers but i've owned a full-lugged DA revolver and I have to say that although full lugs look pretty cool, they serve no purpose for me. I'm a person that appreciates gun aesthetics but in this case I would prefer a revolver that has no more weight than it needs to have.
I'm also of the (probably unpopular) opinion that it's silly to say an ejector rod needs any housing at all. If I understand it correctly, the shroud is there to prevent the rod from bending, is it not? Well...it's probably happened before in history but I don't think I would ever put my guns in a situation in which a 1/4" steel tube could be bent.
I'm also of the (probably unpopular) opinion that it's silly to say an ejector rod needs any housing at all. If I understand it correctly, the shroud is there to prevent the rod from bending, is it not? Well...it's probably happened before in history but I don't think I would ever put my guns in a situation in which a 1/4" steel tube could be bent.
aguyindallas
Member
I am really a newb when it comes to wheel guns.
My take is this:
Old guns of the old days are without lugs.
New times guns have full lugs, which to me, just makes them look and feel modernized.
With that said...I have one of each (with and without lugs), but I really do prefer them.
My take is this:
Old guns of the old days are without lugs.
New times guns have full lugs, which to me, just makes them look and feel modernized.
With that said...I have one of each (with and without lugs), but I really do prefer them.
Last edited:
antediluvianist
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 182
For a .357, the full lug helps a bit recoil-wise.
For a .38, it's not needed.
For a .38, it's not needed.
Johnny Guest
Moderator In Memoriam
I'm mostly agin' 'em.
I like them on the Colt Python and Diamondback only. I can see some utility to putting a full underlug on a magnum hunting revolver, for the purpose of reducing muzzle rise. For my purposes, I'd rather save the weight.
I've always considered the S&W L-series a frank knock-off of the Python. This is probably the reason I've never owned what is otherwise a rather nice revolver.
Best,
Johnny
I like them on the Colt Python and Diamondback only. I can see some utility to putting a full underlug on a magnum hunting revolver, for the purpose of reducing muzzle rise. For my purposes, I'd rather save the weight.
I've always considered the S&W L-series a frank knock-off of the Python. This is probably the reason I've never owned what is otherwise a rather nice revolver.
Best,
Johnny
Kramer Krazy
Member
I like the full lugs.....6" Colt Anaconda, 4" Colt Python, 6" S&W 617. My only other two revolvers are a 1971 Colt Detective Special (I'd prefer a full shroud) and a Ruger Vaquero that looks like a SA revolver should look.
- Status