Magnum Revolver Underlugs

[Confederate]

I was just looking at my 6-inch S&W 686 and wondering why everyone feels like putting so much steel in its guns? I really miss skinny barrels. I'm not saying all barrels need to be skinny or all guns lightened, but it would be nice to have the option. Every magnum made today seems to have a lug under it! I'd love it if my S&W 686s didn't have lugs or, if they did, it would be only an inch under the muzzle.

I have only a crude photo editor, but something like this:

​

They could add a vented rib along the top or just shave a little more topside to make it appear more conventional, but it would be a compromise for people who carry outdoors, where a lug is just more to...lug. So it becomes, if you were out hiking or camping, would you rather have a Ruger GP-100 or a Ruger Security-Six?

What do you think?

 

[gspn]

Looking at your picture and hearing your thoughts makes me wonder if someone will design a rail underneath so you can customize how much weight you want under the barrel, and where it gets positioned. I can easily see a series of small weights in the shape of an under lug that you could add or remove to get the feel you want.

 

[Beach Bum]

I always thought it would be cool to have slots milled into the under lug to give it the vented rib look under the barrel , I really like the full lug look but just spice it up a little

 

[200Apples]

.
OP, I'm curious: why just under the muzzle? Thanks.

Looking at your picture and hearing your thoughts makes me wonder if someone will design a rail underneath...

gspn and Beach, when I first laid eyes on a photo of the S&W M&P R8, I involuntarily blurted out, "Holy ****. Gotta have that!". And I'm not a *tactical* kinda guy...



I'll have one paid off and home by middle October!

 

[SVTOhio]

Ruger redhawk and super RedHawk come to mind here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sergei Mosin]

A partial lug should extend forward from the frame. Hanging it off the muzzle is just hideous.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

The S&W "Bucktooth".

 

[Old Dog]

Smith and Wesson has in the past produced some "stocking-dealers' special" runs of a 5-inch 686 with a half-lug. I have a plus version that came with a fiber-optic front sight and some great Ahrends finger-groove stocks. Fabulous revolver.

I see this model up on Gunbroker and some other sites periodically.

 

[CajunBass]

OP, I'm curious: why just under the muzzle? Thanks.

I'm not the OP, but I suspect that has to do with what he describes as a "crude" photo editor. At least I hope so. If not that's even uglier than full underlug barrels.

I guess from that you can figure that I don't care for full underlugs either. At least not generally speaking. I like the one on the Colt Python, but others...not so much. I know all the "reasons" they give for going to them, but I still think Smith & Wesson and Ruger (GP-100) were going for a Python look when they went to the full lug...about the same time IIRC.

I suppose that's one of the reasons I've never had any interest in either the "L" frame Smith & Wesson, or the GP-100.

 

[Salmoneye]

Ruger redhawk and super RedHawk come to mind here.

And some GP100's also:

 

[Radagast]

686 SSR 4 inch and 686+ Pro series 5 inch barrel has the light weight tapered lug. The 5 inch half lug 686 was a short run back in 2004.

 

[bannockburn]

Confederate

Please no more playing with the photo editor on a Model 686; that "thing" underneath the barrel looks horrible! To answer your question if I'm out hiking or carrying in the field I would much rather have a Security Six versus a GP100. Loved the design, size, and weight of the Security Six; not so much so with the GP100. But if I'm going to be using it at the range, while still taking it occasionally out in the field, then I'm going to go with my S&W Model 686 with it's 4" barrel. A little more weight with the full underlug but nothing too excessive and I like the way the gun handles and feels with that extra heft at the end of the barrel.

 

[Ed Ames]

If you are going to do that at least include a lip so that your lug (can we call it the Confederate Lug?) can be used to open beer bottles.

I would think that if you want a muzzle weight a machinist could make something that would securely clamp to the muzzle without blocking the sights. Personally I'd probably skip the lug/weight altogether.

 

[Master Blaster]

Please take a look here I think S&W read your mind..

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57769_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

or

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57779_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

or

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57775_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

or

 

[edmo01]

S&W's Mountain Gun series from several years ago had a thinner, tapered barrel.

Below is my 629 in 44 Magnum. The lack of weight up front really makes this one a handful with full power magnum rounds. However, the overall lighter weight is welcomed after several days in the field.

Edmo

 

[buck460XVR]

What do you think?

I think that the added weight of an underlug is so minuscule, it really doesn't add any appreciable weight to the firearm itself. Only distributes it in a manner to help control muzzle flip. This is why you see it so often on magnum handguns and not on handguns like .38 specials. Skinny barrels on revolvers are like unfluted cylinders, ugly or beautiful in the eye of the beholder. Many of those guns(Redhawks for example) suggested without an underlug, weigh more than the comparable models(29/629) with underlugs. So I'm thinking, arguing about saving weight is a moot point.

 

[375supermag]

Hi...

If we are talking simply aesthetics,well then beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I have DA revolvers with full-length underlugs and some without. The small amount of added weight really helps keep my 8-3/8" barrelled handguns on target when shooting at longer ranges. Appearance wise, the full-length underlugs look better on the longer barrelled DA revolvers, IMHO.

 

[fireman 9731]

I certainly prefer the aesthetics of either a partial underlug or ejector shroud, or nothing at all over the full underlug.

I appreciate a heavier weight in a target gun though.

 

[cfullgraf]

I ran into a fellow a week or so ago that was convinced all medium sized S&W revolvers with a full under lug barrel were a L Frames. Such as a Model 617 or a Model 16-4.

Just nodded my head and moved on.

I think full under lugged barrels were a sales fad that has run its course. Different folks have different preferences on the issue, so some revolvers with full under lugged barrels are still being manufactured. But not every new design coming out of the drafting room has one these days.

With that and $5, you can treat yourself to a cup of designer coffee.

 

[200Apples]

.
bannockburn, that 686 is a great-looking piece.

 

[bannockburn]

200Apples

Thanks! It's a 686-no dash; I bought the first one I found shortly after they were introduced. Nicest DA/SA trigger right out of the box of any revolver I have tried. Gave it a light polish job using some Flitz. One of these days I have get a set of nice wood grips for it (probably from Kim Ahrends), though I really enjoy the design and comfort of the Pachmayr grips.

 

[RX-79G]

If you want to achieve the weight distribution of the OP's sketch, just drill out the underlug from the frame end before installing the barrel. You hollowing it out to within an inch from the muzzle you'd get the majority of underlug weight at the muzzle end without looking funny.

 

[Hoppes Love Potion]

I like the underlug on the 3" 60-4. Improves the balance and keeps the muzzle a bit steadier.

 

[TimSr]

I like the looks better. Cant swear to any functional difference.

 

[I6turbo]

I like the full underlug on the 686. And for target shooting, which is what I do with mine, I like the 6" barrel.