Yes, I'm more than aware of why they put the underlugs on the guns. But y'know, all the magazine articles about carrying .357s in the field came to a grinding halt after the S&W 66s and Ruger Security-Sixes went out of production, and I haven't seen one since. I've put my 6-inch Security-Six next to my 6-inch 686 and believe me, there's a huge difference in both weight and balance. The heavier barrel holds on target better, but getting on target (especially with moving targets like dangerous animals).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.
I don't agree with this at all. It has a significant effect on balance and handling. Otherwise, why would they use them?I think that the added weight of an underlug is so minuscule, it really doesn't add any appreciable weight to the firearm itself.
I think that the added weight of an underlug is so minuscule, it really doesn't add any appreciable weight to the firearm itself.
I don't agree with this at all. It has a significant effect on balance and handling. Otherwise, why would they use them?
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. So I'm thinking, arguing about saving weight is a moot point.
Nonsense. Your statement makes no sense. Those who shoot revolvers more are going to be much more in tune with such minor details. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, which is understandable, considering the X-frame factor. To those who may be a little more discerning it is a significant difference. I have no problem with the way they look. I just don't think a revolver should weigh more than it has to. Believe it or not, some folks prefer the handling and balance of tapered barrels over bull barrels, such as model 24 vs 29. Despite the nonsensical and condescending gibberish from folks who think it doesn't matter.One only has to look at the spec sheets of most of the guns mentioned here to see that the minuscule amount of increased weight full underlugged guns is something most folks that shoot revolvers regularly would never notice. If it makes the difference as to whether or not you can hold the gun up, you probably shouldn't be shooting a handgun. Again, some of the suggested replacement models without a full underlug, weigh more than the full underlug model there were recommended to replace. I would think that the full length Picatinny Rail shown in your post #26 changes adds just as much weight and changes the balance just as much as a full underlug....not to mention the scope. But it works for you, and I bet it shoots very well. That's the important thing.
Originally posted by Craig C:
Maybe it doesn't matter to you, which is understandable, considering the X-frame factor. To those who may be a little more discerning it is a significant difference.
buck460XVR said:most of the guns mentioned here to see that the minuscule amount of increased weight full underlugged guns is something most folks that shoot revolvers regularly would never notice...
...Most of the preference here is cosmetic.
CraigC said:Those who shoot revolvers more are going to be much more in tune with such minor details.
Not an attack. I would expect someone accustomed to carrying a 5lb revolver to think underlugs make no difference. That, by pure drfinition, makes you less discerning.Here comes the personal attack.
Believe it or not, some folks prefer the handling and balance of tapered barrels over bull barrels, such as model 24 vs 29. Despite the nonsensical and condescending gibberish from folks who think it doesn't matter.
I bought that GP with the intent of scoping it but the big 2-7x is only temporary. I intentionally sought out the lugless version, which is tougher to find. Why? Because a full underlug on a 6" .357 is more weight than is necessary.
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.
The M620 and the M619 (fixed sights) were designed to replace the M65 and M66. For some reason they didn't sell enough to stay in the catalog but they were very good guns. I had a M619 and should have never sold it. It carried 7 rounds of .357 Magnum which is a plus too.I carried a 686-1 many nights while operating a private security patrol service. It served me very well and the extra weight up front was welcome on the range when doing a rapid fire string and on the street knowing how it would respond. I am not a fan of the 2-piece barrel but it sounds like you would like the S&W 620 better. Essentially it is an L-frame revolver with a 66 style barrel but sized appropriately. If it had a solid barrel I might consider one as well. New frame with a classic style looking barrel, what's not to like?