Magnum Revolver Underlugs

[CraigC]

Don't care for underlugs and prefer just a shrouded ejector.

 

[Varminterror]

I have one of the weighted barrel 629's. With the bore under the barrel, and using weight bushings of different weights, I can put more or less weight towards the muzzle. Pretty slick system.

Although, it's a hugely bulky underlug to have the bore - it's hugely more attractive to give the same control over balance without the ugliness of the "tack welded blob" in the original post.

 

[Confederate]

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.

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).

Again, the new, heavier magnums are good range and competition guns, but that's it. Outdoors, for camping, hiking and hunting, they're horrible. Ruger sawed off part of the steel grips on the frames of the GP-100 and added steel to the barrel. This not only resulted in a heavy gun, but it ruined the balance in my view. (If someone has both, let's hear from you.) I'd buy a 4-inch 686 any day before the Ruger as the balance on the GP-100s just feel wrong.

The Security-Six and 66 are still the best outdoor magnums you can get.

​

 

[CraigC]

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?

 

[buck460XVR]

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?

It's easy to disagree with a statement you edit to delete pertinent info.

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.

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.

Most of the preference here is cosmetic. This is why folks posted pictures of their guns instead of spec sheets. It has little to do with performance or objectivity and is all about what folks think a revolver should look like...or what they imagine other folks think a revolver should look like. How a gun balances in your hand is also very subjective, depending on one's preference, hand size, wrist strength and grips. Like grips, finish, fluted or non-fluted cylinders, for the most part, full lug/half lug is just a "in the eye of the beholder" thing, regardless how hard those in favor of one or the other tries to validate that preference with nonsensical jibberish.

I like 'em all. I also acknowledge that many folks take the appearance of their firearms very seriously. Kinda why we so many threads here on "which of these two grips looks best on my gun", or "what color Cerakoat would look best on my AR". How about those endless pics of guns with watches, posed like a fashion model? What do most Glock haters have against Glocks, other than looks?

 

[Black Knight]

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?

 

[I6turbo]

Yeah, that extra 2 or 3 ounces of underlug is an absolute KILLER when a 200+ pound (3200 ounce) man is dragging about 10 or 12 pounds (200 ounces) of gear, clothing and boots around in the wild. Maybe a Ruger LCR would make him step a little lighter.

 

[slickracer]

With all due respect, that would ruin a fine revolver.

 

[CraigC]

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.

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.

Obviously things change when optics are involved. 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.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I definitely feel the underlug makes a major difference in how a firearm handles. The handling characteristics can have a huge influence on the utility of the gun, based on the individual shooter's needs.

Personally I don't feel the added weight is necessary for anything as small as a 357 because the recoil isn't that bad. I've never had the opportunity to shoot a 41 magnum, but it doesn't look terribly brutal either in all the videos I've seen. In 44, 454, 460, and 500 magnum, every ounce makes a difference, but that is based on a person's perception and are influenced by a number of factors, besides just weight.

I really do believe that folks who shoot a variety of revolvers in different cartridges can tell the differences in weight and in balance pretty easily. Folks who only shoot one or two different revolvers may just be really used to their guns, and not pay that much attention to shrouds, lugs, and vented ribs.

I honestly feel the recoil characteristics of a gun are influenced much more heavily by how well the gun's grip fits the shooter. Recoil isn't painful or hard to master when the gun fits the shooter as it should.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I think whether or not full underlugs have a functional or aesthetic appeal just depends on the gun. In general, I like the looks of a full underlug. But there are certainly plenty of revolvers on which it would just look goofy.

Just don't feel that we can make a blanket statement that they are good or bad. Just like full length frames on autoloaders, they belong on some guns, not on others. I love the look of my Witness limited and Baby Eagle, but I don't care for Beretta 92 FS or 1911s with extended (usually railed) frames.

 

[StrawHat]

I competed with a 686 no dash and also a -1, one 6" and one 4". For competition they were fine. But for all that weight, I could have competed with a M27. I much prefer the tapered barrel on S&W revolvers.

Kevin

 

[cal44mag]

Here is a full lug 657-3 that shoots really nicely.

On this gun, I like the full lug.

But on a blue 57 I'd rather have a standard barrel.

 

[buck460XVR]

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.

Here comes the personal attack. I was wonderin' when you were gonna bring the X-Frame up, even tho it has no relevance in this thread. ...and I suppose you are a one of those folks that's " a little more discerning". How modest of you.

From my first post the point I was making was about the increase in weight from a full underlug being a non issue. As I said before many of those gun suggested here without a full underlug weigh more than the models they were suggested to replace. So....why are they suggested? Appearance, brand loyalty and probably because it what that poster owns. Seems to be the determining factors anytime someone suggests a firearm on gun forum threads. Many time the minuscule difference in weight is no ore or less than the difference between a loaded and unloaded cylinder. I have no issue with folk's preference of balance and have from the start stated that a full underlug puts that balance forward, for a reason. It was not the balance that folks experienced with shooting a number of revolvers do not notice, but the 1 or 2 ounces of weight. For someone not used to shooting offhand, 1 ounce may make a difference. For most of us that shoot regularly, the extra weight of a N-frame over a J or L frame does not mean we can't shoot it. Must be 'cause we ain't very discerning, eh?

I too do not think a revolver should weigh more than it needs to, but it needs to weigh what it does and have that weight distributed in manner fit for the purpose. I worked construction for 40 years. They make hammers in a variety of weights for a variety of reasons. Most folks pick the lightest one that feels good in their hand. Don't make it the right one for the job at hand. Generally why so many carpenters have tendonitis. But hey, that lighter one is easier to carry around in the tool belt....must make it right.

Guns are tools of the trade. Use what you like. But leave the condescending personal attacks for the playground.

 

[fireman 9731]

Because every revolver thread needs more pictures

For the sake of continuing conversation...

My Royce Weddle PPC gun has no underlug or shroud, yet still provides the handling characteristics favored for target shooting.

 

[MrBorland]

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.

Those who shoot revolvers more are going to be much more in tune with such minor details.

You're both right to an extent.

To many (most?), the underlug is largely cosmetic and not something they would notice when handling the gun or even shooting it.

OTOH, in the hands of someone who shoots a lot and seriously, that extra weight can certainly make a difference, and that difference may matter very much to them.

Top target shooters, for instance, are so attuned to trigger characteristics they can detect differences between triggers that almost no one else can, and it'll be reflected in their scores. So it is with underlugs, barrel length, frame size, grip shape, etc.

 

[John Joseph]

The full underlug shouts Python wannabee

 

[CraigC]

Here comes the personal attack.

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.

 

[Onty]

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.

Agree!

I am still kicking myself for passing one 624-3 or 4 (it had endurance package) with 6 or 6.5 barrel. Beautifully balanced, yet this revolver could be handloaded to shoot 250 grains at 1200 fps, old Keith load.

Also, I like balance of 6" Security Six and S&W M19/66. They just feel right. Considering durability, Security Six wins hands down IMHO.

 

[Dain Bramage]

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.

S&W has an adjustable weight system for competition revolvers. I don't think it improves the looks over a full lug.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

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?

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.

 

[hemiram]

I personally will take a full lug gun over the tapered one, anytime. I like the looks better and the weight, too. I like rails on semiautos in most cases, over the older non-railed ones. But other people like light, skinny barreled gus, doesn't affect my buying much, anyway.

 

[Black Knight]

ArchAngel I believe the reason they didn't catch on is the 2 piece barrel. Having the traditional look in a slightly larger frame capable of handling all 357 Magnum ammo the same as the 686 would have been great. I once worked with a guy who had a Dan Wesson pistol pack and would change the barrel of his pistol every time he went to work and got home. When doing armed security duty he would change to a 4 inch barrel and when off duty he would change to the 2 1/2 inch barrel. He wore the threads so badly that when the company offered to buy the gun from him they had to have a gunsmith weld the 4 inch barrel to the frame. I guess this caused my concern about the 2 piece barrel.

 

[cal44mag]

"ArchAngel I believe the reason they didn't catch on is the 2 piece barrel. "

You may well be right,

but I've heard that two piece barrel guns are more accurate than single piece barrel guns.

Something about supporting the barrel under tension at the ends.

But I had an old 686 no dash, and the new gun would have to go some to be more accurate than that.

 

[BobWright]

From my own standpoint, I like muzzle heavy revolvers. I find they hang steadier and do dampen recoil some. Years ago I had S&W make this Model 29 into an 8 3/8" full lug barrel. Shot like a .30-30 rifle out ot around 100 yards or so. But the weight was a bit too much, so had my gunsmith (Bob Mason, at the time) cut the barrel back to a handier 6":



And I still consider the S&W model 586 to be the ultimate .357 Magnum DA revolver.

Bob Wright