DMK
Member
I've noticed most of the newer revolvers have full underlugs. What is the reasoning for this?
Why full underlug?
- Thread starter DMK
- Start date
- Status
Well it makes for a muzzle heavy revolver which helps with recoil absorption/recovery.I believe that the full lug started out as a target shooters technique,idea,tactic,something.
I think the other big reason would have to be looks and economics. The Colt Python (introduced 1955) was first and the look caught on. Colt then followed up with the Diamondback in 66 and it also enjoyed brisk sales. S&W finally followed along with the L-frame in 1980. Then Ruger introduced the GP-100 in 86. I suppose the rest is history.
Now we have an entire generation of shooters who believe you have to have full lugs.
You know the old expression about imitation being the most sincere form of flattery?
Or is it money makes for copycats?
Well anyway that's my take. I have no doubt other posters with a strong sense of socioeconomic conditions and a philisophical bent will be along to wax eleqouently.
I think the other big reason would have to be looks and economics. The Colt Python (introduced 1955) was first and the look caught on. Colt then followed up with the Diamondback in 66 and it also enjoyed brisk sales. S&W finally followed along with the L-frame in 1980. Then Ruger introduced the GP-100 in 86. I suppose the rest is history.
Now we have an entire generation of shooters who believe you have to have full lugs.
You know the old expression about imitation being the most sincere form of flattery?
Or is it money makes for copycats?
Well anyway that's my take. I have no doubt other posters with a strong sense of socioeconomic conditions and a philisophical bent will be along to wax eleqouently.
A pet peeve of mine, as many here know. IMO Checkman nailed it. The Python was perceived as a high-class gun, and starting with the 586, S&W decided to jump in with both feet.
Now there are many models you CAN'T GET with traditional looks and balance. The most ridiculous example is the 617. The 8 3/8" version weighs MORE than an 8 3/8" M29, and feels awful compared to a long barreled K22.
The raves I'm getting about the JR/PC 5" .500 tell me I'm not alone in my feelings...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=319047
JR
Now there are many models you CAN'T GET with traditional looks and balance. The most ridiculous example is the 617. The 8 3/8" version weighs MORE than an 8 3/8" M29, and feels awful compared to a long barreled K22.
The raves I'm getting about the JR/PC 5" .500 tell me I'm not alone in my feelings...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=319047
JR
Last edited:
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
I took a 4 inch 586 and ground off the underlug and it made it a great carry gun. It was like a model 19 on steroids. It worked great and I sold it to fund my 4" pencil barrel round butt 65.
22-rimfire
Member
Like the others have said, the idea is to make the revolver barrel heavy for recoil adsorption and balance. The Colt Python was very popular and Smith & Wesson climbed on that band wagon. Make a cheaper "python" and out sell Colt. Some like the look and feel and others don't. I used to really like the look, but as I shoot more older Smiths and Colts, I'm pretty neutral on the subject and take each one on it's own merits as far as balance and so forth. The Colt Diamondback looks great with the full underlug and I wouldn't want it any other way although some feel the 6" version is a little too barrel heavy.
OP
OP
DMK
Member
Gee S&W. Full underlug or not, a 686 isn't a Python. Not even close. Of course a Python isn't a Model 27 either.
Yea, I was considering the same thing with the 625, which is a great looking gun is every other way.
I agree. Not even considering it throws the balance off, I don't like the look of full underlug at all.
theNoid
Member
While I may be the only person here to do this, I am going to have to disagree. I own the "ridiculous" 617 above and actually prefer the heavier front end...to each his own I guess.
As far as the aesthetics of a gun go, once again, in SS I prefer the full lug models, while in blue, I agree and like the shorter lugged models.
Noidster
All else being equal, the lighter barrel will just a bit faster into action, up to the first shot, but then the greater weight of the lugged barrel comes into play, dampening recoil, and making shot-to-recovery quicker. A compromise is the untapered, or minimally-tapered barrel with just an ejector shroud. Which is best? I own, or have owned, sixguns that were the same model, and differ(ed) only in barrel configuration, and I say, for me, neither is best for all conditions, and either can be best for certain conditions. The lighter gun is easier on the hip bones, and the heavier is easier on the wrist bones. Don't ask me to give up either version of my GP100 sixguns!
Last edited:
JohnBT
Member
"The Python was perceived as a high-class gun"
Perceived? I take it you don't think so?
John
Perceived? I take it you don't think so?
John
pinkymingeo
Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 591
From what I understand, there's nothing wrong with a Python that having a gunsmith in the family won't cure.
JohnBT
Member
And all these years I've thought it was a target gun with adjustable sights that was useful for a wide variety of activities if it was retimed when it needed it. Not after it needed it and wore out other parts, but as soon as it needed it. (Do the folks who won't do the service on a Python skip the recommended oil changes on their vehicles because it's too much trouble and costs a few dollars?)
I shoot the heavy loads in my Police Service-Six and save the Python for target shooting and plinking.
John
I shoot the heavy loads in my Police Service-Six and save the Python for target shooting and plinking.
John
wheelgunslinger
Member
Uh, I'm not trying to throw gas on the fire, but why pay the money you have to pay to get a python and not have something you can shoot anything with?
I like the Python, aesthetically, but I don't get the price:function ratio.
Maybe I'm just not Python material... but most of Colt's price:function ratio seems off when other makers give you more for less money.
I change my own oil. Build my own engines. Do my own racing. Roll my own ammo. Shoot and own 1 handgun. And, I expect the stuff I have to do what I bought it to do... everything I ask of it.
Am I missing something here?
I like the Python, aesthetically, but I don't get the price:function ratio.
Maybe I'm just not Python material... but most of Colt's price:function ratio seems off when other makers give you more for less money.
I change my own oil. Build my own engines. Do my own racing. Roll my own ammo. Shoot and own 1 handgun. And, I expect the stuff I have to do what I bought it to do... everything I ask of it.
Am I missing something here?
OP
OP
DMK
Member
Hmm, didn't realize I was starting a thread about the pros and cons of Pythons.
I'd love to see a pic of that 586 too.
I'd love to see a pic of that 586 too.
Feanaro
Member
It wouldn't really be cheaper for Ruger. Just shape the cast appropriate and git'er'done. I don't know about forging but it's probably not much different.
The early Pythons from the 1950's and into the mid-1960's had a hollow underlug. In other words, the underlug on the gun was basically a metal tube that was open near the end of the ejector rod. Colt changed to a solid underlug to add weight to the front of the gun and also probably because it was easier to manufacture.
As far as the Python's value: I think it is one of those 'If you don't understand then there is no way to explain' situations. I am a Colt enthusiast, and to me the Python is the pinnacle when one considers the fit, finish, and hand assembly/fitting of the action. In my opinion a 6" Royal Blue Python IS the ultimate expression of American DA revolver manufacture. Alot of people who shoot Smiths, etc. don't like the Colt DA pull because it 'stacks' at the end. Personally I prefer the Colt action but to each their own.
Regarding the so called 'delicate' nature of the Python, I suggest a reading of Grant Cunninham's excellent article:
http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/colt_python_delicate.html
As far as the Python's value: I think it is one of those 'If you don't understand then there is no way to explain' situations. I am a Colt enthusiast, and to me the Python is the pinnacle when one considers the fit, finish, and hand assembly/fitting of the action. In my opinion a 6" Royal Blue Python IS the ultimate expression of American DA revolver manufacture. Alot of people who shoot Smiths, etc. don't like the Colt DA pull because it 'stacks' at the end. Personally I prefer the Colt action but to each their own.
Regarding the so called 'delicate' nature of the Python, I suggest a reading of Grant Cunninham's excellent article:
http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/colt_python_delicate.html
Lucky Strike
Member
I really like the look of the full underlug but i haven't shot a revolver without one so I can't comment on which i enjoy shooting more.
antediluvianist
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 182
If I am heavy in front, then my gun should be too.
JohnBT
Member
"didn't realize I was starting a thread about the pros and cons of Pythons."
In my experience, after the original answer is posted underlug threads almost always end up being about Pythons.
"I change my own oil."
And like your engines, Pythons require a bit of service too, but it isn't very often. I'm shooting one that's pushing 20 years of age and has never been opened. A one-gun shooter should, in my opinion, probably have a Ruger like my mid-80s Service-Six. Or maybe one of the new Rugers. Or maybe a Smith, they have a good track record too. I have a K-frame Smith, but it's a .17 HMR. Whoops, forgot, have some Model 17s too. I like K-frames with 8-3/8" bbls and scopes. Come to think of it, even my 4" Model 17 has a full underlug.
John
In my experience, after the original answer is posted underlug threads almost always end up being about Pythons.
"I change my own oil."
And like your engines, Pythons require a bit of service too, but it isn't very often. I'm shooting one that's pushing 20 years of age and has never been opened. A one-gun shooter should, in my opinion, probably have a Ruger like my mid-80s Service-Six. Or maybe one of the new Rugers. Or maybe a Smith, they have a good track record too. I have a K-frame Smith, but it's a .17 HMR. Whoops, forgot, have some Model 17s too. I like K-frames with 8-3/8" bbls and scopes. Come to think of it, even my 4" Model 17 has a full underlug.
John
- Status
