Underlug preference?

CraigC said:

It's some mutated form of reverse snobbery where folks look down on "pretty guns", "pretty wood" or turn their nose up at ivory and engraving.

Click to expand...

There's a word for reverse-snobbery: proletentiousness. A reverse-snob (particularly a fake/affected one) is proletentious.

Sorry for the digression, just thought I'd throw that out for those who are interested in words as well as guns.

I've been looking for a word for that for a long time.

Green Lantern wrote: I don't care for the looks of a "lugless" gun, and care even less for the greater danger of banging up the ejector rod on one...

Click to expand...

Apparently that greater danger you speak of is entirely theoretical, and in practice, not very real at all. Renowned revolver gunsmith Grant Cunningham has this to say about it:

A common complaint about the old-style Colt Detective Special is the unshrouded ejector rod. Many people believe that the exposed ejector rod is a liability; should it get bent during a struggle, the theory goes, it will tie up the gun and make it inoperable.

Not quite.

Many folks have experienced this problem with a Smith & Wesson. Since their ejector rods are locked at the front and rotate about the front latch pin, any small amount of runout (deviation from true) will impose an inordinate amount of friction to the system. This usually manifests itself as an action that locks up, being completely useless in double action (and often in single action as well.)

The unshrouded Colts, however, are a different matter. Since the ejector rod doesn't have any function other than the ejection of spent casings, even a large amount of runout has no effect on the action. In fact, you would have to bend the ejector rod to the point that it actually hits the underside of the barrel before you would encounter a problem! Because of the plasticity of steel, about the only way you could do that would be on purpose, with the cylinder open - I honestly cannot conceive of any accidental way to get it into such a sorry state.

I would be remiss if I didn't address the effect of small bends on the ejection process; a relatively modest bend in a Colt ejector rod can cause the ejector to stick in the cylinder, so that the ratchet (ejector star) is stuck in the extended position. This isn't as much of a problem as you might think - just shove the ratchet back into the cylinder and the gun is usually ready to be reloaded.

Every gun has strong and weak points in its design, but in the case of the unshrouded Colts the exposed ejector isn't one of them!

Click to expand...

There's a word for reverse-snobbery: proletentiousness. A reverse-snob (particularly a fake/affected one) is proletentious.

Click to expand...

But the connotation is pride in ones working class (proletariat) origins, reticent to join or behave like the faux elite or true aristocrats.

To view or use the word differently, especially here, would imply that there is an elite opinion and then everyone else's. Anyone want to appoint himself to that lofty status and feel entitled to act and be known as particularly arrogant?

But the connotation is pride in ones working class (proletariat) origins, reticent to join or behave like the faux elite or true aristocrats.

Click to expand...

It goes beyond that. You can be proud of where you are and where you came from without judging or looking down on those at the other end of the socio-economic spectrum. That goes for people at any point in that spectrum. In other words, it's not okay for the rich to hate the poor, any more than it is for the poor to hate the rich.

Anyone want to appoint himself to that lofty status and feel entitled to act and be known as particularly arrogant?

Click to expand...

People usually do it without knowing. It's fairly socially acceptable among the working class to look down your nose at people who drive Bentley's. So 'some' folks believe that snobbery is exclusive to the wealthy. It is not. IMHO, people who look down on those with less money because they have more of it are no better or worse than those who look down on the successful. Snobbery is small-minded and petty either way.

buck460XVR said:

Didn't see anybody else here slammin' folks for their likes or dislikes....except maybe you with your "get over yourself already". No one has told someone to "get over it" because they like a pretty gun. I like pretty guns also, but their looks is not the priority. This is to what Drail and I have posted.........No remarks I saw in this thread were aimed at anyone intended to be an insult other than maybe yours. Your claim that you prefer to buy guns that appeal to you on looks may be why you are a tad sensitive to others that don't. Just because others don't, is not a insult, just means we are different.

Click to expand...

i guess you didn't notice (or choose not to notice) drail's barbie doll comment

I'm old and set in my ways. When I was participating in the great war of northern aggression, I used a Remmy. I like a loading lever under the barrel.

I voted half lug, not as front heavy balance and weight in general and still protects the ejector rod.

Awe, damn, shoulda said I used a LeMat and prefer a 20 gauge under the barrel.

I've alway thought they were there to protect the ejector rod. All my revolvers have shrouds. None full length except the Cobra.

Depends on the gun.
L frames look wrong without it.

ATLDave said:

There's a word for reverse-snobbery: proletentiousness. A reverse-snob (particularly a fake/affected one) is proletentious.

Sorry for the digression, just thought I'd throw that out for those who are interested in words as well as guns.

Click to expand...

I like that, thanks for the new word!

I think L frames look pretty good with out one

these are what I would rather see for a carry gun

Guess the only thing I have with a full one is a S&W XVR 8".
Never gave it much thought, except that it does add some extra weight.

MCgunner said:

I'm old and set in my ways. When I was participating in the great war of northern aggression, I used a Remmy. I like a loading lever under the barrel.

I voted half lug, not as front heavy balance and weight in general and still protects the ejector rod.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that people from the 19th century knew how to log on to the internet. Y'all are more edumacated in the ways of the 21st century than I would have thought.

Same here. I could care less how "pretty" a shooter firearm is,

Click to expand...

I like pretty guns also,

Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways, buck460XVR.

But you can have a firearm that is fully functional and looks good to boot. No need to apologize for liking a gun because it's "pretty".

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigC
It's some mutated form of reverse snobbery where folks look down on "pretty guns", "pretty wood" or turn their nose up at ivory and engraving.

There's a word for reverse-snobbery: proletentiousness. A reverse-snob (particularly a fake/affected one) is proletentious.

Click to expand...

Finally! Like CraigC, I've been in the hunt forever, it seems, for this word for the meaning it conveys. No need for "class warfare" when discussing firearms from either "side".

SwampWolf said:

Same here. I could care less how "pretty" a shooter firearm is,

Click to expand...

I like pretty guns also,

Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways, buck460XVR.

Click to expand...

Sure you can. You can like something, but it still doesn't have to be the priority to why you own it or the preference on every gun you own. I like the looks of wood and blue steel also, but the majority of my working firearms are stainless with synthetic grips/stocks, because they are more functional......for me. Don't mean I trash folks for using their Premier grade rifles to hunt with. I also like Redheads, but my wife is a Brunette. Go figure.

SwampWolf said:

But you can have a firearm that is fully functional and looks good to boot. No need to apologize for liking a gun because it's "pretty".

Click to expand...

No disagreement there. Many folks that take offense to these types of threads respond this way and claim that folks are saying otherwise. Yes, just as one can get a beautiful wife that can also cook....one can have a beautiful firearm that shoots like a dream. No one here has said anything different.....only that looks do not(in most cases) affect function. As for underlug length and function, IMHO, the tad bit of difference in weight does not affect carry, nor does it significantly reduce recoil. Other are free to disagree. Some claim it affects the balance, but since both sides claim it affects balance according to their liking, I believe that is mostly in their head. As for covering the ejector rod..........I dunno.

Look at Glock lovers. They certainly ain't attracted by the cosmetic beauty of the firearm, but by the beauty of it's function and performance, even in the harshest of conditions. Those that claim they'd never buy an ugly Glock, and are using cosmetics as justification for ownership, never see the real beauty of the firearm.


Again, when looking down the sights at a game animal or a target, I fail to see anything other than the sight picture. What happens after I pull the trigger is my justification for ownership. If the gun is "pretty" to others....I guess that's a bonus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampWolf


Quote:
Same here. I could care less how "pretty" a shooter firearm is,

Quote:
I like pretty guns also,


You can't have it both ways, buck460XVR.


Sure you can. You can like something, but it still doesn't have to be the priority to why you own it or the preference on every gun you own.

Click to expand...

There's not a soul on this thread that even hinted at prioritizing form over function. So, when you said "I could care less about how 'pretty' a shooter firearm is", one can only assume in the context of the discussion that aesthetics literally mean nothing to you and that you must think others give priority to appearance at the expense of function. And that's fine with me but your words seem to take issue with those that admire a "pretty" firearm for what it is and assume that because they appreciate the looks of a gun that they necessarily ignore the utilitarian factor (again, nobody in this thread so much as implied that looks trump function).

I tend to like full lug guns better, but for some reason, an S&W N frame with a half lug looks really good to me.

I've never understood why ugly guns are made, period. I mean the really ugly ones, like many of the polymer guns that look like they were designed by a shaky five year old kid. These almost seem to be ugly on purpose. I don't get it, a decent looking gun costs no more to manufacture than an ugly one..

I've never understood why ugly guns are made, period. I mean the really ugly ones, like many of the polymer guns that look like they were designed by a shaky five year old kid. These almost seem to be ugly on purpose. I don't get it, a decent looking gun costs no more to manufacture than an ugly one..

Click to expand...

Because other people have other opinions and your's is not to be followed blindly by others just because you say so, that is, unless your name is Barrack. Hell, with a handle like hemiram, I'm guessing you drive an ugly truck.

Vern Humphrey said:

A full underlug affects the balance of the gun -- sometimes that's good, sometimes not good. So it depends on the gun.

Click to expand...

Yep...my Daughter's 4" 686 seems front heavy to me but in a 2 1/2 inch it might help the balance in a "L" or larger frame.

Brian Williams said:

I think L frames look pretty good with out one

Click to expand...

Been thinking of doing that to a 4" 686...did you notice any worthwhile balance difference?

My thoughts exactly, hemiram. I know "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but (imo) some people really need to have their vision checked. The lines, curves and proportion of a firearm are "free" in concept and cost nothing to make. To my "eyes", one of the guns that seems to have been "made ugly on purpose" is the Beretta Neo.
I have come to believe that what looks nice and what looks not so nice may be nothing more than a generational thing ("gap" if you will). I am unapologetically "old school" and appearance means a lot to me, be it a gun, a car or a motorcycle. What "looks" good or bad is, of course, subjective by definition and there are no right or wrong answers.
In terms of what preference I have in underlugs, I think a lot has to do with the overall size of the gun in conjunction with the length of the barrel as to what "looks right"; a strictly personal and individual interpretation. I also believe that how long a firearm has been around is a factor in how we might think it "should" look. For instance, the shrouded ejector housing that the last iterations of Colt Detective Special/Cobra/Agent revolvers came with always looked "wrong" to me in terms of what I had come to see them as over the years. I'm pretty sure Bogart would agree with me.
And don't take offense at Mcgunner's potshot at your handle. Only people who love the looks of a Hi-Point would hate the looks of a new Ram truck.