Underlug preference?

[9mmfan]

Yes, I know, function over form. I have Glock for that. As far as revolvers go, if you have to have a lug or shroud, go half or less or go home.


YMMV.

 

[CajunBass]

I have never seen a Smith & Wesson or a Ruger with a full lug that I liked the look of. I always thought they were trying to make their gun look like a Python.

I do like them (and the vent rib) on a Python.

 

[boricua9mm]

I love the full lug on 4" and shorter guns; in fact those are the only barrel lengths I have any use for. To me, the half-lug just looks off, neither here nor there. I think guns such as the 3" model 66 look so nice because the "half lug" actually extends to the end of the muzzle. I think the 4" and shorter 686s have excellent handling characteristics, especially firing Magnum loads.

For lugless designs, I think those look best with a bull barrel. The pencil/tapered barrel doesn't look appealing to me, however classic and timeless they may be.

 

[buck460XVR]

I am totally amazed at how many guys choose a gun based on how it "looks". Function over form (unless you're talking about Barbie dolls)

Same here. I could care less how "pretty" a shooter firearm is, and how far the underlug parallels the barrel is moot. The beauty to me is in it's function, it's accuracy and how comfortable it is to shoot.

 

[RealGun]

I could care less how "pretty" a shooter firearm is, and how far the underlug parallels the barrel is moot.

I would prefer a full length ejector rod that is shrouded.

 

[CraigC]

You may not care about underlugs but anyone who says they don't care how a firearm looks is lying to themselves. Folks act as if liking a firearm's looks means they have lace on their drawers. As if it's less manly to care about a firearm's appearance or that you're more serious if you don't. Get over yourself already.

I sure as hell care how a firearm looks and I'm not too pretentious to admit it. If I didn't, I'd have all stainless/synthetic junk in my collection and would only own a handful of guns. I don't sit and daydream about taking afield with utilitarian tools.

I don't care for underlugs except on the 29 Classic or DX. I much prefer it without them and on S&W's, the old school tapered barrel. This for aesthetics as much as it is for balance.

PS, this is not a "half lug", it is a shrouded ejector.

 

[BigG]

I like my Python
Also my S&Ws, with minimal underlug or none.

 

[zerobarrier]

You may not care about underlugs but anyone who says they don't care how a firearm looks is lying to themselves. Folks act as if liking a firearm's looks means they have lace on their drawers. As if it's less manly to care about a firearm's appearance or that you're more serious if you don't. Get over yourself already.

I sure as hell care how a firearm looks and I'm not too pretentious to admit it. If I didn't, I'd have all stainless/synthetic junk in my collection and would only own a handful of guns. I don't sit and daydream about taking afield with utilitarian tools.

+1 craigC

 

[Ranger Roberts]

Don't care. Whichever feels right for that particular gun.

 

[Hometeached1]

For longer barrels (over 4") I don't like the full lug looks or balances, but on revolvers like the SP101 3" I prefer the full lug.

Mostly comes down which revolver it is.

Just my two cents.

 

[Rollis R. Karvellis]

When I'm dropping a weeks worth of labor, and sometimes a lot more you bet I, want something aesthetically pleasing as possible.

And just to be honest complaining about the length of the barrel, the underlug, or the caliber just shows we are pretty pampered in this day and age.

By the way they should stop putting red M&M's in the bag.

 

[RealGun]

You may not care about underlugs but anyone who says they don't care how a firearm looks is lying to themselves.

Some guns are fugly, so something is going on there. But I too care a lot how a gun looks, even a plastic frame one.

 

[tommy.duncan]

I like and own both. Mostly Ruger and S&W.
I choose to go on feel more then looks, but, they both look good!!

 

[hAkron]

I guess my choice is pretty clear



But with a Dan Wesson it's pretty easy to have options.

This is exactly where my head went as well. DW VH all the way!

 

[WestKentucky]

Full seems to swing with the arm best,especially when swinging at a trotting buck in the woods. The weight seems to help buck the wind, and it is smoother into and out of a holster. Full for me.

 

[Green Lantern]

To me this is a more complicated question than is being entertained here. You do not have a choice for "depends". Setting the adult diapers aside, then we move into how it effects the balance of the piece, what the use is going to be and whether you are also going to count ejector rod shrouds and leave the possibility for full naked rods (porn reference unintended) a la early Colts to enter the mix.

Good points. I thought of "NO lugs," but apart from the early Colts those aren't really ever seen, right? I like the looks of the half-lug (and have no need for extra weight to control recoil in the N-frame .357 in my pic). 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...

 

[Brian Williams]

I really don't like lugged barrels but If I have to have one make it a half lug.

 

[SwampWolf]

An interesting argument (if only speculative) in favor of no lugs (ala, most Colt da revolvers) is that, in the event that an ejector rod gets slightly bent while the cylinder is open, the cylinder might close on a revolver with no lug and might not close if the rod has to fit into an enclosed, shrouded ejector housing or even a half-underlug.

 

[chicharrones]

I am totally amazed at how many guys choose a gun based on how it "looks". Function over form (unless you're talking about Barbie dolls)

Bah, humbug. Many guns have always been purchased on looks. Without hands on experience with a type of gun, looks go a long way in getting a buyer to lay out their money at time of purchase.

A good looking tool brings me more satisfaction than a fugly looking tool. As long as I can afford the better looking tool, I'll probably purchase the better looking tool. Plus, a better looking tool is usually a better constructed tool, in my experience.

Harbor Freight < Craftsman < Snap On, or something like that.

Now I just gotta decide if I want a ratchet driver with a full or half underlug. Proper balance and all.

 

[TennJed]

There are nice looking guns in both, but I generally prefer the looks and balance of a half lug

 

[silicosys4]

Did any manufacturers besides ruger make a half lug barrel that had a full bull/heavy barrel profile?
And conversely, did anyone make a full length lug with a tapered barrel profile?
I bet that's a big reason many people prefer the weight and balance of the half lug s&w's to the full lug....most of the half lug barrels if not all were also tapered, while most if not all s&w full lug barrels are also full bull/hb.
So it's not just the weight of the extra lug length, it's the heavier barrel that comes with it.
I like a full lug for shooting, no lug for carrying. I don't really care for the looks of the half lug except for the fact that it comes on some really nice guns that wouldn't look right without it.

 

[CraigC]

Did any manufacturers besides ruger make a half lug barrel that had a full bull/heavy barrel profile?

Lots. All model 29's have a bull barrel. As do 57's and 25's. Makes the 6" 29 5oz heavier than a 6½" model 24. Far as I know, they were referred to as shrouded ejectors before Ruger started calling them "half lug".

And conversely, did anyone make a full length lug with a tapered barrel profile?

None that I know of.

 

[buck460XVR]

You may not care about underlugs but anyone who says they don't care how a firearm looks is lying to themselves. Folks act as if liking a firearm's looks means they have lace on their drawers. As if it's less manly to care about a firearm's appearance or that you're more serious if you don't. Get over yourself already.

I sure as hell care how a firearm looks and I'm not too pretentious to admit it. If I didn't, I'd have all stainless/synthetic junk in my collection and would only own a handful of guns. I don't sit and daydream about taking afield with utilitarian tools.

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. "What length of underlug looks best?" posts are similar to those that start out with "which grips are best?" posts. Are the best grips the ones that look the prettiest or are they the ones that provide the most accuracy and are the most pleasant to shoot? How many time have we seen folks claim that their custom wood grips are a pain to shoot, but are left on the gun cause they look good? What one likes about a gun's appearance is very subjective. When that preference effects performance or is the only determining factor on whether to purchase or not, it means the gun is to look at.....not to shoot. Similar to those that spend thousands on chrome for a bike, but then cheap out on tires, or have a seat that looks cool, but rides like a rock. Bike looks good sittin' in front of the bar, but let's pray they don't have 500 miles to go in the pourin' rain.

Folks buy guns for all kinds of reasons. Looks are one of them. Sometimes it's the classic look, sometimes it's new age/high tech. Neither one means much if the firearm does not put the bullet where it's aimed. 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. If your dream is to be afield with good looking guns, that is your dream. Many of us dream of the game we hope to encounter and the hunt itself, and the gun we use is just a utilitarian tool. Nuttin' wrong with either....just a different mind set. Just as you took offense to others claiming how an underlug looks is irrelevant, others could take offense to your claim all stainless and synthetic guns are junk. But I don't see that.

 

[ATLDave]

Lots. All model 29's have a bull barrel. As do 57's and 25's. Makes the 6" 29 5oz heavier than a 6½" model 24. Far as I know, they were referred to as shrouded ejectors before Ruger started calling them "half lug".

Also Model 19's. Heavy barreled Model 10's. I'm guessing there are many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of heavy-barreled revo's with shrouded ejectors/half-lugs.

 

[CraigC]

I have taken offense to nothing. Life is too short to get bent out of shape over words on the screen typed by an anonymous stranger.

However, I see A LOT of remarks by folks who say looks don't matter with a lot of implied meaning. I see A LOT of condescending snide remarks about guns and/or grips that are "pretty". A LOT of comments that wood grips are nice to look at but rubber is for shooting. The attitude is that rubber is for serious shooters, "pretty" grips are for those who just want to brag but don't really shoot. 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. Very little live and let live. I don't care if you prefer stainless/synthetic, you don't have to belittle another's choices. Which is exactly what I purposely did with the "junk" comment. One snide comment begets another and pretty soon, we can't have a civilized, mutually respectful discussion. So yes, I think we can do without Barbie Doll comments. It might prevent such "stainless/synthetic junk" responses.

I don't care if folks like underlugs or not. I made no remarks about that at all other than to state my preference. The 5" 29 Classic that Bob posted is perhaps the finest example of a modern DA. I just think that on most guns it's unnecessary weight. The point I was trying to make is that EVERYBODY cares about how a gun looks, even those who claim not to. Just because you don't care for wood grips, engraving, high polished finishes, etc., etc. does not mean you don't care how a firearm looks. Would you hunt with a S&W .460 if it was pink with yellow daisies all over it? Of course not. So, get over yourself already. Stainless/synthetic doesn't make you a more serious shooter than the guy who likes engraving, high polish bluing and custom grips. Probably the reverse is true.

How many time have we seen folks claim that their custom wood grips are a pain to shoot, but are left on the gun cause they look good?...

Factory yes, custom no. It is a very popular misconception that soft rubber is more comfortable to shoot. In reality, a properly designed, constructed and fitted set of custom grips will be infinitely better in every way. Folks like to look down their noses at them because they cost a lot more than their $16 Hogue's. The design and how they fit your hand are all that is important, material is irrelevant. A proper set of grips doesn't have to be squishy.

Similar to those that spend thousands on chrome for a bike, but then cheap out on tires, or have a seat that looks cool, but rides like a rock. Bike looks good sittin' in front of the bar, but let's pray they don't have 500 miles to go in the pourin' rain.

And should you assume that everybody who spends thousands on chrome also does not care about having good tires, a comfortable ride and a good seat? Probably not. My bike is flat black. My pipes are flat black. It's decidedly unflashy. Has nothing I don't need and is quite "utilitarian". Does that mean I don't care how it looks? Absolutely, positively not. Just as some folks love the looks of Glocks, AR-15's and stainless guns with synthetic stocks.