Underlug preference?

[buck460XVR]

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).

IMHO,....anyone that took exception to Drail's comment, "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)", are sensitive about choosing a firearm based on looks as opposed to function. If the statement did not offend folks, it's because they did not identify with it. No one here claimed anyone chooses a firearm only by it's looks, but some are implying themselves they do. I care not how other folks choose their firearms....I have said that from the start. I only stated how I chose them. Again, I never said I took exception to folks with "pretty" firearms....you want to imply I did. I never said a firearm could not be "pretty" and functional at the same time, you implied I and others did. I never said there was anything wrong with "pretty" firearms....again, you want to imply I did. There is a term for that.

One thing we do agree with and I have no problem with you implying I believe, is that beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. All I have said is my eye is different than some others. But I am not saying because of it, other folks need their eye examined.

 

[TennJed]

IMHO,....anyone that took exception to Drail's comment, "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)", are sensitive about choosing a firearm based on looks as opposed to function. If the statement did not offend folks, it's because they did not identify with it. No one here claimed anyone chooses a firearm only by it's looks, but some are implying themselves they do. I care not how other folks choose their firearms....I have said that from the start. I only stated how I chose them. Again, I never said I took exception to folks with "pretty" firearms....you want to imply I did. I never said a firearm could not be "pretty" and functional at the same time, you implied I and others did. I never said there was anything wrong with "pretty" firearms....again, you want to imply I did. There is a term for that.

One thing we do agree with and I have no problem with you implying I believe, is that beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. All I have said is my eye is different than some others. But I am not saying because of it, other folks need their eye examined.

So you admit to identifying with CraigsC's statement about lying to yourself when claiming to not care about looks. You have to since you took exception his statement

 

[RealGun]

IMHO,....anyone that took exception to Drail's comment, "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)", are sensitive about choosing a firearm based on looks as opposed to function.

Not really. When there is a range of choices, pretty much equal in function, one might pick the gun more pleasing to the eye.

 

[buck460XVR]

So you admit to identifying with CraigsC's statement about lying to yourself when claiming to not care about looks. You have to since you took exception his statement

I took exception to being called a liar, being told to get over myself and that all stainless/synthetic guns are junk. It was because I DID NOT identify with his statements. Go back and read my posts and I say nowhere that what other folks choose is junk. CraigC has a ton of expertise in firearms and a extensive collection of beautiful firearms. He and I have disagreed often on our choices, but I feel we have a good deal of mutual respect for each other and those choices. We also have strong convictions on our preferences. This is what I see little of here. Folks upset just because someone doesn't agree with them and thus want to belittle or insult others for those choices instead of respecting them. Putting words in the mouths of others or twisting statements is a common tactic.

 

[buck460XVR]

Not really. When there is a range of choices, pretty much equal in function, one might pick the gun more pleasing to the eye.

Yes....and as shown in this thread, what is more pleasing to one is moot to another. A simpler version of this could be, if two identical guns were similar in function and price and one was pristine and one was a rust bucket, which one would all of us take? There are certain things in life that go without saying.

Manufacturers make things to sell. Many of them know that eye appeal makes many a sale. Fishing lures are a good example. Most are made with shapes/colors that appeal to the fisherman, more so that the fish they target. That doesn't mean that the lures won't catch fish. Same goes for firearms. Does any particular pattern of camo make that big a difference on a turkey gun? Does it make any difference in how and where it shoots, or is it just to attract the buyer? How about the duo-tone and other cosmetic finishes on guns meant to be concealed? What the 'ell is that all about? Is that a form or function kind of thing? Why is it so many folks feel the need to come to a gun forum and ask others what grips/finish/firearm is the best looking if they aren't buying on looks? Most times performance and function are not even mentioned by the OP. What does this say about the OPs priorities?

Again, I care less what a firearm looks like as compared to it's accuracy and performance. If that makes others feel insecure in their choices, it ain't my fault. Just cause folks feel different than me, ain't gonna make me upset. It doesn't make me want to criticize or call them names. This thread has been interesting, but has gotten way off track. I'm sure I am to blame as much as anyone else. I really don't care what priorities others may have when it comes to firearm choices. That is their decision and I respect it. I just wish others could do the same.

'nuff said by me.

 

[TennJed]

I took exception to being called a liar, being told to get over myself and that all stainless/synthetic guns are junk. It was because I DID NOT identify with his statements. Go back and read my posts and I say nowhere that what other folks choose is junk. CraigC has a ton of expertise in firearms and a extensive collection of beautiful firearms. He and I have disagreed often on our choices, but I feel we have a good deal of mutual respect for each other and those choices. We also have strong convictions on our preferences. This is what I see little of here. Folks upset just because someone doesn't agree with them and thus want to belittle or insult others for those choices instead of respecting them. Putting words in the mouths of others or twisting statements is a common tactic.

fair enough, but why post that I am identifying with drails comments and "sensitive about choosing a firearm based on looks as opposed to function"? You are putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about me (and others reading) because I took exception.

You can't say something about someone else and not expect the same to apply to you. I took exception to the barbie comment, not because I am sensitive, but because it is an absurd comment. With all the gun options available, every application a gun can have, you can find multiple choices. Unless money is an issue, there is no reason to get a gun that you are not fond of the looks.

The barbie comment was meant to be a jab at my manhood, which makes it absurd. As others have pointed out, does drial consider looks when he chooses clothes, automobiles, house paint? Of course he does, even though the fucntion is waht is important.

With all do respect your post about taking exception and being sensitive was flat out incorrect. I am not sensitive to enjoying a firearms looks. I do not care for barbies, and drails comment was meant to be degrading and was absurd

 

[RealGun]

There are certain things in life that go without saying.

You mean like beauty being skin deep, while ugly is to the bone?

 

[CraigC]

"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)", are sensitive about choosing a firearm based on looks as opposed to function.

Or maybe I just took exception to likening my preference for firearms that are attractive to a girl shopping for Barbie Dolls? We're grown men, we can discuss such things without such references. We should be able to like different things and express that without insulting one another.

That is the point I was making with my "junk" comment. Folks took exception to that as I intended, as they should. Just as I took exception to the Barbie Doll comment and the countless implications aimed at those who like "pretty" guns.

I never called anyone a liar but if you tell me you don't care how a firearm looks I'm not going to believe you. Even if you believe it yourself. You may think that engraving, fancy finishes and high grade wood is a tacky waste of money and you are certainly entitled to that opinion but I guarantee that on some level, you care about what a firearm looks like. Even those who love Glocks and AR's think they look cool.

Personally, I do not choose a firearm based on how it looks. Visual appeal is one of many factors and I consider them ALL to be important. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that hard use was invented after stainless steel and synthetic stocks.

 

[CraigC]

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

I care less what a firearm looks like as compared to it's accuracy and performance.

Do you understand that those are not congruent statements. In the first, you say that looks are not a consideration at all. In the second, you say that looks are a consideration, after accuracy and performance.

If that makes others feel insecure in their choices, it ain't my fault.

Don't take so much credit. Sorry but it will take more than words on the screen to affect my choices or make me feel insecure about them. Quite the contrary. Your posts in this thread, taken at face value, are not offensive. Drail's post that you agreed with and subsequently defended, was.

 

[RevDerb]

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.

You see, to me those pistols look unfinished.

 

[RealGun]

Back to the topic at hand, I got a nice 1973 pinned model 67 today, and it occurred to me that it has no ejector shroud. I checked and found that is still true along with the fixed sight 64. It still has pretty much the profile of a half lug. The ejector is not fully exposed though, because there is a détente at the end.

 

[SwampWolf]

No one here claimed anyone chooses a firearm only by it's looks, but some are implying themselves they do.

Who "implied" that?

I'll make a confession in the interest of intellectual honesty. There might be a small window when I possibly could choose form over function. For instance, if I had to choose between, say, a post-64 Model 94 Winchester carbine that routinely planted bullets @ 100 yards into a 1" group (I know this is a revolver forum; bear with me) and a Turnbull executed, case-hardened receiver, Model 94 having a triple-X walnut stock carbine that could only do 1 1/4" groups at the same distance, yeah, I'd opt for the "pretty" gun (value and price aside). It's a hunting rifle and my shooting ability probably couldn't take advantage of the more accurate firearm anyway-but my eyes can appreciate the difference between the two firearms in terms of quality of workmanship and finish. Enough for me in this comparison to pick the pretty gun. If I was a bench-rest shooter, of course, nothing would stand in the way between me and the tightest groups possible. "Looks" don't count in this context.

Are there times when, due to inclimate weather or whatever, I'd rather not expose my "pretty" firearm to the elements than I would a less "worthy" gun? Again, in the interest of intellectual honesty, yes. Of the many firearms that I am fortunate enough to own, none are "safe queens" and all are intended to be used and shot. But I always take at least two firearms on a hunt and one of them is usually a "rough and tumble" s/s gun with a synthetic stock or a "beater" of some type. In the "Ram Box" of my pickup truck (hemiram might appreciate this) I keep a Ruger Mini-14 carbine on board and at the ready; not my pretty Merkel twenty gauge side-by-side shotgun.

As I've said before, you can have your cake and eat it too. There are more than enough "pretty" handguns out there that are completely reliable than to have to settle for an ugly gun that is reliable but falls short in looks.

 

[9mmfan]

RevDerb, nice collection you have there.

On the examples of your Rugers and Tauri, I don't mind the lugs/shrouds as much due to the angling back ever so slightly from the muzzle. Examples such as your Smith, where the lug is flush with the end of the barrel just doesn't appeal to me. Purely from an aesthetic standpoint, mind you. Maybe it's just because I dig on the older designs, don't know.

I'm glad we all have such a broad selection from which to choose and find happiness.

Here's to good choices and straight shooting.

 

[RealGun]

But what about how many fairies will fit on the head of a pin?

 

[Zaydok Allen]

 

[Onward Allusion]

Depends on the gun. Gun's gotta have a 4" or longer barrel, IMO. A full lug makes the gun beefy looking and more recoil absorbent. A full lug on something like a 22 LR feels stupid but still looks good. A full lug on a snub is a waste of material and additional weight.

 

[RealGun]

A full lug on a snub is a waste of material and additional weight.

Where else do you put the ejector? Is it a lug or a shroud?

 

[SwampWolf]

A shroud, in most cases.

 

[Onward Allusion]

If we're strictly talking snubs, it's a shroud (if it even has one). Alot of the J-Frames don't have either; just the ejector rod. Older Charter Arms didn't have either.

 

[mavracer]

I'm a revolver slut

 

[valnar]

I'll admit I am superficial regarding my guns. I even went out of my way to buy the Smith 625 PC version instead of the standard version because I don't like full lugs. Turned out to be my favorite revolver anyway, so it was worth it.

 

[420Stainless]

Where else do you put the ejector?

Just look at some old Colt double actions

Won't say I don't care, but I like some with full, some with half, and some without.

 

[RevDerb]

RevDerb, nice collection you have there.

On the examples of your Rugers and Tauri, I don't mind the lugs/shrouds as much due to the angling back ever so slightly from the muzzle. Examples such as your Smith, where the lug is flush with the end of the barrel just doesn't appeal to me. Purely from an aesthetic standpoint, mind you. Maybe it's just because I dig on the older designs, don't know.

I'm glad we all have such a broad selection from which to choose and find happiness.

Here's to good choices and straight shooting.

I never noticed it on the Smith. Hmmm ...

 

[MCgunner]

Well, I REALLY love the looks of my 1858 Remington Pietta, but I normally carry a stainless ultralite Taurus .38 snubby. I love a good looking (my judgement) gun, but I carry what works best for me. If Texas ever gets an open carry law, I might open carry that Pietta now and then, maybe to family BBQs if nothing else.

 

[cdb1]

I'll admit that looks play a part in what I like. I can't stand the looks of an exposed ejector rod, and second it has always looked to me like they would be damaged easier than a shrouded ejector. Since I only like Colt Snubbies in .38 my choices are easy. DS, Cobra and Agent late models(can't afford a Diamondback).