In my opinion, it depends upon the gun, the load and the application. Sure we can regulate the load and the manufacturers regulate the heft and both are an asset to shooting the piece.

I really like snubs, but that doesn't mean that I dislike longer tubes.........I have both and choose which one to use depending upon application and then the load.

Full lug, short lug and no lug....................just depends.

 

To me the advantage of handguns is: portability. Long guns have more power & are easier to shoot accurately. A 4" barrel is the limit of practicality, a 3" is just right & handles fast like a handgun should. A 3" heavy barrel full-lug .357 like my 60-14 balances very well & tames recoil enough to make a excellent set-up. A 4" full-lug is muzzle heavy & handles as bad as a Dodge truck or Mossberg. A 6" full-lug is sort of like a crowbar & anything longer w/out a stock might be useful to pry rocks out of the road. There's a pile of cut-off barrels in my shop where people paid me to shorten a lot of handguns, shotguns & even rifles when they learned barrel length is only 1 small part of velocity (I once shortened a 30" .308 to 16" & lost less than 50 FPS). IMHO short handguns are useful tools, so are long guns but long handguns are gimcracks (I enjoy stirring up folks & kicking sacred cows & a few fireworks on the 4th is fun).

 

Aha!!!
I FINALLY found something me and Irv disagree on!!!!!!

I showed y'all my 686 I got yesterday, and this is a good enough reason to show it again. As if I need a reason...

A 6" 686 is just freakin cool, and if cool don't count...um...well it just counts! Shooting a group of full load 357's is just nasty.

They make varmints plop, bad guys flop, and my jaw drop.

Full tang long barrels are just cool....darn the reasoning. Haha!

-Butchman

 

If you run run of rounds...a full lug makes a much better noggin knocker..

 

It doesn't take a long full lug barrel to facilitate "noggin knockin".....

 

Hey it just dawned upon me.....................long barreled full lug handguns can do double duty...................self defense and a water witch.

 

Or a cane.

 

I like the looks and handling of my 4 inch 686 with full lug. The extra weight tames recoil and to me it doesn't make the gun nose heavy. My 6 inch HP seems just right for balance too. When I bought it they had a used 6 inch 686 next to it and it felt nose heavy compared to the 6 inch HP. I have a 4 inch pre model 10 and also a 4 inch model 64 with heavy barrel. I prefer to shoot the 64. I load a lot of light powered 38 specials and with the heavy barrel there is almost no muzzle flip with the heavy barrel. It is minimal with the tapered barrel pre-10 but I still prefer the 64. Part of my preference though is that the 64 has slightly different sights. The front sight is a 32nd wider as is the corresponding rear notch. I prefer the looks of the heavy barrel on the 64 to the tapered barrel on the pre-10
I agree that the 6 inch Highway Patrolman points like the finger of god

 

Best answer yet.

 

I've never cared for full lugs. I prefer the light weigh barrels and 5 1/2" or shorter in length.

 

Here is one I like.

Bull barrel 36-1.

Easy to shoot, and I like the way it looks.

 

O.K. I'll play! Just finished a nice lunch ... grilled ribeyes and baked potatoes. My wife saw to it that the potato's and sweet iced tea were ready. I saw to the steaks. So ... I'm properly fed and am sitting here on the couch watching a nice series of programs about the Revolution.

So ... full lug ... half lug ... which one! I like ... them both! No, really! I do! I have a little .22 LR 18-2 that I positively adore. It is just about the ne plus ultra of .22 LR revolvers. Someone might somewhere have a some sort of another pistol that they like better ... but that's probably b/c they have not ever had a good Model 18 to use at the range and carry in the woods and fields! I do not consider that a bit of extra weight would improve it. But, it wouldn't hurt it!

I have a little four inch 66-2 that I think is about the very best fitted/finished K-frame I've ever owned. It handles like it is an extension of my right arm. I've had a couple of the normal K-frame .38 Specials w/ the light weight barrels. Compared to the 66, they come of less well. The 66 w/ a full lug barrel would be a bit better for long range sessions.

I've had several four inch 686's. Between the two, I go with the 686 for any shooting sessions lasting more than three heart beats. Firing magnums ... the 686 is very much a better choice. Once upon a time I used to shoot local pistol matches at the local state prison. Always did well. The 686 was just about the ideal pistol for such matches. Still make people sit up and take notice when you pull one and start shooting. Gives up nothing to the automatics in such match use.

I have a nice 625-2 ... lug really helps all the way around. I have unfortunately reached a point in my life where my hands hurt. If I work w/ tools, etc., my hands give me trouble. I can shoot full power ball in the 625-2 for a lot longer than I'd ever be able to shoot with a standard barrel, much less than one of the old light tapered barrels.

I have a pair of 28-2 revolvers. They are about ideal for .357 S&W Magnum loads. Had a 627 a few years ago. It was very accurate, but with that full-lug barrel, it was just to much of a good thing. Couple of nights ago was handling the six inch 28-2. It is a especially good design. The first new .357 Magnum revolver I ever bought was a 28-2. I bought the six inch barrel b/c I wanted the most power possible. The 28-2 that I now have is like that first one, about ideal for shooting anything that needs to be shot. The four inch 28-2 I bought in 2000. It normally rides in a Bianchi 10L holster. It is my favorite for woods walking, etc. I used it with very good success in a match a few years ago ... placed third. Can't imagine that size revolver with a lug for anything less than a hard kicker cartridge. Sincerely. bruce.

 

I have plenty of both and like each for different reasons. I was always a fan of big heavy barrels until I picked up my 627 Pro Series. At out Sunday shoot I shot two perfect scores with the 627 then at our Monday night shoot I shot two perfect scores with the 625 and they just don't come much heavier than it.

 

Re: Optic on 627 Pro/625. What is it? How well does it work, etc.? Sincerely. bruce.

 

I HATE full lugs on Smith......full lug on 617 .22???? huh?............Smith must have hired the python guy from Colt when they went under.......After that they full lugged everything......A waste of steel and more un-neccessary weight on your hip.........Tempted to take the side grinder to a couple of mine!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I like heavy barrels but not full lugs.
Just my opinion.
To each their own.

 

+1 for the half lug, but I do like heavy barrels like on my 3" model 13. In order to participate in the killing of sacred cows, I'll say that I don't like handguns with barrels over 4" long. I had a 6" model 19 for awhile, and shot it very well. BUT, the barrel was just too long for me. If I want a carbine, I'll buy a carbine.

 

Devotion to heavy barrels and full underlug:
1. I can handle it.
2. Few want to borrow them.

 

Optics on both guns are Burris Fastfire IIIs on Allchin mounts. I also have used the mount from revolver ph and like it equally well. I have six of these mounted on different Smiths and really love them. In my opinion they don't overpower the aesthetics of the gun like many other options. Light barrel, heavy barrel.....same round hole in the center of the target.

 

IMHO it's only a matter of looks, not practicality. Whatever look you happen to like. Just sayin'

 

Two words , Colt Python!

Even S&W joined in when they introduced the 586/686 revolvers , and various special editions with full underlugs.

 

I admit that when the L-frames came out, I did not think these guns with a full underlug were as graceful looking as the Combat Magnum K-frames. My partner had just bought a new production 686, I shot it and immediately bought one too.

686-0

A lot of choices are made on looks and or punching paper perhaps with target loads. But for combat shooting (rapid double action) a little more weight up front isn't a bad thing. Heavier 357 magnum revolvers reduce felt recoil and nose heavy guns should cut down on muzzle rise. I have been told that the underlug gives the barrel more rigidity, which should be an aid to accuracy.
As to bull barrels: Didn't the target gun barrels go to heavy straight barrels rather than tapered barrels? I prefer the heavy barrels on model-13's and model 65's, rather than the tapered barrels on the regular Military and Police type revolvers.
Now the Highway Patrolman revolvers have a tapered barrel but it is a heavy 357 magnum (on a 44 cal. frame) the weight of this larger magnum aids in recoil recovery when shooting fast double action.
On the other hand, I think shooting single action aimed fire is just as accurate - in fact the tightest group I ever shot was with a model 66-0 with a six inch barrel and the owner of that gun did shoot one ragged hole with that gun too - so I wasn't just having a hot day at the range.

 

I have and like the 4 inch 686 revolver too. I'm a large guy with large hands and the size and heft of the 686 just feels right.

This one is a 686-3 from 1997...

 

That 581 series that Smith produced is the ugliest gun to ever leave the(a) factory...........................

 

Guess you never saw a 296

 

I like the lighter, tapered barrels. Had a full lugged 6" King Cobra once and felt it was clunky and heavier than my 8 3/8" model 27. I was looking for a 6" 27 or 28 when I first saw that 27 at the gun shop. Thought it would be too front heavy but was very surprised at how well it was balanced with that long tapered barrel. The longer sight radius was a plus too. But I have since found that I can shoot just as well offhand with my 4" 28 as I can with the longer 6" and 8" barreled guns. And the shorter length carries better too. Sorry for the lack of pictures but I am pissed off at Photobucket.
Guess I need to take some new ones.

John

 

I like the lighter, tapered barrels. Had a full lugged 6" King Cobra once and felt it was clunky and heavier than my 8 3/8" model 27. I was looking foe a 6" 27 or 28 when I first saw that 27 at the gun shop. Thought it would be too front heavy but was very surprised at how well it was balanced with that long tapered barrel. The longer sight radius was a plus too. But I have since found that I can shoot just as well offhand with my 4" 28 as I can with the longer 6" and 8" barreled guns. And the shorter length carries better too. Sorry for the lack of pictures but I am pissed off at Photobucket.
Guess I need to take some new ones.

John

I do better with a 6-inch model-28 at distances beyond 25 yards. I might offer I carried a model 27, 8 & 3/8 incher up and down a lotta hills in western PA in both hip and shoulder holster. It is bulky, but I figure it was worth the trouble . . . BUT - when going for woods walks without a planned shooting practice, I carry a 4-inch model-28 or other shorter barreled magnums - when I WALK OUT MY BACKDOOR I AM IN BEAR COUNTRY.

 

I prefer long barrels for better sight radius & more velocity with full underlugs for less felt recoil on my big bore double-action revolvers.

 

They just look right!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk