Dislike unfluted cylinders and lugged barrels

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

While the effect of lack of flutes on strength is a subject of debate, assuming equal metallurgical quality, the extra mass of the unfluted cylinder HAS to result in greater strength. Just a fact of materials science. To argue otherwise is nonsense. How significant the difference is, who knows for sure?

Personally, I like both styles and the unfluted look goes well with the big, shrouded barrels of the X-frames. Don

Well, I could see where you don't like my exact choice of words, and, technically, you are right. However, you could make the cylinder three times the size and twenty-seven times the weight, and it would be "stronger" yet. You may not know whether the difference is significant or not, but I do. It isn't.

In practical terms, there is NO difference in strength between a fluted and an unfluted cylinder. But I reckon if you used the gun a while, you might notice the difference in mass by looking at locking notches in the cylinder.

 

[Black_Sheep]

I like the asthetics of a full lug and the slightly front heavy feel in my hand. I'm ambivelant about smooth cylinders. What I don't care for is the flat sided barrels on some of the PC revolvers. It's a matter of personal taste more than anything and I tend to be more of a traditionalist...

 

[Nygma]

While the effect of lack of flutes on strength is a subject of debate, assuming equal metallurgical quality, the extra mass of the unfluted cylinder HAS to result in greater strength. Just a fact of materials science. To argue otherwise is nonsense. How significant the difference is, who knows for sure?

I believe the extra mass of an unfluted cylinder puts more strain on the center pin and yoke as the frame accelerates in recoil. If I remember correctly from my strength of materials class, mass is a measure of an object's resistance to a change in inertia. A more massive cylinder will develop end shake sooner than one with less mass.

 

[Bob R]

As far as the full/partial lugs, I can go either way. But I do not care for unfluted cylinders at all. I just don't like the looks of them.

Luckily for me, this one had been aftermarket fluted by the time I bought it.

bob

 

[357 shooter]

As far as the full/partial lugs, I can go either way. But I do not care for unfluted cylinders at all. I just don't like the looks of them.

I feel the same. I like my 66 with the classic ejector rod shroud as well as my 686 with full lug. Would not like the looks of either with an unfluted cylinder. Simply looks to me like a machining process was missed at the factory.

 

[M29since14]

Sir, FWIW, I believe the x86 series ushered in a period of madness from which Smith & Wesson has yet to recover...

That's pretty funny - and I agree with you.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I believe the extra mass of an unfluted cylinder puts more strain on the center pin and yoke as the frame accelerates in recoil. If I remember correctly from my strength of materials class, mass is a measure of an object's resistance to a change in inertia. A more massive cylinder will develop end shake sooner than one with less mass.

This is true after a point, but that point is never reached in a revolver. The added mass slows accleration of said mass during the same amount of recoil, thereby offsetting any disadvantage of having that added mass in the first place. Most "gun athorities" and labs that have done any testing on this, agree that having a full lugged barrel, and unfluted cylinder will increase the life expectancy of a revolver. The added mass reduces the affects of recoil to the gun much more than the added weight can, or will do damage from the extra inertia of the added mass. If the gun were to somehow recoil more, or harder, while being heavier, then the mass would do more harm than good. Such isn't the case however.

As far as the unfluted cylinder placing more strain on the cylinder stop, that also may be true to an extent, but only if one does all of their shooting in rapid double action, which is not the case for most shooters. I watch anytime I go to shoot somewhere, and the vast majority of shooters cock their gun for each shot, vs. firing rapid double action. Even the ones that I have observed foring double action, tend to fire in a slow and deliberate manner in DA mode.
Just my observations. YMMV

 

[DonD]

You may not know whether the difference is significant or not, but I do. It isn't

Well, the only way we will every really know the answer to that issue is for someone like S&W to test to failure a statistically meaningful sample size of cylinders both fluted and unfluted, something S&W won't do.

I know a S&W engineer who was a player in the X-frames, he said he thought the X-frame would take 130 KSI before it came apart. He said they never intend to try to find out what it would take as it would destroy their pressure test rig. Don

 

[Wee Hooker]

I have no love for full lugged barrels (although do own a few S&W's with them.) On the other hand, unfluted cyls do have a certain "retro" and clean look that's appealing. Had a 686 Hunter once with both. Kept the gun only because i liked the cyl. Didn't like it enough to keep it forever though.

 

[Nygma]

This is true after a point, but that point is never reached in a revolver. The added mass slows accleration of said mass during the same amount of recoil, thereby offsetting any disadvantage of having that added mass in the first place. Most "gun athorities" and labs that have done any testing on this, agree that having a full lugged barrel, and unfluted cylinder will increase the life expectancy of a revolver. The added mass reduces the affects of recoil to the gun much more than the added weight can, or will do damage from the extra inertia of the added mass. If the gun were to somehow recoil more, or harder, while being heavier, then the mass would do more harm than good. Such isn't the case however.

Adding mass rigidly attached to the frame will decrease acceleration of the entire gun as a system given the same force (ie. a full lugged barrel), but the cylinder does not accelerate due to the forces acting on it from the cartridge firing, and is a cylinder truly rigidly attached to the frame?
Acceleration of the cylinder due to forces acting on it from the cartridge firing are negligible because forces acting directly on the cylinder from the cartridge firing are for the most part directed in all directions equally.
Linear acceleration of the frame is due force acting rearward on the breech face of the revolver, evidence of which is the cartridge footprint on the recoil shield of any revolver fired much. The cylinder doesn't recoil with the frame until it is dragged with it through the mechanism that connects it to the frame. The more mass the cylinder has, the greater resistance it has to a change in inertia, and the more force that is transmitted through the cylinder/frame connection to accelerate the cylinder to the same speed as the frame.
Adding mass to the cylinder will reduce recoil acceleration of the gun as a system, but it also adds stress inside the system by resisting the forces acting on it through the cylinder/frame connection.

BTW, none of this is really matters to me because unfluted cylinders look unfinished, and IMO are butt ugly.
I fully understand full lugged barrels in the competitive arena because the rules allow it, but handguns are made to be carried, and if adding a bunch of mass to my revolver is necessary to bring recoil to a level I can deal with then do the job right and make mine a rifle please. Rifles recoil a lot less and have numerous other advantages.

 

[pred]

Not wanting to come off as a troll, I've been avoiding asking this question for a long time, but...

Am I the only one that loathes unfluted cylinders, and / or full lugged barrels on revolvers?

Why do the same people that go gaga over recessed chambers ("Because it's a nice little extra touch."), also salivate over a revolver cylinder that hasn't been fluted?

The reason I have an aversion to lugged barrels is simple; I dislike carrying around the additional weight. To me, the point of a handgun over a rifle is convenience. Why add a big hunk of steel to a gun that makes it much less comfortable to tote around?

I have revolvers with unfluted cylinders and revolvers with lugged barrels, but, in my opinion, every one of them would have been better fluted, and without the lug.

JMO. Someone please tell me I'm not alone in this opinion.

Do you drive a Smart car too? Or a Mini?
I Personally am open to what is out there, And my 3" 629 is unfluted and has a full lug,
I will be tossing it into the 95 Caprice wagon that has an unnessary LT1 in it and going camping in bear country,
the 44 mag will be used for sleeping aid...
And with the extra weight, It feels like the 5" 44 mag mountian gun I used to have.
Peter

 

[Sgt. Rock]

going camping in bear country,
the 44 mag will be used for sleeping aid...
And with the extra weight, It feels like the 5" 44 mag mountian gun I used to have.
Peter

It sure does!

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Nygma,
you seem to have some sort of engineering background, and it is interesting to hear your thoughts.

Still, I would point out that the cylinder does indeed move with the frame, simply because the case expands instantly (actually before the gun moves a discernable distance) applying thousands of pounds of pressure to the walls of that cylinder, momentarily locking the two together as one unit. The case head thrust that leaves the imprint of the cartridge case head on the standing breechface, also drags the cylinder/case union with it.

When S&W lengthened the bolt stop notches to prevent the cylinder stop bolt from hitting the front of its recess, it wasn't due to the cylinder staying behind momentarily, and the bolt hitting the front of the cylinder stop notch. It was due to the fact that the cylinder stop itself was much lighter/less mass, and it stayed behind, hitting the front of its recess in the bottom of the cylinder window allowing it to be pushed down and under the slot in the frame window, effectively unlocking the cylinder during recoil. The cylinders were moving with the gun when veiwed using high speed photography.

 

[ladder13]

What's not to like about a short barreled 686?

 

[wraco]

Options allow choices with each to their own. I'm "Old School" and prefer partial lugs, fluted cylinders, pinned, recessed, blued steel, rolled stamped lettering and emblems, and correct factory stocks . . . The advantage to stainless steel, laser lettering, unfluted cylinders and full barrel lugs is more of my kind of revolvers become available for me to buy

Rod

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Options allow choices with each to their own. I'm "Old School" and prefer partial lugs, fluted cylinders, pinned, recessed, blued steel, rolled stamped lettering and emblems, and correct factory stocks . . . The advantage to stainless steel, laser lettering, unfluted cylinders and full barrel lugs is more of my kind of revolvers become available for me to buy

Rod

I'm with you! I am just pointing out some of the reasons why someone would chose the full lugged/non fluted guns over the old style.

I will add that when I lived in Alaska, the obvious advantages of stainless steel becomes apparent quite quickly. Even someone like me who is almost obsessed with keeping their guns looking new, can't keep up with a day or two spent in the mountians during the rain, especially along the coastline where there is salt mixed in with the air.

 

[wraco]

I will add that when I lived in Alaska, the obvious advantages of stainless steel becomes apparent quite quickly. Even someone like me who is almost obsessed with keeping their guns looking new, can't keep up with a day or two spent in the mountians during the rain, especially along the coastline where there is salt mixed in with the air.

You're absolutely correct as I'd be using a stainless as well. My buddy uses a 629 for bear protection when he's log scaling up down the coast for that very reason. Stainless makes for a very good working gun.

Rod

 

[Nygma]

Do you drive a Smart car too? Or a Mini?
It feels like the 5" 44 mag mountian gun I used to have.
Peter

No, I don't buy a car with the intention of carrying it.
5" Mountain Guns are a pretty rare bird. I would have kept that one.

 

[pred]

Dont get me wrong,
I appreciate real roll marks which the 629-2 has,
I also like that the recoil of the 3" is equal to the 5" mountain gun, There fore it's a bit easier for me to carry while out there in bear country.
I have a 3" 624 as well, Thinner barrel an fluted cylinder, I like that one too, And while packing for the trip tonight I had the both of them sitting out for an hour of two wondering which I will take.
I went with the 44 mag,,,,

 

[labworm]

Firearms are something which one has to look at and study. What at first seems undesirable, after several views, somehow becomes very desirable.

The first time I looked at this S&W Model 627 .38 super, I said "You have to be kidding me"

Now I want one.

[/IMG]