Dislike unfluted cylinders and lugged barrels

[Nygma]

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.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

I too dislike full lugged barrels. Seems like way back Smith tried to "pythonize their whole gun line. Who needs a full lug on a 617 .22 or on a 3" 60? The old style half lug is more graceful and beautiful. Only own one unfluted cylinder on a 25-7. The flutes with a black powder chamfer are the best looking for me. Plus they holster better. Have even considered grinding and reshaping the lug on a 25-3 and a 5" 629.

 

[WildCard ZX6R]

Dude you are so way off the mark.

I love me some unfluted, full lug, recessed chambers. Freaking sexy !!!

I really don't know why i like them, i just do. But only on the large calibers. To each his own though.

 

[john traveler]

You are not alone in this opinion.

I suspect the full-lugged barrel was an overflow from the PPC competition and Colt Python appearance. The extra forward weight does help to make follow-up shots faster. It also reduces felt recoil a bit.

Now, the unfluted cylinder is truly an abomination! It does not lend itself to easy spinning on the extractor axis, it adds little or no strength to the cylinder, and the bit of extra weight can't really be felt in less recoil sensation. So, what is it? A cost reducing, cosmetic sales feature. Period.

A quick perusal of many of the models introduced by S&W in the last generation or so are marketing attempts to jazz up the classic revolver. Think about it: tapered barrels, bull barrels, barrels with fins, laser sights, replaceable front sights, ported barrels, unfluted cylinders, full-length barrel lugs, scope mounts, glowing night sights, ad nauseum.

Us archaeic old want the handgun to be what it was intended to be: a handy, portable tool and weapon.

 

[WildCard ZX6R]

Us archaeic old want the handgun to be what it was intended to be: a handy, portable tool and weapon.

I agree with most of your post, but have to disagree on this last part, i invite you to take a look at the original revolvers and tell me what you see about thier cylinders...

I really think that is why i like unfluted cylinders so much, they remind me of the percussion era.

 

[akjaeger]

Nygma,
You're not alone on this one.
I like my hand guns to be portable and functional and when form follows function you have a thing of beauty!
I like Mountain Guns, everything you need and nothing you don't, they are the best looking revolvers IMHO.

 

[Ron H.]

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.

Sir, FWIW, I believe the x86 series ushered in a period of madness from which Smith & Wesson has yet to recover. I understand the reasoning behind full-lug barrels for some applications, but Smith has been sticking them on anything and everything, appropriate or not. Feh.

I actually rather like unfluted cylinders, though. Yes, they're heavier, but not much; they add little if any strength, but simplify manufacturing and just look neat.

JMHO.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

 

[Armed012002]

A quick perusal of many of the models introduced by S&W in the last generation or so are marketing attempts to jazz up the classic revolver. Think about it: tapered barrels, bull barrels, barrels with fins, laser sights, replaceable front sights, ported barrels, unfluted cylinders, full-length barrel lugs, scope mounts, glowing night sights, ad nauseum.

Us archaeic old want the handgun to be what it was intended to be: a handy, portable tool and weapon.

Laser sights, such as Crimson Trace laser grips, are useful in a fighting weapon as are glowing night sights.

Don't be too quick to write off these features as "marketing." I use both and find them to be quite useful features in a fighting weapon. In fact, I don't want to go back to old sights.

If by "laser sights" you mean the picantinny rail on certain revolvers similar to the rail on most every polymer framed semiautomatic (Glock, XD, M&P, etc.), then yeah, those look terrible.

 

[ol timer]

The flutes with a black powder chamfer are the best looking for me. Plus they holster better. Have even considered grinding and reshaping the lug on a 25-3 and a 5" 629.

Hey Mike,

I have seen the chamfer called black powder chamfer before and have wondered as to it's origin. I thought the reason was for ease in holstering, but is that a side benefit from a necessity of black powder guns?

Also, if you do reshape your lugged M25-3, document the process with photos and post them up, please. It would be most interesting.

Thanks,
ot

 

[500 Magnum Nut]

Nygma, you and I think alike. Unfluted cylinders are a PITA to rotate and grasp, yet weigh more. The under lug barrel adds weight too.

Anybody like heavy handguns?

I prefer them lighter too, unless of course your shooting full power magnum loads....

 

[Marshall 357]

Some look good , some dont.

 

[617fan]

The Mountain gun is my favorite; so I am with you on a preference for fluted cylinders and half length underlugs. But it's nice to have options to choose from.

 

[snowman]

Just as with anything else, our preferences, tastes, etc. in gun design differ from person to person. Re: lugs and flutes, I'm not too particular, myself; I kind of like the variety. There are some things I definitely think are inappropriate; e.g. a round butt grip frame on an 8-3/8" 629 Classic DX(yes, I have one). I soon corrected that foolishness with a Nill conversion grip. With all that weight out front, you need that point at the bottom rear of the grip to hold the thing up without having to squeeze the daylights out of it.

Andy

 

[Revolver King]

Allow me to show you HEAVY.

 

[brucev]

I grew up w/ no experience of handguns. As a student in seminary, I bought my first revolver which was a nickle plated S&W M-19 which I gave to my parents for home protection. I then bought a M-28 which I shot unmercifully. Then... many handguns of all types. I have always considered the S&W revolvers to be the most graceful in design and superior in action. Colt revolvers always struck me as kind of chunky. As much praised as is the Python, I've had several and was not terribly impressed. I prefer a well executed 586/686. It seems to be a better development of the concept.

As far as lugged barrels and unfluted cylinders, I can see their place. I very much prefer what to my eye are the beautiful refined lines of the classically designed S&W revolvers. I do think the 586/686 are very attractive, especially in the longer barrel lengths. The black powder chamfer on the front of the Mountain series is a very nice touch that I would like to see added as an option on other S&W designs. On the hard kicking magnum calibers I can see the utility of lugged barrels and, to some degree, unfluted cylinders. Due to an injury to my right hand, I now can not shoot hard kicking magnum revolvers. I recently bought a M-625. The lugged barrel certainly moderates recoil with full power 230 gr. FMJ ammunition. I can comfortably shoot it with excellent accuracy. I doubt I could tolerate more than 6-12 rounds in a lighter revolver. By way of comparison, I can fire 100 rds. of 180 gr. .40 S&W in my Glock G-22.

I think that for a revolver that will be fired with heavy loads, the lugged barrels make sense. They moderate recoil and make it easier to get good on target accuracy, especially in double-action shooting. In hunting the lugged barrel allows one to develop and then use very heavy hunting loads with some degree of comfort and a greater degree of accuracy.

For a revolver that will be carried a lot, shot mostly with standard service type loads and occasionally with heavy magnum/hunting loads, I prefer a revolver of more classical design. Respectfully. brucev.

 

[Friedrich]

I really dislike the full lugs, but the unfluted cylinders don't bother me at all. They don't add significant weight and are to my taste easthetically pleasing.

But we should have the choice. I now have a:

- M52-1, wich is perfect.
- M13 3", wich is also perfect.
- M29 6", wich I'd prefer with an unfluted cylinder.
- M686 4", wich I'd prefer to be 5" without full lug and with an unfluted cylinder.
- M617 6", wich would be MUCH better without the full lug.

In fact S&W should be able to produce them in any barrel lenght, SB or RB, fluted or unfluted, with or without full lug, stainless or blue, with or without lock. Everyone would find his flavour!

 

[n4zov]

I especially dislike unfluted cylinders, and really prefer the looks of the rare "long fluted" Colt SAA if I were given a choice. Those Colts were created as a money saving idea by using cylinders originally made for the Colt Model 1878 Double Action on the SAA. Colt only made about 1500 of them, and I think they look very nice. Here is a good photo from Collectors Firearms if you haven't seen one:

Collector's Firearms

On the other hand, I like the full under lug on some guns.

 

[Iggy]

I grew up with the fluted cylinders and half lugged barrels of old.

I see nothing wrong with the full cylinders and full lugs, but I wouldn't buy one.

It's nice to still have a few choices available.

 

[Nygma]

Thanks all. I used to think my opinions on this subject were unususal.

I now have a:
- M686 4", wich I'd prefer to be 5" without full lug and with an unfluted cylinder.
- M617 6", wich would be MUCH better without the full lug.

I like the 686+ Mountain Gun:

and the 617 no lug:

I especially dislike unfluted cylinders, and really prefer the looks of the rare "long fluted" Colt SAA if I were given a choice.

I'm also with you on this one:

'Unto thine own self be true'

 

[J. Galt]

I'm with you. I consider both ugly and unnecessary.