Talk to me about the differences in S&W 44mags

Melnibonean

Melnibonean

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
177   0   0
Location
The Orion Arm
Specifically, the differences between the Model 29 and the 629. Who has handled both? Are the differences purely cosmetic or are there functional differences (such as felt recoil, operations, etc..)

The S&W forum was talking about the 29 rusting if wet or exposed to humidity for a prolonged time, as well as having the bluing wear off from holster use, whereas the 629 (being Stainless) has none of those problems. However, the 29 is "classic" while the 629 is "utilitarian looking".

Of course, they also believe that no S&W can take a steady diet of 44 mag loads like a Ruger can, despite it being built to chamber SAAMI 44's.

So what's your experiences?
 
Do you have a preference for barrel length? The 629 can be had with a 4.2" barrel, and the 29 in 6" and less commonly, 8 3/8". Blued and wood look better in my opinion but I like the balance of the 4.2".
 
Melnibonean said:
Specifically, the differences between the Model 29 and the 629. Who has handled both? Are the differences purely cosmetic or are there functional differences (such as felt recoil, operations, etc..)

The S&W forum was talking about the 29 rusting if wet or exposed to humidity for a prolonged time, as well as having the bluing wear off from holster use, whereas the 629 (being Stainless) has none of those problems. However, the 29 is "classic" while the 629 is "utilitarian looking".

Of course, they also believe that no S&W can take a steady diet of 44 mag loads like a Ruger can, despite it being built to chamber SAAMI 44's.

So what's your experiences?
Click to expand...
Don't kid yourself. A stainless gun can also rust. I know from experience and was very shocked to discover it.
 
dogzilla said:
Same gun, one is steel, one is stainless. Get a Redhawk
Click to expand...

Curious as to why.

WRH said:
Do you have a preference for barrel length? The 629 can be had with a 4.2" barrel, and the 29 in 6" and less commonly, 8 3/8". Blued and wood look better in my opinion but I like the balance of the 4.2".
Click to expand...

I'm leaning to 5" to 6", so either will do. I find the 4.2" too short, but that's just me. I wilderness carry in the US, and sometimes in black bear or cougar country, but for those occasions I bring my G20 with 220gr hard cast Buffalo Bore.

jperos said:
Don't kid yourself. A stainless gun can also rust. I know from experience and was very shocked to discover it.
Click to expand...

I know they can rust, but they're supposed to give you enough time to get back and clean/oil them. Blued one (from what I've heard) don't have that cushion. I don't know, as I've only carried semi autos and a SS 686 in the woods, and never for more than a day at a time.
 
I would think the 4.2 is perfect for wilderness carry. Maybe you will find the 5" a reasonable compromise if you don't mind a little extra length and weight. Lots like that length.

In terms of redhawk v smith, I don't think there is any debate that the Redhawk will last longer on a steady diet of full house loads, though no doubt the Smith should be fine with factory strength loads.
 
I have a 5" full underlug 629 and it is a big gun (stem to stern in measures in at 11" long)...I wouldn't want to carry a 6+" model. I think if you're intent is to bush carry, a stainless one is the way to go (BTW your 686 with .357 is fine for Bear and Cougar imho).

You asked about longevity with full house loads, the 629 is designed to take them all day long no problem. The Ruger is built tougher no argument, but the Smith is no slouch, after tens of thousands of rounds you may need to take it to someone to tweek cylinder timing, replace worn parts ect, but you certainly don't have to worry about frame stretch or the like.

I find the stainless kind of a pain in the ass to clean though...like a white car...everything shows up on it and the cylinder face needs to be scoured with steel wool to get the scorching stains off...but if it's a "working gun" it's going to get the sh1t knocked out of it anyhow.
 
The S&W models and the Rugers each have different advantages. The Redhawk suits me better for a couple of reasons (one is price) but if you like the S&W get it and enjoy it. It's built strong enough to be a .44Magnum, the Ruger is just built a bit more. That doesn't mean you should think of the S&W as a weak gun. Shoot factory ammo or appropriate reloads and it will be fine.
 
I have a 629 with 8 3/8 barrel. It has never failed me and you can feed it what you want. 240 gr hollowpoints, 300 grain cast, 44 spl. It is a superbly accurate firearm and it shows no signs of any wear and tear. I love it.
 
Sold my 629 4.2 a few months ago. Too much felt recoil with factory loads. Now have a new 5.5 inch Stainless Redhawk. Trigger is not as good as the Smith but I still like it better. Looks mean too. As for Stainless vs Blue. Back in the day I had a new Stainless 7.5 Redhawk and my pal had a new 7.5 inch Blue Bisley. We were Chronoing my hand loads. So using the same loads over the same Chrono alternating guns, my Stainless was consistently 100fps faster with 240grers. Not sure about the cylinder gap. Didn't measure.
 
Like plinker777 I also own a 5inch full lugged 629. Yes it's a little on the big side. But when you run hot ammo through it, which is par for the course with the 44 Rem Magnum you will come to appreciate the extra heft. Mine has the round butt, which I really like too. The factory rosewood grips were standard option with this DX Classic too. 1993 was a very good year for this S&W revolver IMO. Go with stainless, the scratches as much less obvious and if you want, they can be buffed out on most surfaces.

Cheers!

Edit: Trivia, the 629 DX Classic came with the box, two factory grips, IIRC a few front blade sights and a factory target with two shots @20 yards signed by an employee. I think it was Federal Eagle 240 gr soft point ammunition.
 
Last edited:
My favourite looking of my five S&W revolvers is the 629 in 4.2", however it is very punishing to my hand to the point I can only shoot 14 rounds of hot loads in a day. It is brutally painful. I am keeping it and will buy a model 29 in 6" and if that doesn't tame things down, I'll go for the 8 3/8" barrel on the 629. I am all about max speed at the right bullet weight to get the max ft/lbs of energy. .44 special or .44 magnum plinking rounds will be okay when reloading but I do want to see what the .44 Magnum will do. Ditto for my .41 Magnum S&W M57. If you are serious about shooting these guns take a scientific approach. Unfortunately there aren't enough powders readily available nowadays.

5" is the best length for .357 magnum but I would suggest a longer barrel for .44 magnum.
 
I also have a full lug 5" 1993 dated 629 Classic DX. I wouldn't call it a large revolver, actually it's one of the smallest in my collection, lol. Still prefer my stainless 7.5" Super Blackhawk Hunter over the 629. The Super Blackhawk handles the recoil better due to its frame design and, in my opinion, is just built better than the S&W. If you're set on a S&W 44 mag, I'd look at a longer barrel than 5"....just to make it a tad more comfortable when shooting the hot stuff.
 
Got a mod 29 in a 6inch barrel. I haven't shot shorter barrels in 44 mag but I'm assuming the 4.2 would be quite different / harsher. The 6 is ok for my liking. I can shoot quite a bit of factory loads but if it's not held right it's unforgiving.
 
paisley70 said:
My favourite looking of my five S&W revolvers is the 629 in 4.2", however it is very punishing to my hand to the point I can only shoot 14 rounds of hot loads in a day. It is brutally painful. I am keeping it and will buy a model 29 in 6" and if that doesn't tame things down, I'll go for the 8 3/8" barrel on the 629. I am all about max speed at the right bullet weight to get the max ft/lbs of energy. .44 special or .44 magnum plinking rounds will be okay when reloading but I do want to see what the .44 Magnum will do. Ditto for my .41 Magnum S&W M57. If you are serious about shooting these guns take a scientific approach. Unfortunately there aren't enough powders readily available nowadays.

5" is the best length for .357 magnum but I would suggest a longer barrel for .44 magnum.
Click to expand...

I have several pounds of H110, so I plan on loading a few "standard" pressure loads for myself to test. Wouldn't be fun otherwise

armorman said:
I also have a full lug 5" 1993 dated 629 Classic DX. I wouldn't call it a large revolver, actually it's one of the smallest in my collection, lol. Still prefer my stainless 7.5" Super Blackhawk Hunter over the 629. The Super Blackhawk handles the recoil better due to its frame design and, in my opinion, is just built better than the S&W. If you're set on a S&W 44 mag, I'd look at a longer barrel than 5"....just to make it a tad more comfortable when shooting the hot stuff.
Click to expand...

It would appear, due to the SA grip, that the SBH would have more muzzle flip. Is that the reason why felt recoil is less? Does the force due to recoil become rotational and torque the gun up instead of being linear and push the gun back into your hand?

To be honest, I never considered and SA revolver for a 44. I think I should have.....

Lawrence D said:
Got a mod 29 in a 6inch barrel. I haven't shot shorter barrels in 44 mag but I'm assuming the 4.2 would be quite different / harsher. The 6 is ok for my liking. I can shoot quite a bit of factory loads but if it's not held right it's unforgiving.
Click to expand...

This is despite the rubber grips, or did you replace them with wooden ones?
 
dogzilla said:
Same gun, one is steel, one is stainless. Get a Redhawk
Click to expand...

Now you would think that the massive frame of the Redhawk would allow the gun to stand up to heavy handloads better than the M-29 wouldn't you. But that doesn't appear to be the case. My standard .44 load is 20 gr of H-110 under a hard cast 325 gr WFN. My Ruger Vaquero handles it no problem, as did my older SBH, but when I gave some to Pounder to try in his Redhawk, the snappy recoil caused the linkage between the hammer and the hammer spring to disconnect. This doesn't happen with a Super Redhawk, because the open hook linkage was redesigned. Anyway, Pounders loads are now 19 grs, and the gun is reliable with it.
 
Interesting never heard of that issue before. I'm sure there are specific cases of problems with every type of gun on the market. Ruger did have systematic problems with the Redhawk at one point when the bonding agent/lub applied to the barrel threads was resulting in cracked frames, but that problem has been rectified. The 29 will not stand up to the same level of abuse as the redhawk. But again no doubt for most loads people will use and the standard factory ammo, and likely frequency of use, the smith will be fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom