How long does a S&W 629 last? Let's find out! 13K+ now
- Thread starter dirtybarry
- Start date
There seems to be a lot of gunnutters who have lost faith with S&W model 29's ability to throw Elmer Keith's loads, but its all anecdotal. Where has objectivity gone? (Down range with the rest of our funds?).
No question the OP's gun (1 of how many 10's of thousands made) suffered a "KABOOM" but we don't know why. On a quest for vindication the OP has initiated some pseudo-scientific testing (my hat sir, has been removed for your efforts), but speaking as an owner of one of these fine firearms, let's leave the speculation for the media rags. Your "my buddy told me..." stories are impacting the value of my property! Stop it!
If you're going to be making statements of "Known", or "factory recognized" problems with the N frame barreled in .44 Rem Mag revolvers, please back them up with evidence. Not circumstantial speculation and or hearsay rumor and conjecture.
Of all of the model 29 failures that I've ever found, and there aren't that many, this is the only case of forcing cone failure that I can find.
Most of the failures were of the seriously explosive type that blew the cylinder apart. No question that those were extreme overloads.
The only other forcing cone failures seem to be confined to one model of .357mag and is attributed to the bottom of the barrel at the forcing cone being machined away for clearance.
If you ever find another case of forcing cone failure in any version of a 29, I would really like to know about it.
I just came back from putting 200 rounds through my new 629 and other than being dirty now, it worked fine. But will that still be true another 5 or 6 thousand rounds from now? Time will tell.
A fatigue failure indicates that the structure was not strong enough to withstand the loads it was subjected to. The loads were within the advertised limits. Therefore either there is a flaw or the limits are lower than stated.
To state this another way. I go out and buy a brand new 3/4 ton truck and use it to haul 1400lbs all day every day. After 7 months the frame breaks. My fault for using the truck?
Quality was inconsistent back then, mind you it was still quality, but the technology necessary to obtain perfetct consistency was lacking. Today's processes ensure that every single cylinder going out is identical to the last one and the thousands before it and so on.
But I wouldn't doubt it being quality.
The first 200 rounds
So back to the original purpose of this thread.
The other day, I cleaned, lubricated, Loctited the front sight and cylinder release screws and carefully inspected my brand new S&W 629 . It looked just fine.
Today, I took it to the range and fired 200 rounds of my own reloaded ammunition. I had intended to use 200 mild rounds but soon realized tha I had 3 boxes of mild and 1 box of hot. Oh well.
The 150 mild loads consisted of 7 times fired Federal brass, CCI 300 primer, 21,5 grains of IMR 4227 and a Campro 240 grain TMJ bullet seated to 1.60" OAL with a medium (1/2 turn) crimp.
The 50 hot loads consisted of once fired Starline brass, Winchester LP primer, 23,8 grains of H-110 and the same Campro 240 gr TMJ at 1.60" with a medium crimp.
So far so good, every round went bang and every piece of brass ejected fine. The gun is dirty which is normal and the only thing different is the indentations from the firing pin seem deeper. No signs of rupture, so I don't care.
Speaking of primers, except for about 2000 of these that came from other stuff, the rest are all from .44 mag rounds.
So back to the original purpose of this thread.
The other day, I cleaned, lubricated, Loctited the front sight and cylinder release screws and carefully inspected my brand new S&W 629 . It looked just fine.
Today, I took it to the range and fired 200 rounds of my own reloaded ammunition. I had intended to use 200 mild rounds but soon realized tha I had 3 boxes of mild and 1 box of hot. Oh well.
The 150 mild loads consisted of 7 times fired Federal brass, CCI 300 primer, 21,5 grains of IMR 4227 and a Campro 240 grain TMJ bullet seated to 1.60" OAL with a medium (1/2 turn) crimp.
The 50 hot loads consisted of once fired Starline brass, Winchester LP primer, 23,8 grains of H-110 and the same Campro 240 gr TMJ at 1.60" with a medium crimp.
So far so good, every round went bang and every piece of brass ejected fine. The gun is dirty which is normal and the only thing different is the indentations from the firing pin seem deeper. No signs of rupture, so I don't care.
Speaking of primers, except for about 2000 of these that came from other stuff, the rest are all from .44 mag rounds.
No. This was when S&W was owned by Bangor Punta, which was really more of a low point for quality. Your gun may well be OK, but they put out a higher proportion of lemons than they do today.
I agree that it looks like you got a defective gun from S&W, but you effectively released them from any warranty obligation when you told them that you used reloads in it. Had you not volunteered to incriminate yourself, you would more likely than not would have ended up with a new gun from them. Should they have replaced the gun as a gesture of goodwill? Yes. Were they obligated to do so? No.
Further to the truck analogy, if you had violated the warranty terms in some other way, the manufacturer would not be liable for any damages. When one uses any product outside the terms of the warranty, they have assumed all risks.
Well that's interesting. I have a S&W 629 with the 8 3/8 barrel. I have had it since 1993 and have fired everything through it from 300 gr handloads to 240 gr factory ammo and have never had any issues whatsoever. I would have to beg to differ about the quality of S&W firearms.
How many rounds so far?
Agreed, but if used within design limits then I would expect that it should last.
If the truck was only rated for occasional maximum load use, then I would expect that to be made very very clear.
Well regarding the truck example, lets put it this way. You do that , you break the frame of the truck. Well if it's under warranty you are covered, if it isn't found that breakage was cause by abuse or unapproved use. But if it breaks six months out of warranty then you are screwed. Meaning the truck that could have last 10-15 years only lasted 6 years cause of the yes use inside the manufacturer prescribe limits but not with out consiquence on the life spam.
Point being, even if there is a warranty that doesn't mean that hard use will not affect life expectancy. Just like a barrel, take a ar15, shoot 5000 round semi auto with 5-20 second interval and go to the usa and shoot 5000 out of 30 tound mags as fast as you can. You will see wear difference in the barrel condition.
Last edited:
Wear is one thing and things do wear out. Catastrophic failure within the advertised warranty period is another matter.
Back to the truck analogy, if the truck got driven into a tree, claiming warranty for a destroyed engine would be wrong.
But it the crankshaft broke in half and warranty coverage was denied because of the less than maximum rated load the truck was carrying, I'd be annoyed.
I had the same experience with S&W.
They repaired my mod 29-3 at no cost (even the freight was covered), and they replaced the barrel, the cylinder and some internal parts.
Basically they restored it to new condition.
I am not sure when my revolver was manufactured, but I guess it was in the early eighties or so.
That's a pretty damn good warranty.
They repaired my mod 29-3 at no cost (even the freight was covered), and they replaced the barrel, the cylinder and some internal parts.
Basically they restored it to new condition.
I am not sure when my revolver was manufactured, but I guess it was in the early eighties or so.
That's a pretty damn good warranty.
So your buddy RSO, who has no experience for himself, gathered his "knowledge", probably through another "broken telephone", and this made him the expert he is.
This self appointed expert managed to transfer his great "knowledge" to you, who brings it up as a fact on this board!?
I call BS on this.
BTW I own Rugers, SRH and GP100, I also own S&W revolvers, M 29 and M 28, and I enjoy them all. They have each their qualities, but to make a statement like your is pure nonsense.
Same here. Last year I sent my 29-2 in as the timing was a bit off. They replaced the hand and got rid of some end shake that I wasn't even aware of. Its tight and is as good as new. Never cost me a thing.
MD was great. Never even charged me postage.
easyrider604
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Greater Vancouver, BC
Seems like S&W will fix any revolver, often for free, that has worn out or needs mechanical fixing due to normal wear and tear. That's reasonable, and really nice of them. Makes S&W look good and perhaps feel good.
On the other hand, S&W denies warranty for a blown up 29??? Why not perform a gun autopsy first, before copping out with the reloaded ammo escape clause. Looking at the pics of the OP's other thread, the ill-fated 29 failed due to poor metallurgy/heat-treatment in that particular gun. Manufacturing defects can happen to anything, nothing man-made is perfect. That is why consumers rely on a reputable manufacturer's warranty, and are willing to pay higher prices for that.
I would even go so far as to say that perhaps the ole N-frame may not be beefy enough, as in it doesn't have enough safety factor built-in. Built perfectly, yes, it can handle many thousand of full load magnums. Besides, factory ammo, like reloaded ammo, may not be perfect either.
Faulty ammo (over pressure) will bulge or blow up the cylinder first. That's reasonable to expect, right? But a frame failure is the result of something else. S&W should at least have investigated.
What really surprises, rather, disappoints me is that S&W did not even bother to look at the failed revolver. At least study it....or do they already know why it failed, from past experience?
I am not a S&W hater, got a 686-3 and 27-2 myself. Been through at least 10 other Smiths, 22s, 38s, 357s. Have a couple of 65s in the family as well. I know the 27 will handle full bore magnums forever, but the lockwork will need tuning up periodically for sure. The 686 will not tolerate, but not love, a continuous magnum diet. I know because one of my 686s was a buddy's silhouette gun, and lock up was loose even after a professional tune-up(could have used a new cylinder IMHO) Love my Smiths, but my GP100 gets the nod when I want to shoot full power magnums.
On the other hand, S&W denies warranty for a blown up 29??? Why not perform a gun autopsy first, before copping out with the reloaded ammo escape clause. Looking at the pics of the OP's other thread, the ill-fated 29 failed due to poor metallurgy/heat-treatment in that particular gun. Manufacturing defects can happen to anything, nothing man-made is perfect. That is why consumers rely on a reputable manufacturer's warranty, and are willing to pay higher prices for that.
I would even go so far as to say that perhaps the ole N-frame may not be beefy enough, as in it doesn't have enough safety factor built-in. Built perfectly, yes, it can handle many thousand of full load magnums. Besides, factory ammo, like reloaded ammo, may not be perfect either.
Faulty ammo (over pressure) will bulge or blow up the cylinder first. That's reasonable to expect, right? But a frame failure is the result of something else. S&W should at least have investigated.
What really surprises, rather, disappoints me is that S&W did not even bother to look at the failed revolver. At least study it....or do they already know why it failed, from past experience?
I am not a S&W hater, got a 686-3 and 27-2 myself. Been through at least 10 other Smiths, 22s, 38s, 357s. Have a couple of 65s in the family as well. I know the 27 will handle full bore magnums forever, but the lockwork will need tuning up periodically for sure. The 686 will not tolerate, but not love, a continuous magnum diet. I know because one of my 686s was a buddy's silhouette gun, and lock up was loose even after a professional tune-up(could have used a new cylinder IMHO) Love my Smiths, but my GP100 gets the nod when I want to shoot full power magnums.
Last edited:
Must be nice and you're not the only one. However, despite all these positive experiences with S&W warranty, mine is an exception. Too bad for me that I told the truth about using reloaded ammo.
I still have a broken 29-10 sitting in a box that I had to pay the shipping to and from the dealer so I could be told that S&W would not even consider the possibility of a defect.
The best they would do would be to sell me another one for $53 more than I paid for this one in January.
I haven't bothered to register the 629 with S&W because it's pretty damn obvious to me that it would be pointless as their "warranty" and "lifetime service policy" are meaningless marketing terms.
Having learned that, when this 629 falls apart, I won't bother wasting even more money on freight charges.
Not meaning to thread highjack, but back in the day I was heavy into metallic silhouette shooting.
The consensus among almost all revolver shooters was that the S&W 29 .44 Magnum was too lightly built to take a steady diet of magnum loads with heavy bullets. You saw very few of them on the firing line. It was mostly Dan Wessons, Ruger Redhawks/Blackhawks or the ultra premium limited production revolvers like Freedom Arms.
I could not even tell you how many rounds my Dan Wesson has had put through it, but it shows next to no wear and shoots as well as day one. The beauty of the Dan Wesson design that you could adjust the cylinder to forcing cone gap, so less gas cutting.
I did stay away from Win 296 powder as many were convinced it promoted more forcing cone erosion than other comparable powders. My usual load was 22 grains of 4227 with a gas checked 240 grain RCBS cast bullet. No problem with 200 meter rams. Was out at the range this summer with it and the rifle shooters were a little surprised when I was ringing the 100 meter gong consistently offhand with it.
The consensus among almost all revolver shooters was that the S&W 29 .44 Magnum was too lightly built to take a steady diet of magnum loads with heavy bullets. You saw very few of them on the firing line. It was mostly Dan Wessons, Ruger Redhawks/Blackhawks or the ultra premium limited production revolvers like Freedom Arms.
I could not even tell you how many rounds my Dan Wesson has had put through it, but it shows next to no wear and shoots as well as day one. The beauty of the Dan Wesson design that you could adjust the cylinder to forcing cone gap, so less gas cutting.
I did stay away from Win 296 powder as many were convinced it promoted more forcing cone erosion than other comparable powders. My usual load was 22 grains of 4227 with a gas checked 240 grain RCBS cast bullet. No problem with 200 meter rams. Was out at the range this summer with it and the rifle shooters were a little surprised when I was ringing the 100 meter gong consistently offhand with it.
Last edited:
