Author Topic: 4" or 5" 629 classic decision (Read 798 times)

Wyatte · « **on:** March 20, 2006, 06:08:55 PM »

I posted this same question on another board, but I really enjoy the knowledgeable people on this site, so wanted to pose it here as well. I am in the market for a Smith and Wesson n frame, and can't decide on the 4" or the 5" classic model. I already have a 6" 657 41 mag, so wanted to keep the barrel length somewhat shorter on this one. I want this gun for a general woods packing gun. I know the 5" weighs a little more. What can some of you recommend to me? I am interested in what works well for you. Also, if you have the 5" classic, what holster works well for this model? Thanks for your help. wyatte P.S. The new 629's are not the two piece barrel design are they? Just curious.

Questor · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2006, 01:38:03 AM »

I'd pick the 4" barrel or just go up to the 6 1/2" barrel and skip the 5" barrel altogether. I prefer a longer sight radius. I can't think of a compelling reason for using a barrel shorter than 6" in a woods gun. You're carrying it in a hip holster and there just isn't much difference between a 4" and 6 1/2" gun when carrying in a hip holster. My 629 is in 6 1/2 and it's fine.

The exception I'd make would be for the mountain gun, a concept I really like because it not only is more compact, but is lighter too. If I were to get a 44 magnum strictly as a packing gun as opposed to the dual purpose nature of my 629 hunting/woods packing gun, then I would get the mountain gun.

Not much of an answer is it? I guess I'm saying that you really can't go too far wrong with any of those options. Check out the S&W Mountain Gun, though. It sounds like you're in the market for something like it. A lot of guys who use them don't use full power ammo, they use reduced loads at about 1000fps. That is what I'd be inclined to use. These loads are a lot more fun to shoot than full power 44 magnum, but still have adequate power and penetration for defense.

Savage · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2006, 02:15:09 AM »

Don't know anything about the two piece barrel. Unless this is going to be a dedicated hunting gun, I much prefer the handling characteristics of the 4" barrel in a revolver. I have not found the longer barrels to be an advantage, other than velocity gain in a hunting gun. I shoot my 4" revolvers as well as my 6". My 4" mdl 29 is my favorite!
Savage

biglmbass · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2006, 03:00:45 AM »

You have to handle a 5" N frame to really appreciate it. I made the mistake of passing one up not too long ago in a gunstore. Came back later and it was gone.

Having a 6 1/2" Classic, I can tell you, at least in my hands, the 5" Classic (w/ full underlug) is pure perfection. But then again, your mileage may vary.

Turk · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2006, 03:59:33 AM »

I have a 5" 629 Classic. The only reason I purchased it was because in my state to deer hunt you have to have at least a 5" barrel. If I could hunt with a 4" 629 that's what I'd own.

Turk

Remember to pray for our troops.

Old Griz · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2006, 04:07:17 AM »

:cb2: I have two 7.5" for hunting, a 5.5" for plinking. and two 4" for general, all purpose "woods, wilderness & travel" guns (a .44 and a .41).
For your stated purpose I'd go with the 4". It easier to handle and even hide if you have to for some reason. Even have night sights on the .41 in case something goes bump (or GRRRRRRR) in the night.

Mikey · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2006, 08:51:11 AM »

Wyatte: the shorter ones carry better in a good field holster (belt) and are every bit as accurate as the longer barrelled revolvers. I sent my two N frames back to S&W a while ago. I had them replace the 6" bbl on my M28 with a 3.5" M27 bbl and blue the gun to match - that there is my Sunday go to meetin' gun. I also sent them my 6.5" M29 and had them install a 4" Mountain Gun bbl, bead blast the piece and blue it to match. That there be my main field piece and huntin' sidearm.

I used to shoot 200 yd metallic silhouette with a 4" M19 and hit accurately at all ranges.

Longer barrels seem, at least to me, to add some 'whip' to the recoil which snaps the barrel upward. The shorter barrels seem to push more directly to the rear and even shooting 300 gn cast from the 44m I don't lose sight of the target.

It is not so much the weight of the piece as it is the carry-ability of it. The questions of which length barrel is gonna wear a hole in your hip first, which one will be most comfortable for you to carry on an extended hunt and which one feels best in your hand are a few you might wish to consider. JHMO. Mikey.

kyote · « **Reply #7 on:** March 21, 2006, 09:10:16 AM »

you said you wanted to carry it in the field.I have the 4" and the 6"I just love the 4" as I can get in and out of the jeep and truck easy with it and it rides on my waist well while settin in the vechicles.and I think it wheilds better.I can get on target faster.that extra inch on the 5" can be a pain somes time carring it.

Wyatte · « **Reply #8 on:** March 21, 2006, 05:19:46 PM »

After alot of thought on this, I am leaning toward the 4" 629 with the standard barrel. Now for my next question. I have owned 44 mags off and on for years, but usually they were Ruger Redhawks and such. I know the recoil will be more with the 4" 629, but Mikey, and others, do you find it to me quite manageable? I really think this size will be the best for carry, like you said. I just want to know what I'm up against if I get it. I like the looks and size of 4" N frames. Thanks wyatte

Savage · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2006, 04:10:44 AM »

Wyatte,
I too have owned the SBH and touched off tons of heavy reloads in it. The SA is designed to roll in the hand as it recoils, which for me, is more uncomprotable with a two handed grip than the more straight back recoil of the Smith. I installed the pachmyer rubber grips on my 29 and find it more comfortable to shoot than the SBH with the factory grips. The Smith is not as rugged as the Rugers, so I don't shoot a steady diet of full house loads thru it. I really enjoy shooting it with a good stiff 44Spl handload of mine. I even bought speedloaders for it and shot IDPA with it for a while. Love the 4" "N" frames!
Savage

Mikey · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2006, 08:42:10 AM »

Wyatte: I find my 4" M29, even with the slim Mountain Gun barrel, to be quite manageable. My preferred load for hunting is a 295-300 gn Keith style swc over 19 or 20 something gn of H110, whatever the recipe calls for. They seem to 'push' rather than 'snap' and I find them not difficult to shoot. Honestly, I do not shoot a lot of them but enough to be able to consistently ring a 6" gong, 6 out of 6, at 50 yd. The revolver doesn't have any problems with them and it is one of the older ones. I find the 245 gn cast slugs loaded hot 'snap' a lot more and are not all that comfortable to shoot cylinder after cylinder full.

I also like to shoot light loads for can kickers just to keep myself in shape with the da pull but mine prefers 44 mag cases for that - the 44 spls ring the hay out of my cylinders.

Grips on the Smith will be very important. There are some that look great but serve little function. Others look questionable but work wonders to manage the recoil. HTH. Mikey.

corbanzo · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2006, 02:43:05 PM »

For a pack gun, I like the shorter barrel. It is more accesable when you need it, doesn't get in the way, and also is lighter for carrying. For animal protection I like the short barrel for a quicker draw. If you are planning on doing any target shooting or hunting with it, then maybe go for a longer barrel, but for just a pack gun, always liked shorter more.

Wyatte · « **Reply #12 on:** March 22, 2006, 05:13:48 PM »

What about the durability of the model 629? I plan to shoot only factory spec ammo, but is the 629 up to the task of being a primary on the hip gun for a variety of reasons? I guess it sounds like I'm hung up on this, and I kind of am. Graybeard, Corbonzo, anyone - often one hears to get the Smith for packing and a Ruger for alot of magnum shooting. Right now I am leaning toward the Smith, but i guess I just want a little re-assurance. I have always had Rugers in the 44's up until now. wyatte

Questor · « **Reply #13 on:** March 23, 2006, 01:33:31 AM »

Here's something I posted recently that's related to durability. The guy who asked about durability was contemplating buying a used model 29 of unknown age. By the way, a common practice is to buy a Ruger and then send it off to a custom gunsmith to turn it into what amounts to a stock Smith and Wesson. Of course, it costs a lot more that way but they do seem happy in the end with the results, at least until they try to sell it...

In around 1980 S&W strengthened the model 29 because silhouette shooters and hunters using heavier bullets were wearing their guns out prematurely. The strengthened guns have some refinements in heat treating, and also have the heavy underlug that you see on today's 629s. If you stick with 240 grain bulllets, you'll be OK for a lot of shooting if you have the older model. You may hear or read that S&W 44s are not as strong as Ruger 44s, and this is the origin of the story. As you can see from the date of refinement, it hasn't been an issue in over a quarter century.

Another issue is whether you need to have it tapped for scope mounting. New models are tapped for scope mount with the holes being under the rear sight. I don't believe this feature was added until the 1990s. So you may need to have a gunsmith to tap it for you if you plan on scoping it.

The 1970s were a dark age for S&W and there were some guns of inferior quality made then. I'm not sure how to tell whether your prospective gun is one of these. They weren't horrible, but they were a low point in S&W quality.

So there are the potential negatives. In general, though, the 29s have a history of being great hunting guns. Kind of like getting a custom built gun for a true bargain price. It's the 44 against which all others are judged.

corbanzo · « **Reply #14 on:** March 23, 2006, 09:34:09 AM »

I might be a bit partial, or I might be a good resource, because the gun I grew up on was a smith and wesson model 29 with a 4" barrel. My old man had that gun before I was born, and still has it. I take it out sometimes when I'm back home, and it works as good now as when I was a kid. Shoots reliably, always a smooth action. I haven't had any experience with them since they added the 6 (629), but I don't see why they would be any less reliable or worse of a shooter. This is the gun he uses for bear protection. He has a .500mag, but he's good with the .44, and trusts it, so it's what he carries. If I was to buy a smith .44 mag, I would buy one from the 29's, maybe even the 629. If you look around and see a used model 29 in good condition at a good price, I would buy it, especially if you are looking for a pack gun. I think they might of called the exact model he had the 29-2 as I'm looking around...

corbanzo · « **Reply #15 on:** March 23, 2006, 09:46:36 AM »

I just found a very interesting article about the SW .44 and it's history, might be something good to check out

http://www.sixguns.com/range/SmithWesson44Mag.htm

Old Griz · « **Reply #16 on:** March 23, 2006, 12:51:04 PM »

:cb2: I'm not trashing S&W by any means. I have a bunch of them, and I love them. They will outlast me, and I'm not worried about one ever coming apart on me. However, you cannot honestly say they are just as strong as a Ruger. The S&W still has a side plate that is screwed into the frame, whereas the Ruger frame is one solid piece, and when I say "solid," it's a tank.

That said, the only DA Ruger we own is my wife's SP101. That was the first centerfire handgun we bought. All of my DA revolvers are Smiths except for two Colts. The Smiths are plenty strong for any normal use. If I'm gonna be shooting really hot loads . . . then I bring out the SA Rugers!

gldprimr · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2006, 05:35:40 PM »

Wyatte,

I have a 5" 629 Classic Hunter and like it a great deal. I carry it in a Milt Sparks 200 AW hip holster. I don't really like the extra length of the 6", however I find the 5" balances better for me than the 4".

It's all in what you like. The 4" is easier on packing, but not much. The 6" is too much of a good thing for me in a hip holster.

My opinion, FWIW