00 Del
Member
Don't shoot it, sell it to me...
Smith and Wesson model 29
- Thread starter Point 357
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Point 357
Active Member
00 Del
Member
My white buffalo is a 5" 629. I already have a holster for my 5" 610 that I really like, so that's a reason to hold out for the 629, right? I do have a model 92 in 44 Mag though, so ultimately I have to have a 44 mag revolver. Likely there's a transfer in there for Chuck at Taylor. He's trying to convince me to buy a Taurus, but likely reason will not prevail.
Cold Steel
Active Member
This is true if shooting handloads, but I was told by someone at Smith & Wesson that if you shoot factory loads, or mid-range handloads, you shouldn't have any problems. He said the gun was designed for the .44 mag in mind and Elmer Keith carried and used them for years. (He even wore them at home!)
The model 19/66s, on the other hand, weren't designed for the .357 mag. It was incorporated into a .38 Spc K-frame that shoud have been beefed up in the frame, cylinder and forcing cone. The heat treat also should have been altered for heavy loads, but the company just didn't think shooters and LEOs would shoot that many lightweight magnums. These loads were tough on the gun and especially the forcing cones. But if you compare the forcing cones in Smiths with those in Rugers, they actually seem very hearty. But Ruger barrels had better heat treat and a different steel. And while cracked forcing cones were seen occasionally in Rugers, they were few and far between, even in Rugers with clipped forcing cones.
So the two problems aren't the same. The 29/629s have been fairly resilient. At the same time, they're not Rugers, which are stronger guns, but less elegant. I had a 629 that had never been fired, which I had traded for a nickel-plated 29 which I had shot. Loved the gun but never got used to the recoil, so I eventually got rid of it. I miss it, though.
This 629 was a beauty. It had a pinned barrel, counterbored chambers,
stamped sideplate and beautiful smooth wood grips (that weren't cheap). For
some reason, Smith & Wesson put on these cheese-grater grips that looked and
felt fine...until it was shot. With my mode 29, I used duct tape to cover the grip
so it could be shot without glovles.
Magnumite
Ultimate Member
The Model 29's origin is it was built as a 44 Special. The same gun was then modified to be a 357 Magnum and then as a 44 Magnum. So it follows a similar evolution to the M10 to M19, dimensions differing.
4MDGunRights
Gun Totin' Member
I picked up this old beast off of the S&W forum classifieds. It was manufactured in 1958 and qualified as a C&R when I bought it and it showed up in my mail while I was still a Maryland resident.
I replaced the non-period correct target stocks with these Cokes that I found on Ebay. It shoots great, but I have to shoot .432 boolits or it will lead up on me.
I replaced the non-period correct target stocks with these Cokes that I found on Ebay. It shoots great, but I have to shoot .432 boolits or it will lead up on me.
Point 357
Active Member
Beautiful examples Cold Steel and 4MDGunRights.
I still haven't been able to get out and shoot my 29, not that I don't want to or I won't. I just don't get out to a range and I can't simply step out back to pop off a few rounds.
Here is a quick pic of it with its smaller counterpart, a model 19-3.
I still haven't been able to get out and shoot my 29, not that I don't want to or I won't. I just don't get out to a range and I can't simply step out back to pop off a few rounds.
Here is a quick pic of it with its smaller counterpart, a model 19-3.
pop-gunner
Ultimate Member
- May 8, 2008
- 2,272
@ Cold Steel...
Your thoughts on the K frame Smith are close, but how do you explain the demise of the 6-series Rugers if they are a sturdier design?
Your thoughts on the K frame Smith are close, but how do you explain the demise of the 6-series Rugers if they are a sturdier design?
Cold Steel
Active Member
Simple, Pop-Gunner, Bill Ruger complained that he never made a dime on a Security-Six. It was a woefully underpriced gun (still is, but that's changing). Smith & Wesson was going to try to compete with the Colt Python, and Ruger was simply following suite. The difference between the two guns is that Smith was beefing up a gun that needed beefing up, and Ruger was beefing up a gun because Smith & Wesson was doing it. Smith added a barrel underlug like the Python, so Ruger did the same, throwing the balance horrendously off, in my view.
But besides beefing up their guns, Smith also made accuracy a top priority. They tightened up tolerances and designed the gun to go, gun-for-gun, against the Python. Gun writers were bolting both guns into Ransom Rests, and the Smiths were showing themselves to be the Python's equal -- only they were more durable. Ruger's new gun, however, wasn't in the same league. They had beefed up a gun that didn't need beefing up, had added an underlug to the barrels and had cut corners. I tried both the 4-inch 686 and the GP-100 when they appeared and there was no comparison.
Finally, there were some less-than-knowledgable gun writers who simply didn't know what they were writing about. They assumed that since the Smith 66 was not up for longterm use of full power magnum shooting, then neither did the Ruger Security-Six, since it was about the same size. So Ruger was pretty much hemmed in. It had to come out with a new gun, and the GP-100 was that gun.
But besides beefing up their guns, Smith also made accuracy a top priority. They tightened up tolerances and designed the gun to go, gun-for-gun, against the Python. Gun writers were bolting both guns into Ransom Rests, and the Smiths were showing themselves to be the Python's equal -- only they were more durable. Ruger's new gun, however, wasn't in the same league. They had beefed up a gun that didn't need beefing up, had added an underlug to the barrels and had cut corners. I tried both the 4-inch 686 and the GP-100 when they appeared and there was no comparison.
Finally, there were some less-than-knowledgable gun writers who simply didn't know what they were writing about. They assumed that since the Smith 66 was not up for longterm use of full power magnum shooting, then neither did the Ruger Security-Six, since it was about the same size. So Ruger was pretty much hemmed in. It had to come out with a new gun, and the GP-100 was that gun.
While I have a few boxes of factory 44 mag through my S&W 29, I most often handload. I shoot hard cast lead to high 44 Special/low 44 mag levels and jacketed ammo to moderate 44 mag velocities. I have experimented some with hotter loads I have thousands of rounds through it....never a problem. AND!! the gun still looks very nice. Bought a used 629 a while back just because the price was right and it was all ready tapped for a scope (my eyes ain't what they used to be....and I didn't want to alter my early 80's vintage 29). Haven't shot the 629 yet as I'm still recovering from shoulder surgery and it's hard to hold the gun up at arms length. But P/T is almost done and I'm about to start shooting again. The 29 is probably the gun I have taken most to the range....rivaled only by it's near twin, my model 27 (357).
pop-gunner
Ultimate Member
- May 8, 2008
- 2,272
@ Cold Steel,
Nothing to do with forcing cones and 125gr .357mag. cartridges?
Nothing to do with forcing cones and 125gr .357mag. cartridges?
Magnumite
Ultimate Member
I shot out two forcing cones on my Security Six. The original barrel was set back twice then the barrel was scrapped. I how have a 4 inch tube in place of the original 6 incher. I have no idea how many midrange and magnum rounds I put through that revolver all those years ago. I do have targets with groups shot off bags at 25 yards you could cover with a thumbnail.
