Today I stopped at a local shop to pick up some grips and two revolvers jumped out at me:
1. A S&W 629-1 with an 8 3/8" barrel. Obviously it's a pre-lock, and it's in excellent condition. $559
2. Current production 657-6 (.41 magnum) 7.5" full underlug barrel with an unfluted cylinder and internal lock. Brand new, $619.
As I can't buy both I decided to put the 629-1 on layaway. There were a number of reasons to chose this gun over the other. I have a 6 inch 29-3 so it makes a nice pair with the 629-1 and shoots the same caliber. It's a pre-lock, and I like the balance of the gun once having had an 8 3/8" 686.
I have one switch with a layway so I could go with the 657 tomorrow if I wish. It appeals to me in that .41 magnum is supposed to be a fun caliber to shoot, but that's one more caliber of ammo that I will need to stock. To me the full underlug is something that I associate more with my 586/686's, but that's not all that important. The price difference isn't enough for me to really make it that much of a concern. The unfluted cylinder appeals to me, but not enough to make the deal. I have an unfluted 6" 686 so I have that bug out of my system. While I prefer a gun without the lock it isn't a deal-breaker.
I tend to prefer older Smiths, but I do have a number of fine newer ones like my 60-18 and 686 Plus.
I'm really torn on this one but my gut reaction is that my first choice, the 629-1, is the better one. All things considered, which way would you go on this, and why? Maybe there's a consideration that I'm missing here and your thoughts would be appreciated.
1. A S&W 629-1 with an 8 3/8" barrel. Obviously it's a pre-lock, and it's in excellent condition. $559
2. Current production 657-6 (.41 magnum) 7.5" full underlug barrel with an unfluted cylinder and internal lock. Brand new, $619.
As I can't buy both I decided to put the 629-1 on layaway. There were a number of reasons to chose this gun over the other. I have a 6 inch 29-3 so it makes a nice pair with the 629-1 and shoots the same caliber. It's a pre-lock, and I like the balance of the gun once having had an 8 3/8" 686.
I have one switch with a layway so I could go with the 657 tomorrow if I wish. It appeals to me in that .41 magnum is supposed to be a fun caliber to shoot, but that's one more caliber of ammo that I will need to stock. To me the full underlug is something that I associate more with my 586/686's, but that's not all that important. The price difference isn't enough for me to really make it that much of a concern. The unfluted cylinder appeals to me, but not enough to make the deal. I have an unfluted 6" 686 so I have that bug out of my system. While I prefer a gun without the lock it isn't a deal-breaker.
I tend to prefer older Smiths, but I do have a number of fine newer ones like my 60-18 and 686 Plus.
I'm really torn on this one but my gut reaction is that my first choice, the 629-1, is the better one. All things considered, which way would you go on this, and why? Maybe there's a consideration that I'm missing here and your thoughts would be appreciated.
