Whats the deal with S&W 29/629

[MidRoad]

So at the gun store the other day and I saw a real nice looking model 29 for a good price. Pretty sure its of recent production (29-6?). My family is a ruger family so dont have much experience with S&wW .Anyways the 29 is really nice looking and handling gun. Kind of interested in it. Not ruling out ruger though,just seeking information.

Been doing some reading on the interwebs about model 629's and 29's. And opinions are all over like usual. Some say they are weak and shoot loose to easy ,others say dont worry about them. I read about the endurance package and how all the recent productions have it. Lost of the stories of the guns having problems seem to be from guys with older guns 29-2's and other older pre endurance models. .Im really heading towards the direction of stepping up my handgun hunting game( few previous posts about it,and not ruling out the uper redhawk or sbh bisley hunter yet). Any one have direct experience with new model 29/629having issues with heavier use? Or post endurance models with high round counts of 44 mag (not some mag and mainly specials)?

It would be nice to be able to shoot 300 grain buffalo bore on occasion and not have problems. But that would be once in a while. I would most likely feed it 240 grain winchesters (cheapest around here for now). I would probably hunt with 240's as well,but will have to figure out what flavor when the time comes. I could shoot specials but they are the same price as .44 mag,extra cleaning and id prefer to get used the recoil of my hunting rounds.

 

[BobWright]

This is my experience:

This was an early Model 29 with 6 1/2" heavy barrel. I shot it with many full power magnum ammunition, ultimately putting just over 15,000 rounds through it before trading it off.



I experienced many problems with the cylinder unlocking, double firing pin strikes and hammer bounce, and sheared off pivot pins. After many breakdowns, Smith & Wesson told me to return the gun to the factory I did this and they kept my gun nearly a year, waiting for some machinery to arrive. They put in an "endurance package" and while they had it, gave me an 8 3/8" full lug barrel. That proved too unwieldy so I had it cut back to a handier 6". After the re-work my problems diminished.

I bought this Model 29 and had it fitted with a 5" full lug barrel.



I've kept full power ammunition down with it. But the barrel turned in the frame so had to have it pinned. The hand broke once, and the barrel stub cracked requiring a new barrel, which S&W replaced free. So far just over 10,000 rounds and so far, so good.


Bob Wright

 

[VoodooMountain]

The 629 is just as strong as the Ruger. Ruger is cast and accordingly needs to be a bit bigger to obtain the same strength as the SW which gives it a heftier feel.

The Ruger only loads are more about the long cylinder Ruger uses rather than strength.

As posted above the older 29’s were not as strong .

There is a lot of myth surrounding this topic that just refuses to die on the internet.

 

[BobWright]

Be aware that there is a world of difference between "cast" and "investment cast." Investment casting rivals forging.


And, for the record, the problems I encountered were not with the frame, but with internal parts and construction. As one of S&W engineers explained to me, pivot pins were made without the "stress relief" fillet at points where the pins were stepped down in diameter.

Bob Wright

 

[joed]

The early S&W .44's without the endurance package are somewhat weak. The newer ones are by no means weak and should be fine with any SAAMI pressure load.

I own both a 29-2 and 629-1 without the endurance package. When I bought the first the gunsmith told me these guns were designed to shoot the 240 gr bullets and I should stay away from the 300 gr bullets. I limit these early guns to 250 gr bullets and have had no problems.

To be totally honest the guns are stronger then me as I prefer the milder loads now that I've gotten older. My reloads are held to about 1100 fps and can do anything I need done.

 

[BobWright]

I want to point out that pressure had nothing to do with the failures I experienced. The failures I had were caused by recoil of heavy recoiling loads.

Bob Wright

 

[Duster340]

Love all my Rugers for sure and I have many 1000s of full house loads thru my 30 something year old 7.5" SBH. Was all set to buy a Redhawk when looking for a 4" barreled 44 mag to add to the herd. That is until I picked up a 629-6 at the LGS. Just felt right, superb trigger pull, and just a beatiful revolver. Bought one the next day. Just love it and it get the most use of all my 44s.

 

[Riomouse911]

The only issues I have had with either of my 629's (5" full lug and 6.5" Power Port) or 629 Mountain Gun was a broken firing pin on the 6.5" PP. A quick call to Brownells and a few minutes to replace it in the hammer when it arrived and all is good to go.

Now I don't load up max loads, and probably never will, but the thousands of mid to fairly high powered magnums and mid range specials have so far not affected them much.

 

[fireman 9731]

If you plan on shooting 10s of thousands of rounds, I would go with the Ruger. If you plan on hunting, and some regular target work or plinking, I would go with the Smith. But I'll also admit that I'm biased toward Smith. Both have good warranty and repair service if you happen to have any problems.

 

[Slamfire]

I have not shot as many full powered loads as many, but this M629-4 is unusually accurate. I installed the big grips and that made it much more comfortable to shoot. I have had zero problems, this pistol has the endurance package, but I have only shot thousands of full power loads, not tens of thousands.

 

[whughett]

I had such bad luck from a Chevrolet Astro van that I swore I'd never buy a GM product. Stupid I guess, but the point is any one can have a bad experience with any given product. Mr.BW putting 15,000 rounds of 44 magnum through one pistol, and working on 10,000+ on another is a testament to that hand guns over all strength and quality of steel, to say nothing of the shooters own ability. I've got four of the N frames in three models, one, the 25-9, has such a thin web tween chambers' one has to marvel at the steels strength, none are shot with full power loads and none will ever experience that quantity of ammo being run down the spout but none have experienced any problems, unlike that damn Astro Van.

 

[MidRoad]

Pretty much the input I was looking for guys. Id be lucky to put 500 rounds through he gun a year,ammo isn't cheap,and I have a few other guns to shoot. Hopefully will get my hands on some reloading gear in the future. Got 2 more years before I buy a house and have a spot to setup reloading stuff. Right now just don't have a spot to put it. So factory ammo it is.

 

[CraigC]

The 629 is just as strong as the Ruger. Ruger is cast and accordingly needs to be a bit bigger to obtain the same strength as the SW which gives it a heftier feel.

The Ruger only loads are more about the long cylinder Ruger uses rather than strength.

This is simply untrue. The N-frame was designed mild cartridges over 100yrs ago. They could not fathom what the gun would eventually be asked to do. It was only later adapted to the .44Mag cartridge and they still had no idea what the guns would be put through or if they'd even sell. Luckily, not that many shooters put too many rounds through them because it's not exactly a pleasant experience at first. However, there are still a good many shooters that took to it and do a lot more shooting than they might have anticipated. Handgun hunters and silhouette shooters are the two biggest groups. The silhouette shooters in particular discovered the S&W's shortcomings. They found that after a few thousand full power loads, they started loosening up. Enter Bill Ruger. When the .44Mag was introduced, he had already designed a new single action revolver that completely eliminated all of the Colt SAA's flaws. All they had to do is scale it up. S&W just adapted a 60yr old design. When Ruger decided to design a double action, he had over 70yrs of accumulated wisdom and set out to eliminate all the known weaknesses in the existing designs. That's exactly what he did. So to state that "they're the same" is to ignore a whole bunch of facts.

For all intents and purposes, the Redhawk and Super Redhawk are the same as far as strength. They use the same cylinders and are equally strong. So I'm going to refer to them interchangeably.

In reality, the Ruger is significantly stronger than the S&W. Yes, the frame is beefore and it is cast but it is also stronger. Heard any reports of Rugers stretching? My gunsmith has rebuilt several of his own 29's and countless others. Fact is, the S&W frame is left soft to be slapped back into shape with a lead babbitt. The Ruger is beefier in the crane and at the frame where the crane interfaces it. S&W weaknesses. The Ruger has no sideplate, probably the biggest S&W flaw they eliminated. The Ruger has a larger barrel shank, another S&W weakness. The Ruger has a larger cylinder, which is why we have 50,000psi loads for the .45's, while S&W is limited to less than half that. The Ruger design was also adapted to the .454 and .480 cartridges with SIX SHOT cylinders, with a simple change of the alloy used. The Ruger has been converted to cartridges like the .454Casull, .475Linebaugh, .500Linebaugh and .500JRH. Not possible in the S&W. The Ruger's bolt notches are between the chambers, where S&W's are directly over them. This is the weakest point in any revolver cylinder, another S&W weakness eliminated. Ruger DA's have been "triple locks" since their inception. S&W eliminated that feature a long time ago. The Ruger lockwork is also much more robust. I've had to sell S&W's that were too worn out to fix. Ever hear of a Ruger in that shape?

Yes, the length plays a part and that is an important advantage to the Ruger. These loads don't have a prayer of fitting a S&W cylinder. The Buffalo Bore load on the left is a 340gr at nearly 1500fps. You don't get there without 50,000psi and that load would never be safe in a S&W. The Ruger eats them like candy.




I loves me some S&W's but I also accept their limitations.

 

[VoodooMountain]

CraigC,
I promise you the newer 629’s with the endurance package (standard now) won’t wear out any sooner than a comparable Ruger.

There was even a write up in handloader magazine about this very subject 1-4 years ago.

 

[CraigC]

CraigC,
I promise you the newer 629’s with the endurance package (standard now) won’t wear out any sooner than a comparable Ruger.

There was even a write up in handloader magazine about this very subject 1-4 years ago.

Not true. Do you even know what the endurance package entails? It was a bandaid fix and in no way made the S&W equal to the Ruger.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

 

[MaxP]

The 629 is just as strong as the Ruger. Ruger is cast and accordingly needs to be a bit bigger to obtain the same strength as the SW which gives it a heftier feel.

The Ruger only loads are more about the long cylinder Ruger uses rather than strength.

As posted above the older 29’s were not as strong .

There is a lot of myth surrounding this topic that just refuses to die on the internet.

They're not even close. I have owned and own Smith & Wessons, and like Craig, I accept their limitations. I have written a bunch on this topic and frankly don't have the energy to get into this fully yet again. The IHMSA guys were among the first to discover the limitations of the N-frame. They absolutely cannot withstand a steady diet of heavy loads that Rugers will ingest with gusto. It's okay that the Smith & Wesson isn't as strong.

 

[MidRoad]

View attachment 772039

I LOL'd

 

[mcb]

A 629 is on my short list of new revolvers I want (tied with a Webley Mark VI). So I guess I would be OK with the 629 being a bit weaker than the RH/SRH since its also lighter in a similar configurations. A 4.2-inch barrel RH in 44 Mag is 5.5oz heavier (13%) than a 4-inch 629 with a similar partial under-lug barrel profiles. A 9.5 inch SRH weight 75% the weight of a Rossi M92 16-inch carbine in 44 Mag .

I also have a draw full of N-frame holsters (a three other N-frames revolvers) so it simplifies putting a setup together. If I was dealing with big bears, out west/north, that where set on making a snack out of me maybe I would look harder at a RH/SRH (and maybe a cartridge more powerful than 44 Mag) but for Tennessee whitetail a 629 really does everything if not more than I really need.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I LOL'd

Couldn't resist.

 

[Intox]

If you can find one at a decent price (I got LUCKY because my father-in-law sold me his for $500 last year) look into a 629 Classic DX. They were "freak" runs of the 629 that for some reason were far more accurate than normal 629 Classics, and as far as I know no one really knows why. But they were separated from the other Classics and designated with a DX stamp.

Full disclosure, I am a fan of and collect S&W magnums. I do not own or have much experience with Ruger's big bore pistols. So the above paragraph is all I can contribute to this discussion and stay in the realm of knowing what I'm talking about. I have shot several different Ruger .44 mags and they were nice pistols, but that is the extent of my knowledge on them.

 

[Rockrivr1]

So I own both S&Ws and Rugers and overall I prefer S&W. I have a pre and post lock 629 and love them both. I know a lot of people are down on the post lock S&Ws with the MIM parts, but so far I've not had a problem and I always hear of problems from people who heard it from other people, so not sure how widespread these supposed issues really are. For me, S&Ws are a cut above Rugers. Just MHO.

 

[dickydalton]

View attachment 772039

I got spanked for that a while back....

 

[dickydalton]

I had to get my original 629 rebuilt a bit after i shot too many top end cast loads through it in the 80s. New hammer and trigger plus whatever. I love my Smiths but understand the difference.

 

[Charliefrank]

I've got two 29's. One 8 3/8" from the late 60's early 70's and one 4" from the early 80's. The older one has had many many magnums through it. I used it for IHMSA compitition for several years. The only problem I experienced was the screw that retains the yoke sheared off. For less than $3.00 plus shipping I was back in business.

In my opinion the Ruger is built stronger. But is the average shooter going to shoot enough to benifit?
I never used 300 grain bullets though, just 240's. I always figured if I needed a heavier bullet than 240, I was using the wrong cartridge.
Btw, the broken screw happened just this year.