I would appreciate some help… I am ready to purchase either a new model 29 or model 629 (desire the 6 or 6 1/2 inch). I want it for GENERAL use, plinking, an occasional deer hunt or hunting sidearm. Here are some questions I am trying to resolve

-Which might have the highest desirability if any
-Any notable advantages, disadvantages (besides rust)
-What is meant by not being able to shoot "heavy" rounds like the Ruger (I don’t reload but need hunting rounds), I will likely shoot 44 specials for plinking
-ALSO, is the 629 with the full-length under-barrel (6 1/2") versus the partial under-barrel (6") just for looks or it it for functionality?

-Is there a recommended place to order quality custom wood grips for either model?

THANKS !!!!!!!!... I just sold an older revolver and need a replacement

Welcome to the forum!

I will try to answer some of your questions.
Highest desirability- that depends totally on you, and what you prefer in the way of finish. If you are referring to older guns (your posts says new, so I don't know if you mean new, or just new to you), then the blued ones are generally the most desirable.

The only advantage SS guns have is their ability to prolong the onset of rust ( they will rust, just like any other metal though).

The S&W .44 magnum was built from an existing frame platform, and adapted to the .44 magnum. As such, it had limitations on how warm your loads can get, before you start to accelerate wear, or break something. Ruger's on the other hand, were designed from the ground up to take a steady diet of full power magnum rounds and keep right on going. They are much more massive in size to accomplish that. They are good guns, but don't have the beauty of a Smith, nor the refinement of the action. The newer S&W's made since 1990 have the full endurance upgrades in them, and will take a steady diet of full power magnum loads, providing you are using factory ammo, or handloads that don't exceed current reloading manuals listed loads, or SAAMI spec pressures (if using something like Buffalo Bore or Garrett cartidges).

The full underlug guns are heavier, which reduces muzzle flip, recoil, and will help extend gun life by reducing the overall stresses on the gun. (Though there are some here who will try to argue that last point, it is a fact)

Grips- Ahrends, Hogue and several others make quality replacemnet grips for the S&W.

I hope this helped

Either a good choice, but Ill always pick stainless over blued for obvious reasons, especially when hunting.

I would appreciate some help… I am ready to purchase either a new model 29 or model 629 (desire the 6 or 6 1/2 inch). I want it for GENERAL use, plinking, an occasional deer hunt or hunting sidearm. Here are some questions I am trying to resolve

-Which might have the highest desirability if any?

My first choice for a plinker/shooter would be a blued pinned and recessed 29-2. For a hunting .44 I would choose a stainless 6 or an 8 3/8 because I believe they provide less light refraction for use in a hunting situation than a bright blued model.

-Any notable advantages, disadvantages (besides rust)

I mentioned a pinned and recessed 29-2 above because they are also gaining in collector value. If you shoot it for many years you should still be able to recover most if not all of your original investment, perhaps more should you ever choose to sell it. The new stainless 629, on the other hand should give you a factory warranty and be easier to keep polished (no bluing wear, minor boo-boo's can be polished out.)

-What is meant by not being able to shoot "heavy" rounds like the Ruger (I don’t reload but need hunting rounds), I will likely shoot 44 specials for plinking.

The frames aren't as strong as the Ruger's. From my experience, however, very very few people submit their firearms to the continual digestion of maximum loads. I've seen very few 29's that didn't endure a lifetime of dependable and trouble free service.

-ALSO, is the 629 with the full-length under-barrel (6 1/2") versus the partial under-barrel (6") just for looks or it it for functionality?

It adds slightly more weight to the front of the gun and some claim it steadies the sight picture. I'm currently shooting a 629 Classic 5" with the full length under-lug. I'm also shooting a 500 6 1/2 with the short under-lug. Although I haven't shot a 29-2 with a 5" barrel I have been able to compare the 500's and found little difference in noticeable recoil, control or recovery. I personally like the appearance of a half under lug gun but that is simply a matter of taste.

4 of my 6 "shooters" pictured below....



Just my 2c....

-Is there a recommended place to order quality custom wood grips for either model?

THANKS !!!!!!!!... I just sold an older revolver and need a replacement

My advice would be to find a 6" 629 no dash, you'll have your hard to find collectibility and future resale potential. Coupled with the classic good looks of the N frame platform and rust resistance. Now as to the matter of strength the N frame is an old design, one that was never intended to put up with the pressures of the 44 mag. S&W addressed this matter in the late 80's with the endurance pkg which helped the internal mechanism handle the recoil better. As a guy that's lost 2 model 29's to just plain old factory loads which shot both of them loose I'll have to agree with your idea of shooting mainly 44 special type loads. Smith 44 mags make great 44 specials! I shoot full power mags only rarely through my 629 no dash, I also have a 629 classic that is post E pkg and it sees more mags but still mainly lighter loads middle of the road type loads, which in all honesty will do 99% of what needs doing with a handgun, but it is wise to be aware that a steady diet of mags will wear a model 29-629 out, period. I've had it happen twice. As for grips I have rubber Hogues on both of mine, no they aren't pretty but the are functional. Good luck with your choice.

__________________
Sie vis pacem parabellum

Stainless guns are for shooting and hunting and carrying in bad weather. Blued guns are for collecting and looking at.

__________________
jj

Couldn't have said it better.

you can carry and use a ss gun for years and it will clean up good as new, but a blue gun with some blue loss looks good to me, as a buddy of mine said " just looks like a gun" my ss guns get totted alot more than my blue steel guns i have no safe queens! mike

__________________
WILL WORK FOR AMMO!

The newer Models 29 and 629 that have the endurance package should stand up better than the older models. Part of the endurance package was heat treated (harder) parts like the yoke, which was accomplished by CNC manufacture. Not needing to be beat into alignment allowed for heat treating and a longer lasting part. Same for the frame and the radiused hammer and trigger pins. I prefer those models from the early 1990's, CNC manufacture but no MIM and no lock. As a side benefit from CNC, barrel-cylinder alignment is usually perfect, a great contributer to accuracy.

Mike

Currently available new 29 & 629 models have the benefit of all of the endurance enhancements. S&W will tell you - they are capable of a long life of shooting .44 Magnum ammo as long as you buy ammo which only meets the SAAMI specification for .44 Magnum. That means, your buddy's homebrew hot loads and commercial loads stating 'Ruger/TC Only' should be avoided. Anything commercially made with the label '.44 Magnum' which you bought in a WallyWorld or sporting goods store would be fine.

Now, shooting .44 Specials - or even the shorter .44 Russians - is fine - just brush the chambers well before chambering Magnum ammo. If you shoot the Specials mainly, just about any wood grip is fine. My 6" below has the Ahrends RB Square Conversion, with finger grooves, in cocobolo. My 4" below it sports their RB Rounded, non f.g., and is fine with lite loads. The shorter lug on the 4" & 6" make them look more traditional to me - and they 'point' more easily, too, as there is less weight 'out front'. This probably does effect muzzle rise, but not much with Specials - or my mild loads in Magnum cases (I reload.).



Several years ago, I had a young fellow tell me - in person - how he shot his old 29 loose with boxed ammo - hot ammo. He had bought it from another fellow - who I remembered selling his 29 years ago after it shot loose with hot homebrews. Yep, same gun - one gun - two legends - neither with commercial .44 Magnum spec ammo! If history is important, early Ruger .44 Magnum Redhawks launched their barrels! It took a new .44 Magnum - the Super Redhawk - to regain customer faith. Ruger fixed the manufacturing fault and modern Redhawks should be fine - if you like them (My .45 Colt Redhawk was enough for me.).

The SRH I had, in .454 Casull, recoilled less than a 29 I shot eons ago - and at over twice the .44's kinetic energy. I was blistered after three .44 Magnums - it was the lacquered wood target grips and lower hold they required. The SRH was padded - and higher - better recoil control. For the same recoil control in a 629, or any K,L,N, or X-frame with the round butt they currently use (RB), try the Hogue .500 Magnum rubber grips - they pad the backstrap and allow a higher hold. My 6" 629 sports them below, along with a 2x28mm Weaver H2 handgun scope on a Weigand SS rail. Modern S&Ws are predrilled for a scope - just remove the rear sight (One screw!). This is a great main hunting handgun setup. For backup to a rifle, consider the 4" 629 - with that .500 Magnum grip - available from S&W Accessories.



Obviously, I like SS over blued. Others have mentioned the reasons. I did start wit Rugers - lots of Rugers. My metamorhosis to all S&W started over seven years ago. I have fewer revolvers now - almost all bought new - but I have what I want - and like - and use. I would imagine I could get some of my investment back one day - if my son and I take up stamp collecting. For now, I will enjoy them.

Stainz

This isn't being completely forthright and honest here, and you know it. The trouble with the early Redhawks had nothing to do with ammo used or the design of the gun. I fired literally thousand and thousand of rounds out of my very early Redhawk without a hitch. I just happened to have a good one that wasn't afflicted by the barrel problem.

The barrel problem was totally related to the thread lube they were using at the time, when intstalling barrels. Period. You should not be trying to mislead him with info that doesn't contain the true, and complete story.

It's obvious that you like Smiths. So do all of the rest of us or we wouldn't be here. Still, it is important to try to answer the OP honestly and without bias.

The simple fact is that S&W had a problem with their design, and they knew it and fixed it. That still doesn't mean that a Smith can take loads like a Redhawk can. If it did, companies like Garrett wouldn't have disclaimers for their ammo that say not to use in a Smith and Wesson.

The endurance guns are fine for any normal ammo as has been posted here repeatedly.

COFFEMAN-
If you send me your e-mail addy via PM, I'll send you some PDF's that explain all of this, and are very informative. I will need your e-mail addy to do it though.

What dash numbers would I need to look at to get the benefit of the endurance package but skip the MIM?

29-5's and 6's, though the -6 's have the round butt gripframe.

Gun 4 Fun,

Who are you to question my honesty? That was uncalled for! And - to argue the point about the barrel - and you quoted my saying "Ruger fixed the manufacturing fault...". I also clearly stated that modern S&W .44 Magnums in the 29 & 629 families were designed for a long life with commercial SAAMI spec'd ammo - not hotrodded ammo above the standards set by the industry. It's not just my post you picked over, either. Perhaps you should look at this for what it really is - a hobby interest - and lighten up. Add some constructive words.

I will admit - I once owned a bunch of Rugers. I now have S&Ws. They aren't perfect, but they've all worked right out of the box. I will always have a bias towards S&W - especially in this forum!

Sorry for the rant, everyone. I hope I've offered some appropriate info for the original poster.

Stainz

Since I didn't say you were lying, but had left out the entire facts of the Redhwk's history to make your point look good, I'm afraid it was completely called for. You gave him only part of the real history of the Ruger problem, and tried to pass it off as an engineering problem with your comment about barrels blowing off.

You post your opinions here as we all do, but you are obviously very biased towards S&W revolvers in your posts here and on other forums. The OP deserves to be told honest straight forward answers to his question, and that's is exactly what I did. If you are going to post stuff that isn't accurate, and someone sets the record straight, you can hardly cry foul.

You need to lighten up, not me.

I didn't pick over any other posts either. What I stated above is factual and accurate.

The comment about BB, and Garrett ammo is in regards to the fact that it is commercial ammo that is to be fired only in Ruger Redhawk's, because they are stronger than any Smith and Wesson. Period. If that bother you, that's on you, not me.

For the record, I never said "Ruger fixed the manufacturing fault." I said they discovered the lube they were using was causing the problem. That is a fault of the lube, not the engineering.

I would have to say that in the long run the stainless will give you a higher resale value. I agree that new heat treatment technology has greatly extended the life of the gun. However, if you plan on never selling the gun and want something forever buy the Ruger.

Ruger over built the gun around the 44 mag. They have never issued a design change. Any part made today will fit all guns made even from day one. If you ever needed a part it will always be available.

I personally carry a Blackhawk.

Thanks for all the input and help--it is obvious that there is a lot of knowledge and history on this forum... and I appreciate that you are willing to share it in a helpful way.

I did order a 629 classic... it should take about four to six weeks to arrive.
Thanks on the info regarding ammo... I had never heard of .44 Russians, that may be a nice round for my grandson and wife instead of the specials.

Looking forward to this revolver. Right now I have a Glock 27, Ruger LCP, and a S-W 22 auto (25 years old, forget model).

Thanks again...

Good choice. Stainz mentioned using X-frame grips and I will second that. They cover the back strap and are cushioned and will make shooting your new mag a lot more fun.

Thanks... I am looking also at the Ahrend Grips that was mentioned in this thread (maybe the cocobolo, retro combat round to "square"--the square seems to have a nice look on the 629... but haven't personally handled them)... if anyone has experience with this brand an style, let me know. I may order some wood grips and have them here before the 629 arrives.