Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present
Forum Register Expert Commentary Members List


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-31-2011, 07:15 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Central PA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default 44 Mag: Std vs Mountain Gun

I've been thinking about getting a 29 in either standard heavy barrel or the Mountain Gun. I want a 4 inch barrel length in whichever one I get. I plan on shooting handloads on the mild side, like 250 gr Keith bullet at about 1000 fps. So I don't think the heavy barrel will be "required for recoil control".

I plan on using it for deer hunting and for bear protection while backpacking. (let's not start a big debate over bear protection, the 44 is better than nothing and I don't have a carry permit for a tact nuke)

Got a couple questions I hope someone can help me with.

What is the weight of the two models?
Is there an accuracy advantage of the heavy barrel?

Thanks,
Happy Hunter

Last edited by happyhunter1911; 05-31-2011 at 07:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-31-2011, 07:18 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: OC
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 5 Posts
Default

My Mountain gun is 38oz. With 240 grain handloads at 1,250 fps, recoil is no big deal.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-31-2011, 07:36 PM
CKF CKF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Casper, Wyoming
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I had an early Mountain gun and a 29 classic at the same time. The Mountain gun was carried in the Wyoming back country often. It did not shoot heavy bullets well at all. Shot well with light loads and bullets. As a comparison, the Classic shot everything well all the time. Just my 2 cent woth.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-31-2011, 07:48 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

I prefer the 329 for backpacking. More money and more recoil, but worth it IMO. Good read on bears (JJHack posts): Model 29 Mountain - Topic
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-31-2011, 10:04 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Central PA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

offroad,
I know the 329 is nice and light.... Would be really nice to backpack with. I have an SP101 23 oz all steel 357 and I don't enjoy it with standard loads.... (I shoot it with handloaded reduced 357s)

I will stick with a steel 44. I do plan on shooting it a fair amount. I need to be good enough with it, to use it for hunting, so I will shoot a couple hundred a year. I really do not want to do that with a scandium 44.

CKF,
what do you mean the mountain gun did not shoot heavy bullets well? Was it inaccurate? Or too much recoil? How heavy could you go and still have it do well?

Thanks for the input,
HH
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-01-2011, 10:32 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Nine Mile Falls,Wa. USA
Posts: 256
Likes: 33
Liked 26 Times in 18 Posts
Default

What is the weight of the two models? Mtn Gun, 39 ounces, 4" Std bbl, 41 ounces. Both wear Hogue grips.

Is there an accuracy advantage of the heavy barrel? I have found no difference in accuracy between all my 4" 629's but the Std bbl does have less perceived recoil with all loads. My favorite is the Mtn Gun because of the light trigger pull it has due to an 11 lb Wolff rebound slide spring, and the Patridge front sight I installed. For carry tho, I prefer the 329PD.
At 26 ounces,plus ammo, there is a world of difference between it and the Mtn Gun on the hip!
From what you've written,my suggestion would be to go with the Std bbl and install a lighter RSS if you desire a lighter trigger. You'll never notice the difference between the Mtn Gun and the std bbl on the hip.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-01-2011, 10:41 AM
dla dla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 624
Likes: 78
Liked 125 Times in 84 Posts
Default

Mountain gun is 41oz, regular 29 is 44oz. The 329 is 26oz.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-01-2011, 10:47 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 2,226
Likes: 343
Liked 964 Times in 332 Posts
Default

Anyone else curious at the different weights folks list for these two revolvers? (smile) Is it just because of stocks/grips? Do rubber samples (Hogue & Pachmyar) weigh more than wood? Inquiring minds want to know! (LOL)

Dave
__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-01-2011, 11:01 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Kentucky
Posts: 783
Likes: 212
Liked 123 Times in 82 Posts
Default

I have a 629 Mtn Gun. For the small difference in weight, I would prefer the std 629 myself, if for no other reason than the sights. The Mtn Gun has black sights. They're great for a 6 o'clock hold on a white paper target, the more visible sights of the std 629 are better for EVERYTHING else. I doubt anyone can tell much difference in recoil between the two, I suspect that a std 629 with wood stocks would weigh in pretty close to the Mtn Gun equipped with heavier synthetic stocks, too.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-01-2011, 11:27 AM
APS APS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 340
Likes: 14
Liked 40 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Dave, it could be the differences in grips. Rubber can weigh more b/c some of them have steel inserts. Differences in rubber also. Like when S&W wants to make it seem like the 340M&P is alot lighter than the 642, they put the Uncle Mikes grips on the 642 and the Hogue on the 340. The UM weigh ~0.5oz more.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-01-2011, 11:47 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 532
Likes: 1
Liked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

I find the biggest difference between standard and mountain versions to be the balance point and not the total weight. The 4-inch mountain version balances almost identical to the the 3-inch standard. The 4-inch standard seems much more barrel heavy simply because it is.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-01-2011, 04:29 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: WV
Posts: 430
Likes: 5
Liked 221 Times in 107 Posts
Default

Difference in Mt. Gun and standard weight ain't much different. I just like the balance of the standard gun better.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-01-2011, 04:29 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brownsville, OR
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I have both a Mt gun and a 629 both 4 inch. I really cannot tell the weight diffrence holding them. I agree with the sights mentioned eariler. The 629 has better one's in my opinion. I shoot a 240 gr. SWC at 1000 fps and I cannot tell any diffence in the recoil. My 2 cents.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-01-2011, 04:55 PM
jimmyjoe's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 789
Likes: 3
Liked 111 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happyhunter1911 View Post
I've been thinking about getting a 29 in either standard heavy barrel or the Mountain Gun. I want a 4 inch barrel length in whichever one I get. I plan on shooting handloads on the mild side, like 250 gr Keith bullet at about 1000 fps. So I don't think the heavy barrel will be "required for recoil control".

I plan on using it for deer hunting and for bear protection while backpacking. (let's not start a big debate over bear protection, the 44 is better than nothing and I don't have a carry permit for a tact nuke)

Got a couple questions I hope someone can help me with.

What is the weight of the two models?
Is there an accuracy advantage of the heavy barrel?

Thanks,
Happy Hunter
I don't think it matters which one you get as long as it's an older gun with the hammer mounted firing pin.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-04-2011, 10:54 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Greenwood, IN USA
Posts: 346
Likes: 3
Liked 36 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Besides the difference in weight, the MG has the .44 Special contour barrel, black powder bevel on the front of the cylinder, a narrower trigger and hammer and is, IMHO, easier to carry. My 629 MG weighs in at 39 oz with the S&W X frame Hogues. The Hogue's are a little bulkier, but are cushined and cover the back strap. If you shoot one much and I do, you will appreciate the extra padding the Hogue's give. I don't shoot 'heavy' (300 gr +) loads out of mine and I have found 240-255 grain factory rounds do pretty good.
My normal 'outdoors' carry load is Double Tap's 255 gr SWC. Their web site now shows the load to be 240 gr, but I have had mine for a number of years. My home load is Cor-bon's 165 gr HP. The MG is made to be carried and I carry mine in a Simply Rugged pancake. Hope this helps.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-05-2011, 10:28 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,228
Likes: 26
Liked 290 Times in 170 Posts
Default

I currently have a 4" 629 that I like and shoots well but I haven't compared a lot of different loads.
I've tried the Mtn gun (w/ tapered barrel) and the full lug classic but my current half-lug, non-tapered standard is what I prefer. The weight diff between it and the mtn. is insignificant for my use. Whereas the full lug seems muzzle heavy to me.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-05-2011, 11:49 AM
TAROMAN's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The wet side of Oregon
Posts: 4,161
Likes: 2,387
Liked 2,538 Times in 1,053 Posts
Default

I am a longtime 29-2 owner/shooter. Recently, at my club, there was an older fellow with a Mountain Gun. He was shoting mild reloads in it. He said the recoil with the factory loads was too much for him, and asked If I wanted to fire it. He said great, but all I have left here are factory loads. A box of 50 Winchester Silvertip 240gr, IIRC.
Put 6 downrange. Recoil was brisk but the gun was amazingly accurate. very consistent. End of the story. I shop up all his factory loads, and he thanked me for doing it, so it was a win-win situation.
Bottom line: If I didn't already have a 4" .44 Special I'd jump on an Mountain Gun.
__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-05-2011, 03:25 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 67
Likes: 1
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

I own both a 29-2 and a 629-2 Mountain Revolver.
I shoot the 29-2 a bunch more just because it is what I carry as I did not want to put sights on a mountain revolver and beat the hell out of it in the back country.
I can't tell any noticeable difference in recoil between the two with my loads which consists of a 240gr Hornady XTP running at 1170fps, or a 240gr LSWC going 1100fps.
If I were looking to buy one of the two today I think my decision would be made by which gun I can find a better deal on used. Most of the .44s I come across used have been shot very little either due to recoil or ammo cost for the non reloaders.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-09-2011, 12:08 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Western PA
Posts: 11
Likes: 4
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default 44 Mag 29-2

I think I have found it. 29-2 8 3/8" Stainless but need help with Mfg. date. Serial # 080322xx or BDB222xx sorry I am not sure which one is which both are stamped. Thanks in advance for any help.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
329pd, 629, 642, hogue, hornady, model 29, mountain gun, patridge, scandium, sig arms, winchester

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present Thread, 44 Mag: Std vs Mountain Gun in Smith & Wesson Revolvers; I've been thinking about getting a 29 in either standard heavy barrel or the Mountain Gun. I want a 4 ...
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hello from the Mountain JMJ3 New Members Introduction 6 10-13-2010 09:18 PM
What makes a 'Mountain Gun" a Mountain Gun bsms S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 8 06-27-2010 11:49 PM
WTT S&W 625 mountain gun 45lc for 44mag or 357 Mountain gun lockandload GUNS - For Sale or Trade 6 09-01-2009 12:57 PM
mountain gun info on any mountain gun twomoons S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 6 06-20-2009 07:48 PM
.44 Mountain Gun to trade for .45 Mountain Gun Roger Norris GUNS - For Sale or Trade 11 04-05-2009 12:12 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:54 PM.


S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)