I recently bought a S&W 686 in .357 MAG, and I like it so much that I'm wondering if I want a .44 MAG.

Today I looked at a 629 for $820 and a 29 for $916. I do find it strange that the 29 is $96 more than the 629.

Based on looks, the 29 is far the nicest. It's gorgeous.
But, the 629 comes out ahead in two important areas.

1. The Hogue rubber on the 629 gives a great deal better grip control than the wood grips on the 29. I fear I would have to change to rubber grips shooting magnum rounds. (there go the looks)

2. Then came a surprise. The 29 trigger feels much like my 686, a little stiff on double action. I'm sure it will get better with use.
But, the 629 has a fantastic double action trigger. It feels like it had a professional trigger job.

That basically leaves the 29 with looks, and the 629 with function and performance. Not to mention $96 cheaper.

I'm leaning toward the 629. Are there any differences between the two that I don't know about.

Monday I plan to rent a Taurus .44 MAG to make sure I really want a .44 MAG. Am I correct in thinking the .44 MAG might be a little too much for defense against two legged critters?

Added: Both guns have 4" barrels. Being new, I assume the latest dash number.

Just use 44 special if you feel the magnum is too much
Good Luck!

__________________
Dante
60,66,686,625,629,M1917

Big bore revolvers are just cool. Can't go wrong with either, but don't count out the Ruger Redhawk 4.2" or 5.5". Cheaper than the Smiths, no lock and IMO built better than the new production Smiths. Ruger revolvers are the best value put there as far as performance and quality.

If I need to just shoot .44 SPL, I'll just stick with my .357 MAG.

Is the 629 a a Classic series with full underlug and interchangeable front sights? If yes, I would tip my hat towards the 629 for a high volume range gun. The extra weight and easy front sight adjustability is desirable, at least to me, in that scenario.

Also be aware the new 29's cannot withstand ammonia base gun cleaners like Hoppes 9. But that's no big deal as there's plenty of great non-ammonia based cleaners on the market.

I have both guns, and both are tons of fun and excellently made. You will be happy with both, but I do grab my 629 Classic more frequently than any of my 29's.

Edit:
I see you added they are both 4" guns. In that case I would lean towards the revolver with the better action, which in your case is the 629.

I'll add a word of caution that .44 Magnum ammo is expensive very fun to shoot. This has caused me and several others around here to get into reloading, which is another whole addiction to address

OP: Hard to tell from your post what you plan to use the new revolver for.
The .44 magnum is a serious handful with full-power loads. Not exactly a great choice for plinking at targets for an extended period of time.

However, the fact you can also load them with .44 Specials make them pretty versatile. If you reload, that makes them a great choice.

How do you plan to use the revolver?

I haven't found this to be true in my experience

well it all depends on what model 629 and 29 they are too...for me...a 29 would be more valuable...but i do love the 629 as well...my first new gun was a stainless ruger 357 single action...but there is something special about the old model 29's and i would highly recommend not getting a taurus 44...i worked at a local LGS a while back...almost all of the new 44's from Taurus had problems and had to be send back for one reason or another....God Bless,John

Rugers have an industrial soul, Smith & Wessons have a master craftsman's soul. Rugers are rough, Smith & Wessons are beautiful. But mechanical and functional build quality is equal. So it remains a personal choice between the two brands. Many people have several of each brand.

As to blue versus stainless, it is like choosing a car color.

IF I get a .44 MAG, it will be either the 29 or 629.

I don't hunt large game with a pistol, there are no grizzly bears in my area, and I already expressed they may be too much gun for defensive work.

It would wind up getting used as a fun range toy. In that respect, I already have some nice range toys. But, every time I drive by the LGS, I can hear them both calling to me.

If I like shoothng the Taurus, the only .44 MAG available for rent, I may get one of the Smiths. Still can't decide which one.

Some of my guns are "practical", and others made the "siren" call.

My 1947 Colt 1911 and Colt Model 1917 WWI relic aren't very practical. But, they both bring me a lot of joy. The Glock 19 and S&W 637 have no such "siren" call. But, they are what I grab on the way out the door.

The 29 really does "call" to me, but I'm afraid it may be more suited to looking at than shooting.

Nothing wrong with buying an S&W .44 magnum just because you want it!
You don't have to be a bear hunter!

I look and fondle a lot. If you can afford it. I would buy both. Sorry but I have a illness that cant be cured by deciding on two of these

Vic

I think you're underestimating the killing power of a handloaded .44 or one fed Buffalo Bore's hot loads.


Between the M-629 and a blued gun, if you carry much in weather like Texas has in August, you'll learn the value of stainless construction.


I wouldn't use a .44 Magnum on men, unless I was carrying the gun with bear in mind when someone began shooting at me.


I once lay awake in a Houston motel room, waiting to shoot a man tampering with my window. My ammo was Remington's 240 grain JHP. I was concerned about muzzle blast in the enclosed room.


Thankfully, the guy was just a drunk at the wrong room. His wife found him and took him off. They never knew that I was planning to kill him as soon as he crawled through that window.


I had that M-29 with 6.5 inch barrel and factory smooth rosewood target stocks with me because I had taken it to show a friend in Houston. I should have had a smaller gun, too, for defense.


THe only man I know who killed anyone with a .44 Magnum had a four-inch M-29 with 240 grain loads, probably the basic gas checked lead SWC load. He hit a fleeing felon four times in the back and all bullets exited the chest. The man ran for at least two blocks before dropping dead.


The cop involved soon switched his M-29 to a .357 M-19 for duty use. I think it was the right decision.


Faced with a bear, a cougar, or a jaguar, i'd prefer the .44.


Those four hits would probably have been stopped in a bear's chest, hopefully without exiting. On a human, they were excessive power.

Blue or stainless.Some prefer blondes,some brunettes,some....
Qc

hey i really wanted a 3" model 29 about 2 years ago and happened to talk with Dad and he told me about the 24-3 he had when they were new...i wound up buying a like new one...and to me..it is the perfect carry gun and shoots so well.....Dad has a 29-2 4" and even he tells me he prefers to shoot the 3'...it all depends what u are shooting...most of us mortals will not want to shoot full house 44 mags...but the 44mag gives u the option to shoot both 44 mag and 44 special which i love...it is without a doubt one the nicest cartridges to shoot...i shot a lot of 357 mag as a kid and the 44 special a sweeter version of the 357 to me...but whatever u decide...just try to find the best example as they are not getting any cheaper these days...God Bless and please keep us updated...John

It doesn't matter whether you shower with a blonde or a brunette. Water affects them equally.


In humid weather, stainless guns trump blued ones. It's not just about color.

Wow! I never had any issues with that choice, I have a 629 in 3" and 8 3/8" full lug. I also have a 29 in 4". I won't part with either one. Now to the question (one or the other). I do hunt big game with my 629 long, I really like the fact that I can take it out in rain and snow for days on end and not worry about the finish, indestructible IMO. It kills the heck out of 4 point mully bucks and 125 yds no problem. That is what the full house loads are for. As for shooting at paper or rabbits or what ever I really love my 3". Easy to carry quick out of the hole (for an N frame) and very smooth on the DA. It is my fave. I do have an old Red Hawk 7 1/2" I use for testing new recipes and loaning to folks I take to the short range units. I had the trigger done and the DA is no where close to the Smiths. The Ruger is a good piece just not as good IMO. For what it's worth if you go to the big guns and you like to shoot a lot you might just as well start reloading. Not only cost but you can fit the loads to your needs and that makes it even more fun. Loading is the other part of the shooting addiction. You really can't go wrong with either one. Enjoy the world of big and remember.
Shoot, Shoot, Shoot and then Shoot some more. That is the only way to become proficient no matter what you shoot.
Good Luck!!

I would say so. That said, something loaded to a ".44 Spl +P+" level--think a 180- or 200-grain in the neighborhood of 1000-1100 fps--is easy to shoot in such a heavy revolver, even fast, and would be quite un-fun to be shot with.

Will you enjoy a .44? I think so. You may not enjoy it in volume. Start off with .44 specials, and proceed upwards. Stop shooting when you begin throwing shots downwards, even if you want to continue. If you press on, you will develop a flinch. It's a lot easier to avoid a flinch than it is to correct one once it's been ingrained.

Shooting a .44 Magnum is about technique. Do not try to shoot it like a lesser cartridge--it'll hurt you if you give it a chance. Instead of controlling recoil, absorb it. Adopt an isosceles stance, and drop your shoulders down. Get a tight, high grip. Bend your knees slightly, put your weight on the balls of your feet, and get your center of mass out over your knees with a very slight bend forward. Do not lock your elbows--if you do, the gun will try to bend your elbows even further past the lock, and it will be unpleasant. Instead, you should give them a very slight bend as well.

I am well under 6' tall, and weigh perhaps 160 pounds soaking wet. I can comfortably shoot my 629 all day long if I remember my technique. Fast, as well, not much slower than a .45.

If I do that locking-the-elbows thing--I do not last very long at all. And I am reminded of my mistake the next day.

If you do not reload, now would be a very good time to start. .44 Magnum ammo goes for around $36/50, but you can make quality 240-255-grain reloads for about $8.50 a box.

Well, all of you have given me something to ponder.

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the one expected thing. Which model would Harry Callahan tell me to get ??

I have no interest in stainless revolvers.

Nor do I care for recent Smith blue: seems like junk.

So I'd be interested ina M29-2 or so.

Not One of the new stuff.

There is more to this than meets the eye. The dash number after the 29 or the 629 tells us a lot about the gun. Not all 629's are created equal. Same goes for the 29.

It goes basically like this. The 29-4 and the 629-2 are the last models not to have what is known as the endurance package. That package allows the gun to shoot more powerful rounds. There was a whole new line of ammo developed after the Ruger cast steel .44 mag's came on the market. The Ruger can handle much higher pressure than the early 29's and 629's. It's the way they are made. Cast steel is just stronger But many, including me, consider the S&W models to be more refined and to be capable of better accuracy. And no matter what model you have as long as you don't exceed the suggested power level for the loads you won't have any problems.

I would assume (I haven't really checked) that a 629-3 would bring more money than a 629-2. And a 29-5 should bring more than a 29-4.

But there's also the question of the dreaded lock. Most people sh away from 629 and 29 models that have the built in gun lock. They consider it to be money spent on making a gun less likely to work. Others report not having any real issues with those guns with the locks but some do have issues. And it is just true that people pay more for models without the locks.

So we really need to know what dash number comes after the 29 or the 629. They could be no dash models too which were the first models built. But I'm guessing this is what accounts for the difference in price of the two guns you're looking at.

No, I clearly stated that both guns are new. That would be dash numbers 29-10 and 629-6 according to latest Wikipedia data. Since each model has it's own distinct dash history, there is no way to directly compare them. One can only say each has the latest update for the model.

I am one of the folks that are not bothered by the terrible lock. I don't use them, and I don't believe they lock all by themselves. I'm 69 years old, and never yet saw a lock do that.

What's that benchmade you've got there?

Dropped from production more than a decade ago.

Rant DPT

Google

...my first S&W was a 29-3...my first revolver was a Ruger Super Blackhawk...I still have both...and have inherited another Super Blackhawk...the only thing better than a 44 Magnum...is three 44 Magnums...I was a bit of a recoil junkie when I was younger...last time I shot them...it still didn't bother me...still enjoy that feeling of serious handgun power...

__________________
A Country Boy Can Survive

One more motivational blued 29 picture.

IMO if you are just shooting it cleaning then putting away they are basicly equals,
On the other hand if its going to see holster use and be exposed to the elements advantage to the SS gun as light damage to a SS guns finish can be removed with mild abrasives or polished to a mirror finish,
Blueing is just a finish on the metal that can scratch and wear off and once that happens it will never look right again unless you send it off for a reblue .

IMO the pre lock guns are the better investment with the 29-5/29-6 and 629-3/629-4 being the high water mark for their revisions,
That being said the 5" Classic / Classic DX and 4" Mountain Guns are my favorites,
For "True Classics" the 29-2 and older versions in 4" or 6.5" are the cats meow.
Now for a little 44 Mag porn

I'm still trying to make up my mind which....

__________________
Don't You Ever Wash That Thing

Ah, c'mon guys! You're gonna make me a poor man just looking at all those!

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

OP, it doesn't matter which you buy now. Most likely you will buy the other one sooner or later.

Have fun with whichever you choose first. Keep it clean and lightly lubed and it should last longer than you care to shoot it.

I'll turn 70 this year. I don't expect to wear it out.

Very poor logic jr. 44 SPL is a BIG BORE, I have several of both, but when you absolutely, positively NEED to punch big holes in STUFF, specially something with TEETH, go 44 or go home!

Great Thread by the Way! +1

Well stated, while I don't care for the lock,,,, well lets just leave it there.

On the other hand the 629 and 29 differ only in that one is stainless steel, and requires no finish other than surface prep, and the other is carbon steel, and requires bluing/case coloring to finish, and as such it is another 100 bucks.

Both attractive and very functional weapons, and yes I do like the endurance package, but I sold my 29-5 Classic DX, yes it was a REALLY STOOPID thing to do, but I thought I needed a 1991 Combat Commander, turns out I didn't?? its long gone too! LOL

Well??? cast steel is in no way stronger than forged steel, sorry, the Ruger has MORE cast steel, and is a larger weapon if we are discussing the Redhawk.

So the Rugers are very tough revolvers, the early Flat Top 44 I had was beautiful, accurate, and I should have NEVER sold it! I owned a stainless Super Blackhawk that kicked like a mule, and wouldn't hit the broad side of a barn with ANY load you put in it, yes its gone, and good riddance. My buddy whose a handloader was convinced he could find something it would like, he didn't, and he too sent it on down the road.LOL!

All of these weapons are very strong, and must be to contain the 44 magnum, the Smiths are lighter as their forgings are loving machined into "art", and they are beautiful, but you wouldn't use that as a hammer.

Forgings tend to be stronger than castings, as the steel is forged or "beat into shape", hence the Smiths are lighter and more elaborately machined. The beauty of casting is that you "pour" steel into a mold that is generally the shape you want and eliminate all of that very expensive machine work!

excellent post though, pointing out the differences through the years.

You actually SOLD your 29-5 DX? Ts ts ts ts...

Don't rule out the 3" 629 either. Can't believe I forgot to mention that....

well with the new info...i would not get either as i do not buy new guns ...i like the older ones as i feel they are better made and to me i like the fit and finish better as well...u can still find NIB older ones too...but buy what u like...i can tell u this...go for what u like...no matter what anyone else says...i have found that when i dont...i will enjoy them as we should...please keep us updated...God Bless,John

The Rugers are tough and heavy!

Take it from me, I'm an ex-Ruger man! They are boat anchors! ANNNND......i broke one (two actually) btw.

The 629 and 29s have much better triggers, light weight. Things you need, stuff you don't.

The Redhawks have one spring that handles sa/da hammer. The smiths have two. One for the hammer and one for the trigger so to speak. Much better when doin a trigger job.

A good trigger will get you on target.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Buck has a similar knife. I'd suggest, however, that you go to www.fallkniven.com and work the buttons there. Especially see Model S-1, the Forest Knife.


Prices are in Swedish kroner, so don't panic. US dealers sell the S-1 for probably $125-150 if you shop around Online. Few stores stock the brand, as the public won't pay that much for a knife. Most people spend a lot on movie or football tickets, but balk at buying a fine knife that'll last a lifetime.

How did you "break" two Ruger Redhawks? I think the oft-repeated phrase about Rugers being built like tanks leads some to overload them or to shoot them excessively with abusive ammo. Even a tank can be destroyed!


But it does take some effort to do that...


BTW, my GP-100 and SP-101 have very good trigger pulls, although the SP is quite heavy, supposedly to ensure igniting even very tough primers. I won't buy a new S&W. I will buy a new Ruger.

Texas☆:

Handloading. I broke a Redhawk 44 mag and a gp100 357. They handled hot loads better than a smith, but that's all I fed em. Redhawk shattered force cone and ruined frame. Did the same for the gp. Or so that's what the company said when they warrantied them!

Obligatory pics




629 and the Redhawk before it broke



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Drop either one in the river and you have to take them completely down to clean out the grit and water. I like the 629 (or the 69) as it easier to live with. I like the 44 mag because it wakes up all the Tupperware shooters at the range wondering "what the hell was that?"

__________________
Foster Positivity.

I'm certainly not an expert but I have read that cast steel is stronger. I won't argue that it's true because I don't know. I know that until Ruger invented their investment cast steel process it was clear that forged was stronger. This is an argument that has been made many times by people a lot smarter than me in such things though and I won't pretend I know the answers. I do know Ruger's handle hotter loads with only a slight increase in gun weight. Well I don't really "know" that but I've read it several times. But I own a S&W for a good reason. The trigger on mine is like butter in SA mode. It shoots accurate as heck too. I could have bought a Ruger for way less money than a Smith costs at one time but I didn't because I believe in S&W. They've never shown me any reason not to when it comes to their revolvers and now with their AR's.

I went to the range yesterday, and rented a Taurus .44 Magnum Tracker. I learned two things.

1. I can, indeed, handle a .44 Magnum. Even the meduim frame Taurus didn't really bother me.
2. I DON'T want a Taurus Tracker.

I went back to the gun shop today to decide between the 29 and 629. The salesman told me they got a Ruger Redhawk in since I was last there, and I might want to look at it.

I ended up choosing the Redhawk. However; the 29 is still on my future list. I'll get out to shoot it tomorrow or Friday.

[IMG][/IMG]

I've got a R.S.R.H.9-½ barrel,all stainless and acurate, i should have bought it a long time ago.

Congrats on your new Redhawk. They're built like a tank and I'm sure you'll get your money's worth out of it.

There's nothing like a .44 magnum revolver!

My first gun was a Ruger .44 magnum. While built like a tank, they have never been quite as beautiful as the legendary model 29, and it is legendary. No list of top historic firearms is complete without the 29. I found the Rugers never as accurate as a Smith, especially right out of the box, but that's just my personal experience. Everyone needs a Ruger that they can throw in the truck and beat the heck out of. Save your Smith for fun at the range and while your out with other shooters. They are the best attention getters. Everyone stops and stares at the 29 and everyone will bug you to let them shoot it. The 29 is just at a whole other level.

so that I cannot be accused of thread-drift, my answer after-the-fact is 629 Classic all the way. But I really wanted to say is .... while I only own one S&W revolver and no rugers, a couple of my friends only own ruger no smiths; meaning both them and I are likely unjustifiably partial to our preferred brand, but we do recognize the value in each other's firearms. While I personally find rivers to be cruder in both form & function, to MY hand & eye, one thing I have to say every time I handle a ruger, or just see one like yours in the above pic is - "man, those things ARE built to last." You here the metaphors all the time -"built like a tank" etc, etc... but damn, they really are. Just repeating the obvious I guess, but the first thing my eyes see on them is that top-strap. And that's not a bad thing. Not at all. It just kind of... shocks me.

My first 44 magnum was the Redhawk. 7.5" . It was a beast! I loved that gun. It weighed a fortune and cost a fortune to feed! So, I learned to make my own loads for it. Using mostly 2400 and 800X. 800X? Why? I used to make shot shells with it so I had lots laying around......and never learned my lesson! That beast would eat all of it! It was very forgiving! My learning curb was "fill the cases with powder and let's go!" Mentality, almost to the brim! The Ruger would eat em and ask for seconds. Then say, " I thought you were a bad ***!" Most the loads scared me. I remember the excitement! (Just remembered the 2400 were filled all the way almost......., 800X was that powder I wanted to conquer. Never did. )

****. My hair is grey now. I shoot 44s out of a 6" 629. Graduated to H110! (Yay!)

For me; I remember the powder mostly and how sometimes it'd be scarry to shoot. The Redhawks gave me a lot of insight I might have never really had. For example: never fire loads from a Ruger in a Smith! The pain was unreal. The smiths frames are lighter. Something I had to learn. But the triggers for me were alot easier to do on a smith. Getting the Redhawk, flipping it upside down, waiting for that hook? Nuh-uh! No way. And it's just one spring on a Redhawk! PITA.

I now make 44 specials with 800X. This is the powder that meters poorly. You use too little, there's unburnt little waffles in the cases when you eject. Use too much in magnums, And your wrist hurts! And you pick up a gallon of milk and go , (choose ur expletive here!) Still trying......

Magnums with 2400 and H110. All 240gr. All good!

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk