Got a new job in anchorage and want a .44, moving from the southern us. I find I shoot shorter barrels faster and with equal accuracy out to 20 yards so I want to stick with a 4". Is the stainless needed if I plan to carry the pistol on hikes around town? No plans to go deep in the bush, but would like to go to some parks when the weather is appropriate.

So it's really a stainless vs blue question since price, weight, etc all seem about the same. I like the blued look more but am aware it's more prone to corrosion. Are there any other big differences or reasons I should go for or the other? Not interested in used guns.



Vs



Edit: I will preemptively say I plan to wear jingle bells and bring spray on hikes. Overall the gun is more of a want than a need because I'm a city dweller, but living there I feel I could justify it.

For a gun to be carried in a holster, if you care about its appearance long-term, the stainless 629 is the hands-down winner.

If you have gun OCD, either - choose the one you like the best. If not, the 629-6.

And with the stainless gun, be sure to check under those rubber grips every so often - moisture will get under them and pit the metal. Good luck in your new job and location, and let us know if you run into any bears - members here just can't stop writing about them .

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Another vote for the 629.

As much as I love the look of a nice blued finish, if I carry a revolver it's stainless (or blued with enough wear that a little more won't matter)

I'd go with a 629.
Anchorage can get pretty wet for extended periods during the mild season.
During the winter, lots of sand, salt, and crushed gravel gets put down on sidewalks. It gets all over. I wouldn't be surprised to find it in holsters.
There's a pretty good selection of sidearms just going into Walmart...Redhawks, 629s, S&W 500s, etc.
Last I recall, there were about 34 grizzlies living within the city limits, mostly in the parks. But, there are many more moose. They are common and often quite aggressive. They also often venture into residential areas. Even if you just walked occasionally, you'll definitely encounter them.

Enjoy Alaska. It's a beautiful place!
Jim

OOGA OOGA OOSHKA which means that I love you. (to my model 29)

Left to right:
My 29-3
In my Chic Gaylord Combat Speed holster
In My Myres 614 Tom Threepersons holster
In my Sparks 200AW (adjustable welt)
In my Viking cross draw

Click on a photo once or twice to enlarge

Attached Images

	SAM_1205.jpg (95.5 KB, 272 views)
	SAM_1040.jpg (98.9 KB, 244 views)
	SAM_1013.jpg (102.5 KB, 249 views)
	SAM_0598.jpg (131.7 KB, 235 views)
	SAM_1130.jpg (125.6 KB, 233 views)

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

The 629 will be far more resistant to corrosion.

The 69 will be easier to carry around town and in the bush.

If you care for your gun properly then either will do fine. Remember, stainless showed up in the 70’s and there are many blue survivors out there. But a stainless will be a better choice if the elements worry you. Of course a Glock 10mm is much the craze in Alaska...

If it's going to actually get used much AND you care about how unblemished looking it looks then go stainless. If it's life is going to be the occasional range trip, infrequent short hikes, you'll be very careful with it, and you'll maintain it meticulously, well then the blued is prettier. A blued gun can stand many years of hard use and function wonderfully but if it's had many years of hard use it will look it, unless you get it reblued. If you don't care if your workhorse looks like a workhorse it doesn't matter.

It sounds to me like you shouldn't rule out a model 69.

Get the 629,and pick up a set of original two piece pachmeyer grips without the medallions.The perfect feel for your hand , and won't be squishy like the one piece versions.

I would go with the one that you like the best . Blued guns have survivied cold climate for decades . Are they more prone to corrosion and showing signs of wear , yes . But with proper maintenance they will do just fine . Ballistol works great for that environment on blue guns . I just wouldn't buy something that I'm not happy with and only bought it because , based on certain facts it made the most sense . Someday you will pull out the blued gun , look at the wear and have a smile on your face . Pull out the SS one and you will just stare at it for a moment and then just put it back , I bet no sign of emotion / feelings about your time up there . Either will serve you well , Regards, Paul

If it's a gun you'll frequently carry, I would go with a Model 69. I've got a 4" 629 and a 2-3/4" 69 and I'd have no qualms about carrying the 69. I like it so much I've seriously been considering picking up the 4-1/4" version.

Bottom line though is get what you like, they'll all serve their purpose.

I’m with Cowboy4evr. If you buy a good, lined holster, keep it clean and dry inside, and don’t mind wiping your gun down after each use, I’d go with your preference - the Model 29. If you were boondocking for weeks at a time, that would/might be different. The use you anticipate does not seem unreasonable for a blued gun.

I spent most of the 80s stationed at Elmendorf AFB. I had a 4" M-29 for most of that time and it was a constant companion on hunting and camping and hiking trips. Never had a problem. The 629 gives you a bit more slack with bad weather but a blued gun will do. YMMV

Good luck with your new job. My wife and I just got back from Alaska. We spent two weeks in a rental SUV touring the state. Beautiful place. I dare say once you have settled in you will start to venture out and explore that fantastic state.

We did encounter all manner of wild life.... to include a very large black bear. Buy and carry the one you like. I would not hesitate to carry and use a blued gun in Alaska.

Make sure the bear attacks from down wind if you’re going to spray.

If you have your heart set on either 629 or 29, the Stainless makes a better choice for the woods. The model 69 deserves a look. It might surprise you given an opportunity.

Another vote for 629.
Get some rubber grips that fit your hand.
Get some serious ammo like Buffalo Bore and practice shooting it.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

For both durability and long term investment, how about a 629-3, -4 or -5 pre-IL Mountain Revolver/Gun.

Shoot hot .44 Specials and it should be everything you ever need...

Blue...nothing like a 29-2...if you are only going to have one spend the little extra and do it right...

Bob

Personally I'd go 329 due to the weight, unless you plan to do a lot of shooting. 25 oz vs. 42 oz. I thought I heard those are the preferred .44 Mags in Alaska (again due to weight). A gun you can carry all day without thinking about it.



If you're set on steel, don't overlook the Ruger Alaskans (44 oz.). I had the .45 Colt/.454 Casull for awhile. Great versatility. .45 light, .45 heavy, or full .454.

__________________
Watch & Pray

Model 29, because it will be easier to find if you drop it in the snow.;-)

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

While I agree that stainless is more weather resistant, I have never really liked stainless handguns. A blued revolver requires a bit more attention, but as it wears it gets character, and that IMO is what makes a firearm interesting.

I'm not saying "beat it up" or "let it rust", but an honestly worn pistol tells a story...

I lived in Alaska twice, 1969-75 and again 1987 - 95. When I first went up there I bought a ruger red hawk with 5-1/2” bbl. Got a decent shoulder holster for it. It was my carry gun for fishing and hunting trips. Only pulled it out once when a bear wanted to help me while I was fishing red salmon on the Russian river. He just took one salmon and wandered back into the brush, wasn’t very worried about me. I still have the red hawk.

I lived in Anchorage, hunted around, fished all over and hiked while doing all of the above. It rains a lot during the non-snow season. Buy and enjoy the stainless. You don't want your handgun carried under your rain coat. It is much too slow to draw if needed. It is easier to keep stainless nice looking and functional with all the foul weather. The advice given to carry one of the ultra lite 44 mags is wrong in this aspect. 44 Spec. is not enough caliber for Black Bears let alone Grizzly Bears. The 44 Mag. 'might' be enough if you are a very good shot while the adrenaline is sky high. One shot is not going to be enough to be absolutely sure to take care of the problem. The weight of the M 629 will help accurate placement of the subsequent shots after the first.

I faced down an adult male Griz while Moose hunting and I was carrying a Rem 700 in 300 Win Mag. I felt very much under gunned. Fortunately the Griz decided that he didn't want anything to do with me and left the area. I was fly fishing and had a young female Griz come to the bank of the stream and sit down to watch me fish. I was carrying a M 629 6" in a shoulder holster and a Rem. 870 loaded with slugs slung over my left shoulder. I didn't feel fearful by her presence because she was only interested in what I was doing and obviously did not feel threatened by my actions. She got bored after about 10 minutes and left the area.

Carry a small spray can of WD-40. After the hike, fishing or what ever is over unload the handgun and spray the heck out of the interior action. Then when home take the side plate off and clean out the WD. Even the stainless version uses non stainless internal parts. While fishing in waders I fell twice after a slip on slippery rocks and submerged me and both guns. The WD-40 treatment prevented any damage to both guns.

The advice to use two piece rubber grips is right on. Easily removed in the field. ..........

IMHO, the bear spray and the jingle bells on shoes are worthless. Stay armed and whistle a lot or talk a lot to yourself or partner.

I know what you are saying..... this is my EDC 19-4 no longer blue but a satisfying patina of grey

Attached Images

	IMG_0129 (2).jpg (51.6 KB, 162 views)
	IMG_0127 (2).jpg (49.2 KB, 152 views)

I lived in Alaska (Kenai Peninsula, Prince William Sound and Interior) for many years. Alaskans used to refer to handguns for this type of use as "get off me guns", and they are very important to have if you are unfortunate enough to be ambushed by a bear while you're hiking. Choices vary based on opinions, experience and finances. Phil Shoemaker killed a brownie with a S&W Model 59 in 9mm not so long ago, loaded with Buffalo Bore ammunition. I never had to use my 'get off me gun', but I always had it with me (and usually a 45-70 Browning 1886 carbine with heavy loads). I started with a 29-2 with 6 1/2" barrel, because that's what I had when I got to Alaska. I later went to another 29-2 but in 4", and at times a 29-5 in 5" length. Mostly though, I ended up carrying a Colt Delta Elite stainless 10mm I'd had some customizing done on, loaded with Double Tap 200 grain WFN hard cast slugs at 1300 fps. (Yes, I chrono'd them - close enough.) 10 rounds versus 6; lighter; quicker. Not in the way of a pack or rifle as much as the N frame. What ever you choose, carry it where you can get at it, and in a holster you won't lose it out of if the 4 year old brownie gets to you and is slapping you around for getting too close to the pile of two year old moose bones just off the trail it has claimed. BTW, you'll lose the rifle if the bear gets to you.

I was stationed at Elmendorf outside of Anchorage. Take in consideration the weather. It shows frequently, so you want to wipe it off frequently, with at least something of T-shirt quality. Every thing picks up moisture. Mine is a 629-1 3".

IDK. A well worn and weathered but reliable blued gun looks better than a shiny steel to me.

I opted for a 4" 629 and absolutely love it. Carry it all the time on our property, swampy cedar wetlands and deer hunting on the property. No fuss no muss no rust.

Hi,
Just to elaborate anecdotally on my earlier post (#6), there's a Walmart located between downtown and UAA campus. A salesman there told me that one of their most popular items was the Smith and Wesson Emergency Survival Kit, available in 44, 460, and 500 cal.
It's much more than a gimmick; very practical package.

Several previous posters have rightly emphasized the wet weather issues during the warmer months. People expect the cold, but honestly, there can be some form of harshness year round.

Really, it's a remarkable place.

Jim

They kept a 629 at the lodge we hunted from, for moose meat packing. The weather is always a factor there. So I'd say 629 with heavy cast SWC bullets.

__________________
No baby we aint

CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NEW JOB......

I WOULD SAY THAT YOU COULD EASILY JUSTIFY THE PURCHASE OF A 4" REVOLVER, IN .44 MAGNUM, TO ACCOMPANY YOU, IN YOUR NEW LIFE......

FOR THE FIRST 3 DECADES OR SO, OF MY 60+ YEARS OF SHOOTING, I OWNED , CARRIED, AND SHOT COLT DA REVOLVERS AND 1911s., EXCLUSIVELY. THE COLT PYTHON, AND THE S&W M29, WERE BOTH INTRODUCED INTO THE MARKET PLACE IN 1955......

IMHO, THE PYTHON WAS THE PINNACLE OF THE AMERICAN GUN INDUSTRY'S ART. THE COLT'S "ROYAL BLUE" FINISH, AND HAND FITTED PARTS ELEVATED THE PYTHON ABOVE ANYTHING THAT S&W PRODUCED.....

ALTHOUGH I REGULARLY CARRIED BEAUTIFUL PYTHONS INTO THE FIELD, IT WAS ALWAYS ACOMPANIED BY A GREAT DEAL OF APPREHENSION, AND CONSTERNATION ABOUT POSSIBLE DAMAGE CAUSED BY EXPOSURE TO HOSTILE ELEMENTS, AND THE OCCASIONAL HARD KNOCKS THAT ACCOMPANY RIGOROUS FIELD USE.....

WHEN I COULD NOT SATISFY MY YEARNING FOR A REVOLVER IN .44 MAGNUM, WITH THE OVERLY LARGE COLT ANACONDA, I BEGAN TO WARM TO THE IDEA OF A S&W REVOLVER. THE M629 HAD BEEN AVAILABLE SINCE THE LATE '70s, AND SEVERAL WERE ON THE RANGE REGULARLY, IN THE HANDS OF SHOOTERS THAT I RESPECTED. LIKE MOST OF US, WE ARE QUICK TO OFFER AN INQUISITIVE FELLOW SHOOTER, THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRY OUT OUR HARDWARE.....

THAT EXPERIENCE CAUSED ME TO JUMP SHIP TO STAINLESS STEEL S&W REVOLVERS. A TUNED S&W TRIGGER, IS FULLY THE EQUAL OF A PYTHON, AND THE STAINLESS STEEL IS WEATHER RESISTANT. THE BIGGEST BONUS IS THE REMOVAL OF ANY ANXIETY ABOUT FINISH DAMAGE. ANYTHING SHORT OF MAJOR GOUGES, CAN EASILY BE POLSHED OUT OF A STAINLESS STEEL REVOLVER.....


SO IF I WAS TO MOVE TO ALASKA, I WOULD NOT CONSIDER ANYTHING OTHER THAN A STAINLESS M629 ! ! !

__________________
'Nam 1968-69.DAV,VFW,NRA Inst.

"Stainless" means what it says, stainless (actually higher nickel content)not rust proof. Both will serve well if maintained the right way. In the end,
it's all up to personal tastes.
Steve

True that both will "serve well".

However there is no denying that for holster carry (the OP's intended use) the stainless will not show wear like a blued finish will. While the stainless will show holster wear in the form of slightly shinier "high spots" they will not be as glaringly obvious as the "high spot" holster wear around the muzzle and flutes of a blued gun.


It is also true that stainless isn't rust proof, but it is undeniably more moisture tolerant and rust resistant than a blued finish.

Lastly, as One Eye Joe and others have pointed out, minor blemishes can be easily corrected on a stainless finish - but not with a blued finish.

Another vote for the 629.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

And another vote for the 629. I have nothing against blued guns and admire them too, but I also see no sacrifice of aesthetics in a SS gun. With the right wood on them, they can be stunning. And as the saying goes “stainless is painless”.

__________________
Oui Chef!

My vote is for neither. Alaska has bears. Really, really big bears. And moose. Really, really big moose. My only two choices would be either a 460 (which is quite practical given the wide range of ammo loads it can handle) or a 500 (which wins the "big bullet, big energy" game). I only recommend these two because rocket launchers are not a viable option. While it has been proven you can kill a grizzly bear with a .22 rimfire, I would rather go big or go home. And while either of my choices weigh more than a 44, carrying a little extra weight is cheap insurance IMHO.

__________________
So many S&W's, so few funds!!

I suppose you could sling a bib bore carbine.

A 4 in. p&r 629 would be good.
Dick

I still like my idea of the M69,4.25"bbl. and put it in a Bianchi UM84R holster and walk all day.

Of course I have flirted with the idea of a .460 or .500. I had a chance to shoot a .460 x-frame and found it pretty fun, recoil downright pleasant compared to say my Model 340 scandium with .357 mag!

The issue is I want my wife to be able to shoot the thing and there is the ammo availability factor.....am I wrong in thinking that .44 magnum will be super common in stores in AK whereas .500/.460 could be hit or miss?

Then again, whenever ammo shortage hit, it seems that the "common" calibers are first to sell out....9mm, 5.56, .38 special, .308, .45 acp, etc

Another reason for the M69 is that is an L frame and is a little smaller than the 29/629 N frames.This,for me,is easier to grip and the recoil I find the same.I recommend hold one and shoot if possible and you will see what I mean.Just trying to be helpful.

From what I've gathered on Alaskan Handgun Outdoors it's become more and more popular up there.
Steve

My first choice would be Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in 454 Casull or 480 Ruger. My second choice would be the S&W 629 5" full lug barrel 44 mag.

I think the OP should get a S&W500. Alaska is one of the few places where the 500 is actually needed, not just wanted. You can't have too much gun against those browns (or moose, for that matter). You can carry them comfortably (but not concealed) in a chest holster. And I wouldn't get one shorter than 6".

Re ammo availability, yes, .44 magnum ammo is available darn near every where. Re finish choice, stainless is easier to maintain than blued, although I never had any trouble with any of my blued firearms rusting, because I cleaned them thoroughly, and as often as they needed it. August is generally the wettest/rainiest month; May is usually driest/sunniest. Periodically you'll need to remove the sideplate of your chosen piece and make sure the innards are free of rust or, as you head into winter, ice. Snow melt or rain can get into the workings of a revolver (or any firearm) and then freeze, so you'll want to keep it dry if possible and use a good quality lubricant which maintains its fluid state well below freezing. Most folks don't appreciate how cold it can get up there. Unless you've experienced it, it can help to think of the temperature this way - when you're out hiking on a clear winter day at 30 below, that is 62 degrees below the temp water freezes. (If you're a runner or cyclist, you'll need to learn how to protect important external parts of your anatomy from frost bite.) Alaskan gun shops are full of large caliber handguns and rifles; two shops in Anchorage I used to frequent were Great Northern Guns and Wild West Guns. Both had great folks behind the counter. Remember though, it's not the bore size or the foot-pounds that gets the job done, it's where you apply the power that's critical. Your target will be moving, light may be poor, and repeat hits are likely to be needed. The big boomers are powerful, but there are trade offs for that power, the biggest of which is recoil and hence a slower second and third shot, plus less pleasant shooting than is ideal, which too often leads to little or no practice with something you're betting your life on. When I carried my 29s, I generally had them stoked with 320grain LBTs over 22.0 grains of 296 (start 2 grains lower and watch for pressure signs & BTW, I'm not endorsing this load for you or anyone else, it's just what I used). Alaska is a wonderful place; enjoy!

The OP stated he wanted his wife to be able to shoot the gun.A heavy 460/500 or a long 29/629 will be a problem.A lighter/smaller revolver sounds like it would be a better choice.Just stay in 44 Mag.and it should stop anything??!!

I love the blue S&W 29, it's just a pretty revolver, but for your need and usage get the 629.