Made up some hand-loads and found things tended to average about 7" at 50yds, which is a bit disappointing considering the reputation the 44 has for accuracy. The question is do I need to keep trying bullet/powder combinations and I'll find some magic, or is this specimen just not up to the task.
Throats range from .429-" to a pretty honest .431", might be .431+". Barrel is .417" to the lands and .434" at the grooves as nearly as I can measure.
I'm not crazy about the throat variation and the barrel seems oversized.

Bullets were 240SWC-PC and 240JHP Hornady. Powders were Unique and Green Dot. These were loads that had worked well in another 29.

You didn't tell us how you're shooting; offhand, resting on sandbags, Ransom rest, or? Frankly, if I could keep all of my 44s, or any of my others for that matter, in a seven inch circle at 50 yards I'd be REAL happy.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

I always got my best 44 groups with hotter powders. 2400,296. AA5 is just about my best powder for accuracy in every gun I`ve tried,be it 357 or 44

When it comes to velocity and accuracy, every firearm is a rule unto itself. To determine the accuracy potential of your Model 29-10, you really need to test quality factory ammo as well as reloaded ammo. Fire from a very stable position and although 50 yards is certainly a reasonable hunting range for the 44 Magnum, it might not be the best distance for accuracy testing and load development. I do my load development accuracy tests at 25 yards and from a seated position, the handgun stabilized by a rest.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

I don't recall factory ammo doing any better than my reloads, but fine to give it another go. While I appreciate the thought, I've found that many loads or firearms that hold up nicely at 25yds can open up considerably at 50. This was striking in a test I did between an original SIG P210 and a new one; both guns grouped well at 25 but the newer gun had double the group size as the older gun out at 50.

Seated and rested, for load testing I do try to take myself out of the equation. I've used several handguns that will handily keep ten in under 5", so 4.6"-10" depending on load isn't bringing me joy. I considered oversizing the throats out to .431" to uniform them and match my T.L. or even .432" in the hopes of improving things (at the cost of needing custom-cast bullets) but was just wondering if others have had experience with pretty large groove diameters still being accurate. If the lands upset enough metal into the grooves to get a good seal I guess it could be OK, but I worry about blowby as things are now.

If you really have a .434" grove and .429"-.431" throats, that could be a problem.

What is the most accurate gun you've shot? What is its average group for 10 shots at 50 yards, for 5 consecutive groups, same conditions as you've described?

__________________
Mark

If you recently purchased this as a new gun, you might want to call Smith and Wesson. Otherwise, as you note, you could have all throats cleaned up to be consistent at the size of the largest current dimension. After that, yes - try ~.431 flat base cast with powder you (and the 29-10) like... also some full power factory ammunition from a squeaky clean bore.

Anecdotally, years ago I found my short Super Blackhawk Ruger had a large ~.433 bore and was happy only with ~max book hand loads of 2400 & 210 grain Sierras; I am thinking only those bumped up enough to obturate?

If the current groups are vertically dispersed, could also be crimp, but not too likely with the powders you mentioned?

All best.

I've slugged 4 different 44s made between 1995 and 2019. They all are remarkably consistent at 430 throats and 429 grooves.
If what you reported are the true measurements I'd send it back to the factory, it's way out of spec.

__________________
To cannon, all men are equal

If you want to take the variable throats out of the equation you can mark a chamber you like and shoot the whole group out of that one chamber.

I have 2 , 29-10's , 4" and 6.5" barrels . Both had a tight spot where the barrel threads onto the frame . It sized down my bullets and accuracy suffered . I had to open up the cylinder throats to .431 and fire lap the barrels . It has taken almost 50 rounds of firelap bullets in each to solve the problem . The accuracy has definitely improved . This problem is common in many revolvers , other brands as well . Regards Paul

It's hardly fair to compare a stock 29 to say a custom 1911 or a SIG P210, but I can assure you I wouldn't be complaining if I wasn't used to 4" or better from other factory guns.

Very good suggestion! If I go with the largest chamber I can at least determine if uniforming them will tighten things up.
Looking back at the targets with this in mind, there are usually 6-7 in a decent group and then a few fliers. This would map pretty well to two tighter chambers loosening up the bullets fired from them, since I usually loaded five I'd have either one or two "bad" shots each reload...

Secondhand. I think I might have shot it some when I got it and then it sat for years before I decided to actually give it some real attention.
Some vertical stringing, but mostly an annoying tendency to flyers. As you point out, these aren't hot powders and hardly heavy loads so I'm inclined to doubt crimp. Given those fairly mild loads I'm also not prepared to blame the shooter, though I will admit the 4" gun does recoil a fair bit more than an 8" 29 does.
I'll try the trick one member suggested of shooting a group from just one chamber to see if that helps. Single-loading like that will of course also remove crimp from the equation, and that suits me fine at this stage since I'm wondering about the barrel.

No doubt that bullets sized to fit the throat/barrel are more accurate. I've got a model 25 with throats that measure .455 and the groove diameter of the barrel is .454. Until I started sizing my bullets to .454-.455, the accuracy was not good from that revolver. The fact that your throats vary so much in diameter makes me wonder if you'll ever get great accuracy from that pistol without reaming them all the same.

__________________
What could possibly go wrong?

Lots of good thoughts here. As well, if you're using factory iron sights, consider trying to find a merit suction cup variable aperture device for your shooting glasses.

Or simply poke a ~1/16" hole in an inch of black electrical tape and stick it on the appropriate spot on your shooting glasses. This dramatically increases depth of field and sharpens the sights on the target.

This is really tedious, but back when I shot IHMSA I would test my revolvers by shooting several groups from each chamber, on separate targets. I remember on the 617 I ended up using one of the chambers shot to a different POI than the others, about two inches off at 100 yards. I ended up making a little scratch by that chamber and just using the other five.

__________________
Mark

Funny, I read this and shuddered at an unnecessary scratch added to a gun, then I went to the range... I started with a wrap of masking tape around the cylinder with the throat sizes marked, it almost totally blew off the first round I fired. Luckily there was just enough left to tell which two were the .429"s, so I changed to small target repair circles. After a few shots one of those came off. They were adjacent so then I was left knowing three .431" cylinders and one .429". Got through the session like that.
The rifle range was busy so I was limited to 25 yards, but considering how poorly this is shooting that's nut much of a handicap. I've ordered larger bullets but for now all I had on-hand were some .430 lead I'd bought from Missouri Bullet.
Shooting from the one .429" I still knew did tighten things up by about 1" at 25yds. So, better a bullet that's swaged by an undersized throat in a loose bore than one that fits the bore better but undersized for the throat.
I'm sure I could do better by reaming all the throats uniform, but them I'm dependent on larger bullets. That's not too big a deal when I'm shooting lead, but when I want full-house loads I'd like to be able to use JHPs and I don't want those rattling around.
I could buy a new cylinder in the hopes of tighter throats but then I've still got a pretty loose barrel.
I might just sell the gun and shop for another with a set of pin gauges in my pocket. After all, most folks won't ever reload for it and couldn't shoot better than 5" with a laser at more than 15yards.

If you're using pin gauges for the throats, you'll get accurate measurements. The bore is a different story. The odd number of lands and grooves (5?) make it very difficult to get an accurate measurement. I am told by several gunsmiths that S & W M29 bores are remarkably consistent.
Before you do anything to the gun that you can't "un-do", think this through. Are you hunting with it at 50 yards or just shooting for enjoyment? Can you shoot any other revolver better at 50 yards? Are you basing your judgement on just these 2 loads? Do you normally shoot jacketed or lead bullets? There is a lot to consider before you over think this. Good luck and enjoy your revolver.

Pin gauges for throats, for the bore I slugged the bore with soft lead and then tightened a collet around it until it was just hard to turn, then used a pin gauge in that collet to get the groove diameter of the barrel.
I can always buy a new cylinder and time it, though the newer guns usually need very little timing. Since the cylinders are no longer numbered to the gun, I'd say reaming one can effectively be backed-out. It's just a 99% 29-10, not junk but also not an artifact.
As I've reported, I have solid expectations of better that are based on other firearms which do include what seem to be stock Smith revolvers.
I tried a pretty good variety of loads before really looking at the gun as the problem. I should have started with the gauges and saved myself a couple hundred round of ammo since there's no reason to expect a gun with .002" of throat variation to shoot well, but I always try to give the hardware the benefit of the doubt. The 29-2 I measured for reference had about .0003" of variation and all fit a .433-" gauge well.
As to enjoying it despite it's poor accuracy at 50 yards, it's not great at 25 either and my tolerance for anything full-sized that won't hold better than 3" at 25 yards with careful handloads is waning. Grudging exceptions are made for snubbies and other li'l guns.
Lead vs. jacketed... for practice close-in I'm all about lead. It's easy on the gun and the shooter. Outside of 50-yards or so I start wanting some velocity for a flatter trajectory and while shooters far better than I have used lead for that as well, for the best balance of accuracy and cleaning I much prefer jacketed, so I'd really like both.
Sure, I *could* shoot less accurate guns, but why would I when I have the technical, and financial or mechanical ability to do better? There is a book titled "Why Not the Best?", I think it's a question worth asking for ourselves and the nation. I happen to choose to start at 50 yards.

You can also use your pin gages to check for barrel constriction. That will kill groups every time and contribute to a lot of leading. Find the biggest pin that will slide down a very clean barrel and see if it comes out the forcing cone. If it does, all is good.

If not, get the next smaller one and try it. Keep going until one comes through. The amount of constriction is the difference between the first one and the one that comes out. The most I've seen is .003. Most are .002 or less. A .434 groove diameter is not encouraging in any case.

__________________
protocalldesign.com

It’s been a while since I shot the Redhawk in 44. But at 100 yds with the SBH with magnum loads I can pepper a 10” pie plate. Using 240/JHP. 2400. I can’t remember the group at 25 yds. I shoot only 25 yds and 100 yds.

Leadcast I only shot moly coated bullets.

__________________
Plant garlic in the fall

The Smith should easily stay inside 10" at 100 yd. It should shoot at least equally as good as the Ruger. It sounds like there is something wrong with the barrel and/or cylinder.

__________________
protocalldesign.com

I am not sure what S&W considers to be "acceptable" variances, but for what it's worth, I just bought a 29-10. 4 inch, last week, and took some measurements.

All six throats came in at .4295 with a pin gauge. Cyl. gap was .006 on each side, on all chambers. Excellent consistency, in my opinion. I did not measure the bore. I have not wrung it out yet, but was getting some nice 1 1/2 - 2 inch groups at 25 yards with irons, and only fair eyesight, from a solid rest.

My eyes are not great these days, but several other 29's / 629's with optics I own can keep them all on a paper dinner plate at 100 yards from a solid rest. If I miss a deer under 100 yards from a good rest, it's probably me.

If you honestly feel you are a solid 4 inch shooter at 50 yards, then I would send it back on their dime if you are not happy with it, and clearly state your issues. They may or may not make it right, but it's worth a try. And remember, accuracy isn't linear. Just because you may get one inch groups at 25 yards does not mean the gun, shooter, and load is guaranteed to do 2 inches at 50, 3 inches at 75, ect. Heck, I have owned rifles that shoot only "decent" 1 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards, then shoot the same 1 1/2 inch at 300 yards - making them much more interesting..

Larry

With 240 gr swc it’s unique powder.
With 200gr / 240 gr JHP it’s 2400 powder

With all loads it’s winchester LP primers

Could be your breathing? Take one deep breath let it out, take another deep breath let it halfway out hold and shoot.

How many rounds through the barrel?

I would open the side plate apply moly paste to the sear. Work the action 50 to 75 times. Bench rest it at 25 yds with reloads but check the length with a light crimp. Report to us.

__________________
Plant garlic in the fall

Really and truly, I appreciate the thoughts and effort guys and I'm not expert, but it IS NOT THE SHOOTER IN THIS CASE. As reported previously, same shooter, different gun = far better results, isolating chambers, same gun = better results. As pointed out, it's unreasonable to expect a gun with .002"+ of throat variation or ~.003" smaller throats than bore to shoot well. Also, I know we get many novices here , but yes, really and truly those are the dimensions.
Thanks very much to the folks who are trying to help but please do read the thread to see what's been done.

So, fair enough, nobody has asked about the trigger previously but in addition to the points about the dimensions of this gun being all over the place and doing better when shooting from just some chambers, I can add that the trigger is pretty decent. I don't have a scale but it's on the "better than average" side of factory triggers and single action breaks cleanly and without undue creep or effort.

I posted originally wondering how well others found their 29s to shoot and got a range of 7" at 25yds to easy 10" at 100yds being appropriate. Based on the reports I've read and the reputation of .44 spl/mag, it should at least outshoot my rather indifferent 3" Regulation Police in .32SWL that has both a worse trigger and far worse sights.
I'm convinced this weapon needs work ranging from a minimum of reaming the throats up to a new barrel and/or cylinder.

Teletech, totally agree as to your last sentence of your prior post. First of all, contact Smith and Wesson and run it by the mothership people. May turn out well.

If unsatisfactory answers from S & W, and you decide not to sell it and would be content mostly with cast bullets, ream the cylinder to uniformity. Then, look for forcing cone tightness as suggested and fire lap or lap by hand with mild abrasives. No suggestions here, as have not done that. There is or was an article online about fire lapping a Ruger flat top 44 Special with improved accuracy resulting. Probably other such resources online...

All best.

Why not hone the cylinder?

Example, with my 1972 mossberg 30-06 I ran USGI FMJ to remove and burrs in the rifling. After searching for accuracy and firing 700 rds and then reloading and benchresting she shoots nickel sized groups to this day.

__________________
Plant garlic in the fall

For a point of reference, my 629 Classic DX with 8-3/8 barrel will shoot around 3"-4" at 100 yd., 4"-5" at 150 yd. and 5-6" at 200 yd. That is with me holding it off a rest. In a Ransom Rest it would probably do better.
Any time you have everything to the correct mechanical specs, a revolver is a tack driver. In a Ransom Rest, one of my 686s will shoot 3/8" at 25 yards and 1-1/4" at 50 yards. I can't do that holding it, but the gun and ammo does.

__________________
protocalldesign.com

Very odd to have such variation in the throats. I can't recall having over 0.001" variation in any one revolver once any cylinder face "burrs" (very localized constriction) have been removed.

Indeed better to have oversized throat than undersized in relation to the groove dimensions, especially with cast bullets. Jacketed bullets don't mind a bit of clearance in the throat, but it's very bad for cast or swaged.

Regarding accuracy with cast/swaged bullets at 50 yds+: Find a slower powder that won't "flame cut" the lower sides of your bullets and make sure the powder isn't position sensitive if it doesn't fill the case. Velocity variations show up hugely on (or below) target at 100yds plus!

FYI: my powders of choice for long range (up to 200m) have been either IMR4198 or RL7 when shooting swaged bullets for quite a few years now.

2400 does well with coated cast bullets when more power is desired.

All this applies to both old .44s with 0.432-0.433" throats and newer variants with 0.429-0.430" throats. Adjust your cast bullets to suit. With swaged, I just run 'em big.

You need 3 more things .
1: The groove diameter of the barrel
2: Is there a " tight spot " where the barrel threads onto the frame .
3: Reread post 22
I have 2 29-10's , 4" and 6.5" . They both needed the cylinder throats reamed out to .431 and the barrels fire lapped to remove the " choke " .
Today they are real tack drivers and NO leading ! ! I size my bullets .431. Sizing you bullets just to your cylinder throats is simply not enough . More work needs to be done . Good luck , Regards Paul

The groove diameter is reported in the original post, referenced in several followups, and yes, is far too large for best performance. Yes, I'm expecting there is a very good chance I need a barrel. Also reported in the original post is the land diameter and while I did not specifically state there was no apparent constriction, having measured land diameter as one of the first checks there was no constriction to report.

I have both a replacement cylinder and reamer on order at this point. If reaming the cylinder and some oversize projectiles don't sort things out, then a replacement cylinder might, failing that it's barrel time as well. Since I don't have to send the weapon out for service it means I see no compelling reason to do the barrel without being sure it won't provide sufficient accuracy despite it's large groove diameter, well apart from the expenditure of ammunition I suppose but I choose to accept that risk as being fair considering the cost and difficulty finding a good replacement barrel.

I would re measure the groove diameter again . That sounds awful large for a newer revolver . That means the lands are very deep , again not a usual condition . Smiths , being a 5 groove barrel it is hard to get an accurate reading . If the lands diameter ( bore diameter ) is .417 , then I would tend to think the groove diameter is .429-.430 . So yes , I would definitely check that measurement again . Have a gun smith measure it for you , for confirmation of your takes . Good Luck regards Paul