Gun Test magazine report on the 629...

[GF]

I received a subscription notice from a magazine I haven't kept up with in years, Gun Tests.
In the paperwork they state that, "We don't take guns from manufacturers. we go to the store. We get them out of the box just like you do."

In the Report Card section of the mailing, I came across this on the Model 629... " In this match up of 4'- barreled six-round 44 mag revolvers, the Ruger Redhawk KRH-444 was the most comfortable to shoot with a predictable and smooth double-action trigger. The S&W Model 629 160603 was plagued by a cylinder that unlocked after ignition leaving the chamber out of alignment. Because reliability must be beyond question in a self-defense handgun, for us, this S&W was not the answer."

There's a thread running on older magnum revolvers unlocking after firing, but the "enhancement package" started on (or about) the -3 designation was supposed to fixed the problem.

Do any of you that own the newer 629 have the problem that this article makes note of ?

GF

 

[Clean Break]

No, no reliability problems at all with my 629 from 2011.

What year was this review published? I remember when Consumer Reports tested three or four different short action mountain rifles a few years back. They had a Remington, a Ruger and a couple others. The Ruger was the most accurate. Awesome science in both cases! Kidding - anyone knows a sample size of just a few doesn't really prove much. C.B.

 

[M16]

Let's just say that I have more confidence in my 629's than in Gun Tests magazine.

 

[CWH44300]

I have -6's in 4" and 8 3/8" and have never had any trouble, in fact one 4" gun has over 7K rounds and is the most reliable and consistently accurate sixgun I have ever owned, and there has been more than a few of them

 

[M29since14]

The 629 I shoot most often is a -3 version that Hamilton Bowen has rebarrelled in the Mountain Gun style. It "moves around" a lot more than a normal 4-inch gun with the standard barrel profile. I don't shoot it a lot, but it has been trouble-free. I also shoot a -4 version with the Python type barrel. Again, trouble-free.

I suppose it is possible Gun Tests happened to pick up a recent 629 with problems. I'm sure it could happen. Is it wise to condemn a product based on one example? I suppose it is easy for a disgruntled consumer to do it, but I'm not so sure a magazine that makes a practice of it is doing anyone any great service. If they bought three and all three were funky, that would tell us a little more.

 

[Tom C]

My 629 is a -4 Mountain Gun. As a part of my checkout of a new gun (used gun in this case), I will usually replace the cylinder stop spring with the stiffer spring for the .500 X frame guns. I have never had a problem with the cylinder unlocking.

 

[Dpris]

My 629-3 Mountain Revolver has never produced a single problem whatever, with a variety of loads.

And GT is not entirely....factual about not taking guns from makers.
Back when they reviewed the Rohrbaugh, they got their test sample direct from the maker, just like I did.
Denis

 

[AveragEd]

I look upon publications that evaluate products, accept no or little advertising and claim to buy everything they test with a raised eyebrow. I write for Shotgun Sports Magazine and can tell you that without advertising revenue, our magazine could not exist. Subscription income alone isn't enough to cover the costs of publication and distribution.

I like to tell a story about Consumer Reports that says a lot about the products they "buy." In 1985, I was bored stiff on a rainy spring Sunday and ventured to a news center to buy something to read. I am a retired GM dealership service manager and when I saw the current edition of that magazine was their automotive issue, I bought it.

I read with interest their rankings and ratings of the cars available for sale in the U.S. Being a Corvette buff back then, I looked those ratings over closely and noticed that the 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 model years were all rated "average" for body rust. That brought three things to mind.

First, how can anyone know how much recently-made cars, especially the current model, are going to rust? My second point of wonderment was how a fiberglass body can rust at all. But the most important item was the fact that General Motors never built a 1983 Corvette! The 1982 model was built through the end of the 1982 calendar year and the redesigned 1984 model was released in February of 1983.

My letter to Consumer Reports challenging their purchase of a car that was never made went unanswered.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that a magazine can buy all the items it test, especially costly ones like cars, without the benefit of advertising income. It just doesn't compute. And Gun Tests doesn't give me the warm fuzzies either.

Ed

 

[Dpris]

GT also has an ad-based sister website that may make up some of the difference.
Denis

 

[Old cop]

I subscribe to Guntests and read w/interest AveragEd's post, some things I had wondered about myself. I did purchse a Springfield 1911 based on their review and would up selling it after much dissapointment. I now use Guntest's reviews as a point of reference before going by what they print.

 

[Dpris]

You SHOULD use any printed review as more of an introduction to the gun in question than any kind of absolute endorsement or condemnation.

A mag review can give you useful info, but shouldn't be the sole determinant of whether you buy or not.

No matter who writes it or where it's printed, a sample of one is a sample of one. That "one" may be better or worse than whatever you buy from your local dealer, just the way the world operates.
Denis

 

[thomasinaz]

I have 2 recent manufacture 629s. Both have performed with no problems. Both have smooth, but heavy, trigger pulls. My most recent Ruger (SP101) has a below average trigger pull quality; Heavy and gritty. No function problems though. I would rather go by my own experience than any magazine "test". I tested twice as many 629s as the magazine did.

 

[GF]

"I have 2 recent manufacture 629s. Both have performed with no problems."

Thanks, that's what I was looking for with my OP, as in : "Do any of you that own the newer 629 have the problem that this article makes note of ?"

The magazine was critical of the S&W and my question was forum member experience with the new magnum revolver.

I suppose we can assume they don't unlock when fired.

GF

 

[Magnumdood]

Big thumbs up for the 629

I carried a PC 629 on duty as a Deputy Sheriff for almost 5 years. The barrel was 4" and Magnaported, a trigger job had been performed and a wide serrated trigger and large serrate hammer-bob were installed at the PC. I purchased the 629 in 1983. I shot ~5K full power 240 grain loads over 5 years. I never experienced anything close to a mechanical problem. Like a knot-head I sold it to a friend. That was my first duty weapon and I've been trying to track the guy down for a year now to persuade him to sell it back to me.

 

[Newark Devil]

My 629-6 5" works and shoots dead nutz on.

 

[harvester1]

I have a 629-1 that I bought new and it has had zero problems and it has a fantastic trigger. Only about 2000 rounds so far of standard or below loads.

 

[Magnumdood]

5" barre;

My 629-6 5" works and shoots dead nutz on.

I really, really wish I had been more gun savvy when I ordered my 629 from the S&W PC. I would have gotten a 5" barrel with a full underlug. To me, that is just about as close to perfect for just about any of S&W's big bores as perfect gets. It would have made shooting it much more pleasant, yet the 1" added length to the barrel would not have hampered me in the least when it came time to "slap leather!"

Oh well...I lived...and I learned. I have to get a model 58 first so the 5" 629 may be a couple of years down the road...but I'll get one.

 

[AveragEd]

I have a 5" 629-4 Classic DX and can tell you that it feels great in the hand - not front-heavy like my 6.5" 629-4 Classic and not light up front like a shorter-barreled N-frame can.

Ed