I’m wanting a 4” 629 for woods carry to ditch my 4.2” Ruger Redhawk, which feels like it weighs a ton. What is the recoil difference between a regular 4” 629 vs. 4” 629 mountain gun? Is there a noticeable difference? I’d like to dampen recoil for purposes of accuracy in the 1% chance I had to use it. I would be shooting regular 240 grain.
629 vs. 629 Mountain Gun recoil
- Thread starter Wfevans4
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
I think you would have to shoot both to tell the difference for you as it depends so much on your strength, how much you shoot the big magnums, and age! I know at my age they all kick like a mule and the 8 3/8 kicks about like the 3 inch!
Fatcat01
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2017
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 114
I have older models (629-1’s) of both models. The mountain gun is noticeably lighter and will recoil more than the regular 4” 629. If I’m carrying in the field I would take the mountain hands-down for the weight savings. The other question is if you believe the extra cost of that model is worth it.
Me thinks so
Me thinks so
Last edited:
Tinkertech
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2024
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 61
When that big old bear is bearing down on you, I guarantee you won't even notice the recoil or blast!
I've had both guns at different times over 20 years apart. I found that the recoil with full power factory ammo were extremely painful, but I'm not as tough as most people. I used to reload when I had the MG, I loaded the rounds to .44 special level and that was very pleasant to shoot.
BTW, the catalogs listed the 629 at 42.8 oz. and the MG at 39 oz. - 3.8 oz is not going to help much. Might as well get the MG and load it down to a hot special or cool magnum
BTW, the catalogs listed the 629 at 42.8 oz. and the MG at 39 oz. - 3.8 oz is not going to help much. Might as well get the MG and load it down to a hot special or cool magnum
Last edited:
Clint Eastwood's (as inspector Harry Callahan in Magnum Force) "light special load".I've had both guns at different times over 20 years apart. I found that the recoil with full power factory ammo were extremely painful, but I'm not as tough as most people. I used to reload when I had the MG, I loaded the rounds to .44 special level and that was very pleasant to shoot.
BTW, the catalogs listed the 629 at 42.8 oz. and the MG at 39 oz. - 3.8 oz is not going to help much. Might as well get the MG and load it down to a hot special or cool magnum
Shrek Of The Arctic
Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2019
- Messages
- 321
- Reaction score
- 1,042
I've spent a bit of time behind the trigger of each variant. I'm not a hyper-sensitive connoisseur in these matters, but I ain't no tough guy that wakes up and shoots a full box of .500 Linebaugh one handed before breakfast every day either.
In my perception, the Mountain Gun definitely has a bit more muzzle rise and a bit more "snap" to it. But...It's far from an insurmountable handicap, and I think the Mountain Gun really does achieve the perfect balance between carry and shootability. I've been in love with my 625-9 since the early 2000's
In my perception, the Mountain Gun definitely has a bit more muzzle rise and a bit more "snap" to it. But...It's far from an insurmountable handicap, and I think the Mountain Gun really does achieve the perfect balance between carry and shootability. I've been in love with my 625-9 since the early 2000's
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
Since you have a .44 Magnum already. My question would be is recoil an issue for you? If you manage recoil well, you will have the accuracy you need.
Do you need a 240 grain JHP or JSP at 1180 fps or a 240 grain LSWC at 950 fps? I would say the former in Alaska but the latter in the lower 48. I have more concern for the two-legged varmints than four legged beasts. Also you will have better accuracy with the bullet at 950 fps. JMHO
Clint Eastwood's (as inspector Harry Callahan in Magnum Force) "light special load".
That was a mistake in the script or how the line was delivered. It was supposed to be something like "special light magnum load."
If you look at the way the gun recoils, it certainly isn't firing .44 Specials, in fact it doesn't look like it is firing light magnum loads.
Frank Black
Member
What’s the recoil like now in your 4.2” Ruger?
…. Generally speaking, additional weight tends to dampen felt-recoil.But another consideration is the bore-height-above-grip ratio, referring to the distance between the two axis “lines” of the bore (horizontal) and where your hand is holding the grip when firing (roughly, the vertical).
Theoretically, the closer your grip is to the bore, the less felt-recoil should be imparted; the greater the distance, the more felt-recoil should be imparted.
So the Ruger vs. the S&W 629, which has the lower bore-grip ratio?
My M29 6" has more kick than most would like with full hot loads..
daveyc
Member
I honestly cannot tell the difference between the 2. there is only a few ounces of weight difference. I would get the lighter gun and not worry too much about it.
carelesslove
Member
Wfevans4, carelesslove, here !
You posed a good question ! I own and regularly shoot both a 4" M629-1 and a M629-2 Mountain Revolver.
In every way, the regular, old M629-1 is noticeably heavier - and even in 4", it seems comparatively muzzle heavy.
I shoot these revolvers at 3 distinct velocity levels: 800 fps (to mimic .44 Special), 1000 fps, (for higher, but sub-sonic performance), and near full-house level (cast lead & jacketed).
At ~800 fps, both revolvers are pussycats, with no appreciable difference. At 1000 fps, the difference is relatively minor and certainly not objectionable. It is very much like shooting a 4" N Frame .357.
At full-house levels, the nod must certainly go to the heavier revolver - and - to me, recoil & blast, is objectionable in both.
So, if you reload, and 1000 fps is adequate, the Mountain Gun / Revolver selection would be an excellent choice to shoot & carry.
If you are relegated to factory (max) loadings - go with the heavier revolver, knowing that you might never "get used" to the recoil & blast.
I hope this helps.
Tom "carelesslove" Love
You posed a good question ! I own and regularly shoot both a 4" M629-1 and a M629-2 Mountain Revolver.
In every way, the regular, old M629-1 is noticeably heavier - and even in 4", it seems comparatively muzzle heavy.
I shoot these revolvers at 3 distinct velocity levels: 800 fps (to mimic .44 Special), 1000 fps, (for higher, but sub-sonic performance), and near full-house level (cast lead & jacketed).
At ~800 fps, both revolvers are pussycats, with no appreciable difference. At 1000 fps, the difference is relatively minor and certainly not objectionable. It is very much like shooting a 4" N Frame .357.
At full-house levels, the nod must certainly go to the heavier revolver - and - to me, recoil & blast, is objectionable in both.
So, if you reload, and 1000 fps is adequate, the Mountain Gun / Revolver selection would be an excellent choice to shoot & carry.
If you are relegated to factory (max) loadings - go with the heavier revolver, knowing that you might never "get used" to the recoil & blast.
I hope this helps.
Tom "carelesslove" Love
I’ve never shot a Mountain gun. But unless you shoot one right after the other , I can’t imagine you’d notice the difference that 3oz would make.
Jon651
Member
I don't think the weight would be much different between the two, at least not enough of a difference for someone as ham-handed as me to be able to tell just from the recoil. In my mind, if using the exact same ammo the difference between how each pistol recoils would be more due to the ergonomics and "feel" of each in your hand. This is the reason why I shoot .44 Special out of my 629 Classic 5" and use round-butt grips on it even though I don't like the look as much as the more traditional flat-botttoms. Form follows function, and all that.
Before you buy an entirely new pistol, I would suggest trying a different ammo - as recommended here, something with a lower FPS or perhaps even a .44 Special and see if that improves things for you. A box or three of different loads and a trip to the range would be a lot less costly than buying an entirely new pistol and then finding out it didn't make any difference (although you would have a nice 629 in the end to show for it!).
My experience shooting a Mountain Gun and Model 69 really highlighted the bore-axis issue.
While the M69 was about the same difference in weight from the MG as the MG was from the standard 4-inch 629, it actually shot a bit ‘softer,´ likely due to the lower bore axis.
I’d carry whichever gun was easiest to lug around.
Brother, don't know if you reload or not, but Randy Garrett (Garrett Ammo) proved a long time a go that a heavy for caliber .44 bullet( 320 grain) at 1000 or so FPS will shoot completely through any bear alive. I have personally shot this same load completely through 2 16" 10% (real FBI certified) gel and several good sized hogs. . This load is not too hard on the gun or shooter and even my wife manages to shoot it very well through her Mountain Gun. We live in and fly the back country of Idaho and I have complete faith, this load will do what is ask of it.
Mannlicher
Member
I just don't shoot full out magnum loads in my Mountain Gun. From my experience, a good 240 grain hard cast LSWC at 1000 fps will handle anything I'll run up against in FL. I can handle that recoil just fine.
sparkyvega
Member
I found that the Hogue grips makes the recoil on my MG much more tolerable with full house magnum loads vs the Bear Hug grips.
Tinkertech
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2024
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 61
The worst recoil and blast from a revolver came one day at the outdoor range.
I had my 629 with full factory magnum loads and a 'nice guy' 4 benches down had a Ruger Super Blackhawk. I noticed it was a bit loud. ????
He walked over and offered me the ''opportunity' to try it out. He then loaded his extra 'special' hand loaded rounds, handed the gun to me and said that it might kick a little more than usual.
Well, the first round almost flipped the gun out of my hands, I then changed my grip and touched off another, then I had enough, so did the poor gun.
The cylinder refused to rotate, humm.........
The remaining rounds had all jumped their crimps locking the gun up and after we were able to remove the cylinder from the frame, I noticed all the spent rounds had their primers exceedingly flattened. We had to beat the spent casings out with a dowel.
Basically, I was holding on to a grenade.
He then mentioned that he had exceeded the recommended max load and just wanted to try it out, thanks a lot.
This was about 25 years ago, early 90's, before I acquired my 500 and I swear it was it was the worst blast and recoil I had ever encountered up till now. I really can't compare the two because of the time that had past, but it was really bad (he just laughed).
How that gun held together is a true mystery.
I had my 629 with full factory magnum loads and a 'nice guy' 4 benches down had a Ruger Super Blackhawk. I noticed it was a bit loud. ????
He walked over and offered me the ''opportunity' to try it out. He then loaded his extra 'special' hand loaded rounds, handed the gun to me and said that it might kick a little more than usual.
Well, the first round almost flipped the gun out of my hands, I then changed my grip and touched off another, then I had enough, so did the poor gun.
The cylinder refused to rotate, humm.........
The remaining rounds had all jumped their crimps locking the gun up and after we were able to remove the cylinder from the frame, I noticed all the spent rounds had their primers exceedingly flattened. We had to beat the spent casings out with a dowel.
Basically, I was holding on to a grenade.
He then mentioned that he had exceeded the recommended max load and just wanted to try it out, thanks a lot.
This was about 25 years ago, early 90's, before I acquired my 500 and I swear it was it was the worst blast and recoil I had ever encountered up till now. I really can't compare the two because of the time that had past, but it was really bad (he just laughed).
How that gun held together is a true mystery.
Last edited:
