Model 29 changes (29-1, 29-2, etc) when was cylinder recoil problem fixed?

1

1972

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
40
Reaction score
1
I have a chance to purchase an older S&W Model 29 with a 4" barrel. I'm not sure which version it is (29-1, 29-2, 29-3, etc). I'm not even sure what the difference is in these designations.

Can anybody tell me when S&W corrected the initial "problem" the earlier Model 29's had wherein they would sometimes rotate the cylinder backwards under recoil thus causing the hammer to drop on an already fired round the next time the trigger was pulled?

I believe they made changes to the Model 29 to correct this problem, but I don't know WHEN that was done or how you tell if any given revolver predates the change.

Was it the 29-2 that was "fixed"? Or the 29-3? Or what?

Anybody know where I can get this information? It must be listed somewhere what all the different codes mean and what changes they signify were made.

Thanks
 
Register to hide this ad
The 29-3E (Endurance package) was introduced in 1987 to address
problems from from heavy use. I don't know about the specific problem
you mention. The 29-4 (1988) incorporated the E package.

Joe
 
Welcome to the forum

To answer you main question, starting with the 29-3E through the -4 and -5, the factory introduced several enhancements that beefed the gun up. These included bigger cylinder stops and the matching slots on the cylinder, among other things that made the guts stronger.
The other changes (or dashes) came along to change something or to eliminate something. Basically, the -1 changed the ejector threads to left hand to help keep the ejector from backing out during use and binding the cylinder. It also eliminated the screw in front of the trigger guard. The -2 was pretty much the same. The -3 eliminated the pinned barrel and recessed chambers.

Personally, I have never had a 29 cylinder back up on me, and I have shot some major hot loads.
 
1972 said:
Anybody know where I can get this information? It must be listed somewhere what all the different codes mean and what changes they signify were made.
Click to expand...

Get a copy of the Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, Third Edition. It will answer a lot of questions.

In my view, based on my own experience, the problem you are speaking of was not fully addressed until the 29-5 revolvers came along. If I were looking for a S&W 44 to actually use, that would be my choice, based on my experience - which is, naturally, limited.
 
Last edited:
Unlike my good friend 29aholic, I have had some of those problem when I owned my 29-3. I agree with M29since14, get a dash 5 if you want to shoot full power ammo regularly, or a late production -4.

Upgrades were basically-

29-3E - hardened the yoke, and lengthened the bearing pads on the yoke tube.

29-4 - above features plus new style yoke retention screw, and radiused stud package.

29-5 - completion of endurance package upgrades/enhancements, which include all of the above, plus the longer stop notches and slightly long cylinder stop, and the internal bolt block that eliminated the trigger kickback sensation.

PM SENT
 
Last edited:
1972, to further confuse things, my comments were not intended to apply to using 44 Magnum ammunition in the older guns (in proper repair) with standard bullet weights - 240-250 grains. Full-power ammunition of that type never caused trouble for me in my 29s and 29-2s. I did not experience the problem you mention until I started experimenting with ammunition that used considerably heavier bullets.

Even in a more modern 29, I would not want to make it a practice to use heavier bullets (300-grs and up), seated long, with the big charges of H-110 and Win 296 that may be "safe" (in terms of chamber pressure) but are just too hard on what is otherwise a fine piece of equipment to make it a sensible practice.

The S&W 44 Magnum is what it is. Rather than hot-rodding it beyond that, why not just select a bigger stick? JMHO. This is just intended to clarify, not start a philosophical struggle. :)
 
Thanks gentlemen. I appreciate all the advice and help. I'm looking at two revolvers actually. One is a new 629 so obviously none of this will apply to it. All the changes that have been made are already incorporated so it should be good to go. I'm trying to decide between regular factory run production model, or PC on that one.

The other one I was wondering about is a Model 29-2 with a 4" barrel that I have a chance to pick up. The owner wants $500 for it. I'm told it has little use and has never fired "hot" loads. I have not seen it because he lives in a different part of the province, so this would be a "buy unseen and hope for the best" proposition.

I would certainly never run hot loads through it, probably just run 44 Spl loads. Just not sure what shape it's in now.
 
I'd ask the seller of the 29-2 for a 3 day inspection (if that's possible up there). I am not sure what the current exchange rate is, but in the past $500 Can. would have been roughly $750 here, so that price would be in line with what we pay here, but that may be a different story now.

I don't know if I'd bother with the performance center gun if all you are going to fire are light loads, since the -2 will handle them all day long, but on the other hand the newer guns made since 1989 have a lifetime warranty, so if anything ever went sour with it, you're covered, including shipping it back. too it is a SS gun and that can be quite handy up there with some of the weather you guys get.;)

Then too, the -2 is shorter and lighter, and handier, so.................:confused:
 
Has anybody here experienced the "cylinder float" problem, as S&W calls it, on early .44 magnums with the screw in front of the trigger guard. The reason I ask is that back in the day, I did not.

Bruce
 
Bruce,
I've put full power loads through my 4 screw 29 and not had any trouble like that. I never had the "float" on my 29-3 either, but I regularly got double firing pin indentations and the trigger kick back sensation from anything above about 3/4 throttle to full power ammo in the -3. Nothing like that yet with the old 4 screw, and since it is a shooter grade gun-I shoot it. From mild to top end loads.
 
Bruce, in a word, yes - but only with 300-grain cast LSWCs and big charges of 296. The bullet was the H&G #328. I think it actually weighs right around 310-gr.

I have never had any problems with 240-250 gr loads in any S&W 44 Magnum, including 5- and 4-screw guns. Back in those days, I was using Nr. 2400 almost exclusively with bullets of that weight.

Shortly after determining the 300-gr bullets were not good for the S&Ws, I acquired a Redhawk with the idea of using it with heavy-bullet loads. It didn't take long for me to determine the Redhawk did not fit my hand (so to speak :) ), the gun was sold, and all interest in the really heavy bullet loads in 44 Magnum was set aside. I never went back to them to test in the more recent models since I did not want to have several different types of full-charge 44 Magnum loads sitting around, some of which could not be used in my earlier guns.
 
Two things... 500 bucks for a 4" 29-2 would be a screaming deal here... that's about 490.00 USD

And the 629 had the same modifications made at the -2e, and -3 versions.

With normal full-power loads, and definitely for what you're planning, they're all fine. Elme Keith's guns didn't have an "Endurance Package" either, if that tells you anything.
 
No disrepect intended M29since14-

but.... the 300 grain bullet issue was/is a myth with any load that is within SAAMI specs. Equal pressure is equal pressure, regardless of which bullet it is moving, 240 or 300. Recoil impules are approximately the same, since the lighter bullet moves out faster than the heavier bullet. Such would not be true if the heavy bullet moved out at the same speed as the lighter one. Forces applied to the gun would then be greater and cause more wear, and more rapidly.


As I have posted many times on this forum, the 300grain bullet issue came about when guys started using higher than SAAMI spec pressure loads with them to gain velocity and flatten trajectory on the silhouette range. Word spread, and it became gospel that 300grain bulets were bad for a Smith.

I have used a ton of them in mine and not had any troubles what so ever, but I stay within SAAMI specs in my S&W's.

There is no limit with my Redhawk. At least not with currently available, and appropriate powders for the heavy bullets.
 
I do not know if the "myth" has been debunked or not. I do know that there are ways of calculating free recoil and chamber pressure seems to have nothing to do with it.

:)

Bruce
 
I'm not a ballistician or mathmatician, but pressure most definately plays a role in recoil. Something to do with "for every action......"

How hard a bullet slams into the forcing cone, how much resistance there is to movement due to bullet weight all play a role in recoil and wear. There was a long thread over on TFL about this about a year and a half ago. Lots of math formulas, etc. All interesting but it got too complicated for the average member and they finally shut it down.

Like I said, the "myth" came about from the long range gunners using the heavier than standard loads. Stick with SAAMI specs, and you won't hurt your old 29's anymore than you will with full power 240's.

The original 44 Magnum was designed for occassional use with full power loads. No one dreamed that someday guys would be firing hundreds of rounds weekly with them. They figured that a few rounds would be fired with them maybe yearly, and the rest would be .44 specials or light handloads. It was, afterall, built on a 100 year old frame design. Point being, that even the 240's are hard on them when fired at full throttle on a regular basis, but no more, no less than the 300's.
 
The calculation of recoil involves the weight of the projectile and powder, the velocity of the bullet, and the weight of the firearm. The pressure is not involved in the calculation but is reflected in the velocity of the bullet.

A calculator can be found at:

Recoil Calculator
 
rck281 said:
The pressure is not involved in the calculation but is reflected in the velocity of the bullet.

A calculator can be found at:

Recoil Calculator
Click to expand...

That's my point. Recoil with a higher velocity bullet will be faster than with a slow bullet, and that speed translates into a more sudden jar on the small parts in a Smith, which in turn batters them more than would happen with a slower projectile. However, the pressure has to work "harder" for lack of a better term to move a heavier bullet, so it's a pretty close wash.

When guys started upping the pressure with the 300 grainer's to gain velocity, the gain in velocity coupled with the pressure having to work "harder" to move the bullet, started battering guns even more.
 
It seems that too many people equate recoil with wear, but it's only part of the story. Pressure most definately plays a role in wear. You can spin it anyway you want, but pressure works equally in all directions. Against the cylinder walls, the frame at the barrel shank, the top strap, etc. It causes metal fatigue over time, and can cause frame stretch which allows the small parts to move more and wear faster. Going higher than standard SAAMI spec pressure accelerates that wear.

The point is- 300's at SAAMI spec won't wear the gun anymore than 240's do.
Pressure wears on a gun, and is the main reason that SAAMI lowered its spec from the original 43,500 CUP to the current 36,000 PSI.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Ruger Redhawk replacing S&W 25-5 (.45s and family)
2 3
Replies
49
Views
3K
Mike SC Hunter
M
ddeanjohnson
For Sale WTS: 16 guns -- all offers respectfully considered -- collection liquidation
2
Replies
35
Views
21K
Heinz
Heinz
RM Vivas
NYPD Model 64-1: 4-inch SB, 4-inch RB, 3-inch RB and 2-inch RB
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
usmcsgt
usmcsgt
ddeanjohnson
  • Locked
WITHDRAWN -- Collection reduction: 40 guns (15 S&W + Colts, etc.)
2
Replies
26
Views
11K
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson
SixgunFife
  • Locked
WTS: S&W .357 Magnum “Pre-Model 27” with 3-1/2” Barrel $1700.00
Replies
4
Views
3K
flundertaker
flundertaker

Latest posts

Back
Top