What ammo is safe in my 629-1

davidmccu · Jan 13, 2013

Could you please direct me to a thread on whether all factory 44 Rem. Mag. loads are safe to use in my Model 629-1. I have no luck searching forums. I have heard anecdotal talk that the earlier 29's were not built as heavy as the later dash models and it has me a little concerned.

Thanks,

Marshall 357 · Jan 13, 2013

I have a 29-2 and 29-3, I shoot reloads that are Mild Magnums mostly 240gr Gold Dot Soft Point with 9 or 9.2 grs of Unique, out of a 8 3/8'' BBL they are very easy to shoot for Personal Protection I use Gold Dot44 Specials that are Factory loads . Shooting should be fun and since I dont hunt I see no point in beating up my guns or hands with Full Power Magnums, If you can stand shooting a steady diet of full power magnums get a Ruger Super Red Hawk, and save the 29 from the abuse,just my thoughts .

kwselke · Jan 13, 2013

davidmccu said:
Could you please direct me to a thread on whether all factory 44 Rem. Mag. loads are safe to use in my Model 629-1. I have no luck searching forums. I have heard anecdotal talk that the earlier 29's were not built as heavy as the later dash models and it has me a little concerned.

Thanks,

I would say that any commercial factory load is safe to use. The higher powered loadings may cause premature wear on a 629-1. The 629-2E, the 629-3, and later models were re-engineered with a few components strengthened to resolve the issues the earlier models had.

Your personal safety would not be of concern, the longevity of your fine old revolver is the issue. Even at that, it is my understanding that a competent gunsmith can correct the issues if they arise.

I recommend you stay away from 300+ grain specialty hunting loads and limit your use of hot 240 grain loads to times when you really need to use them. If you do a search on "endurance package" you should find many threads addressing this issue.

RGMoore · Jan 13, 2013

You have to remember that when Smith designed the 29 originally they didn't think people would feed them a steady diet of full power 44Mag in quantity. Then along came IHMSA and folks were shooting hundreds of rounds a week and some revolvers began to fail. A friend of mine had one of these and after he shot the second one to the point of needing repair Smith sent him a new revolver (I think it was a -2?) and 5 cases of ammo and told him to see if he could shoot it to pieces. He never had anymore problems.
I agree with the previous post. Unless you have a good reason, stay with the lighter loads.
That being said a box of the heavy stuff now and then is probably not going to cause a problem but why take the chance of extra wear on a classic. It would be like taking a cherry 57 Chevy to the drags and flogging it.

davidmccu · Jan 19, 2013

Thanks folks for the answers. Appreciate your wisdom. I will stay a little on the light side I think and stay away from the full boat loads for most shooting.

CPTLCN · Jan 20, 2013

I just measured my 629-1 cylinder at just a tad over 1.7" that precludes some loads for me. It would be interesting to hear what newer ones measure. It seems we are on this relentless quest to load the **** out of everything. I'm going to load mine moderately and enjoy it, probably I'll mostly shoot 44 special out of it. The other day I read a article where someone described the 44 as "weak" HA! 20 years from now we'll all be shooting 300 Remington Ultra Mags at deer and calling the 500 S&W marginal...I think I'll just practice.

CWH44300 · Jan 20, 2013

Full power loads will accelerate the wear of any magnum revolver, some of the best revolver smiths in the world (Hamilton Bowen) encourage the use of midrange loads for high volume practice and to use "full power" ammo when its needed, I'm a big fan of the classic midrange load of a 250k and enough unique to reach 950-1000 fps
For a factory load try something from Buffalo bore or a regular special load, take care of your -1 and treat it right and it will last a long time.

DR505 · Jan 20, 2013

My practice loads in my 29/629 revolvers are 215 grain SWC with enough Unique to push them to ~975 fps. Mild, accurate, and no leading. My business load is a 270 grain Speer JSP pushed to near max with H-110, chrono'ed at about 1,200 fps. That is for bear, hogs, elk, etc. I don't shoot many of those per year.

kwselke · Jan 20, 2013

CPTLCN said:
I just measured my 629-1 cylinder at just a tad over 1.7" that precludes some loads for me. It would be interesting to hear what newer ones measure. It seems we are on this relentless quest to load the **** out of everything. I'm going to load mine moderately and enjoy it, probably I'll mostly shoot 44 special out of it. The other day I read a article where someone described the 44 as "weak" HA! 20 years from now we'll all be shooting 300 Remington Ultra Mags at deer and calling the 500 S&W marginal...I think I'll just practice.

The issues of the 629-1 and dash 2s is one of cylinder lockup not cylinder length. Fire a round and under recoil the cylinder backs up one chamber. Fire the next round and the firing pin falls on the just fired round. The 629-3 modifications greatly strengthened the lockup and resolved the complaints. Any gun can be shot loose if it is pushed beyond its design limits long enough.

CPTLCN · Jan 21, 2013

kwselke, good info. Just read a Patrick Sweeney article which basically said keep the loads for your S&W at 240gr and 1200 fps and below. He did mention the newer Smith's are stronger. Looking at some load data and some of the heavy hitters OAL is beyond my cylinder length. That is what I meant by my statements. I would be curious to know what current 629 cylinders measure...anyone? New to revolvers but if the round is longer than the cylinder that sort of presents a problem...

shawn mccarver · Jan 21, 2013

davidmccu said:
Could you please direct me to a thread on whether all factory 44 Rem. Mag. loads are safe to use in my Model 629-1. I have no luck searching forums. I have heard anecdotal talk that the earlier 29's were not built as heavy as the later dash models and it has me a little concerned.

Thanks,

Personally, I always tell people to stay with 240 grain loads, although the heavier bullet 44 Magnum loads are safe, they accelerate the wear in the older guns before the "endurance package."

kwselke · Jan 21, 2013

CPTLCN said:
kwselke, good info. Just read a Patrick Sweeney article which basically said keep the loads for your S&W at 240gr and 1200 fps and below. He did mention the newer Smith's are stronger. Looking at some load data and some of the heavy hitters OAL is beyond my cylinder length. That is what I meant by my statements. I would be curious to know what current 629 cylinders measure...anyone? New to revolvers but if the round is longer than the cylinder that sort of presents a problem...

CPTLCN,

I broke down and opened my gun safe and pulled the micrometer from reloading bench.

My 629-3's cylinder measures 1.705". In comparison my Ruger Super Redhawk's cylinder measures 1.755". Both guns date to 1990 - 1991.

My standard load for either revolver is a 240 gr. JHP bullet powered by 23.5 gr. of W-296. This load should yield between 1,250 to 1,350 FPS. I feel comfortable firing that load out of either weapon. I have experimented with 300 grain JHP loads, but never increased the COAL beyond what would fit in the 629 and would fire the loads from either revolver. The Super Redhawk was always used for the first test.

After a couple of years experimenting with the .44's I bought a Freedom Arms .454 Casual. My feeling was why push my .44's to grizzly bear power when I have the much stronger gun available.

What ammo is safe in my 629-1

davidmccu

Member

Marshall 357

Member

kwselke

Member

RGMoore

Member

davidmccu

Member

CPTLCN

Member

CWH44300

Member

DR505

US Veteran

kwselke

Member

CPTLCN

Member

shawn mccarver

kwselke

Member

Attachments

Similar threads

Latest posts