I am eyeing the Performance Center 629 Hunter 44 Magnum.



I would use it for IHMSA Silhouette shooting, meaning long distance shots with very high accuracy requirement.

What are the odds that I get a mechanically accurate gun? That will consistently shoot 3" groups at 50 yards from a stable rest.

I already have Freedom Arms revolvers where the accuracy is a given but I would really like to have an accurate Smith & Wesson, too. There are accurate S&Ws, of course, but unfortunately there are not so accurate specimens, too. So I am interested in the odds of getting a tack driver if I were to buy this Performance Center revolver.

As an owner of about a dozen S&Ws I have mixed experiences.

One new N frame came with a barrel that is at an angle to the cylinder bores - S&W promised to fix it but I cannot get an overseas shipment arranged so a local gunsmith will attempt to straighten the barrel hole in the frame to make the gun accurate.

A Performance Center 945 45 ACP pistol has a very rough surface in the chamber, it is a mystery how that got past quality control - the same thing, warranty fix promised but no way to deliver the gun so it will be a job for a local gunsmith to smooth the chamber. The accuracy of this pistol is disappointing, too, for an expensive Performance Center gun, it shoots like an average 1911 clone.

All the rest of my S&Ws are excellent guns and accuracy cannot be critized, even the 5906 and 4506 are tack drivers even though they are service pistols!

So please, let me hear your experiences with the accuracy of Performance Center 629 44 Magnums so I can get some estimate of the consistency of their quality. Are they built for show or for demanding shooters?

I will be heart broken if I order the gun, wait half a year, pay more than $2000 dollars, go through the permit process and then end up with an expensive average shooting paper weight. (The high price is caused by US export permits, overseas delivery, customs and value added tax charges etc.)

I own a 629-6 & 7 both with 7 1/2" barrels and very pleased with both. No quality control issues with either gun. I know they're both more accurate than I am. As far as any difference better or worse than a current standard production 629 I couldn't say.
Where in the world do you live that costs so much to import a gun but where you can still shoot steel critters?

__________________
Don't You Ever Wash That Thing

I think that maybe a used 629 DX might be your best option. Factory test fired and target sent along with the revolver, so find one that still retains that bit of paper!

Otherwise, I've found the current production standard 629s just as accurate as my various PCs (and DXs). Currently running swaged bullets for Field Pistol, Field Pistol Any Sight, production BB revolver, and US. And no PCs currently being used for competition, just hunting! Just "standard issue" S&Ws. Partly because most of my PCs are ported, which doesn't jibe with IHMSA rules. (Not that it matters for our local competitions.) Also partly because one 8 3/8" 629-6 with MIM hammer/trigger has a better pull than most any forged unit! Which is also why the DXs don't get more use. But I shoot mostly Standing categories. Freestyle isn't quite so demanding as regards triggers.

Unfortunately, my method of trying lots of various revolvers to find the best one for the purpose in mind and then moving along those that don't quite measure up is not viable for your purposes. Or maybe not. Can be an expensive way of addressing the issue! Note that I also almost always buy locally so I can get an eyeball on the product before buying, except for one 629-6....Which just happens to be the one getting the most rounds downrange at steel critters....

BTW, I have yet to warm up to the 6" PC 629 Competitor. Mechanically accurate enough, but kinda short for iron sight work at distance and the three slots for optics use are dated. Too restrictive as regards ring selection! Why S&W didn't incorporate the 1913 rail geometry as used on the 686 Competitor is beyond me! However one is still on hand, so haven't given up on it, yet.

ETA: Have been eyeballing the exact PC model you have been contemplating for IHMSA duty as well, but have been distracted by other shinies, so can not comment on range results, but the ones examined in store have displayed non of the usual bugaboos detectable by eye.

I would expect my 629 PC Hunter Plus 6.5" to easily meet/beat that 3" @ 50 standard. I managed to trip over a Hunter Plus and Birdsong Stealth Hunter at the same time, got both and shot side by side to determine the keeper. They both shot less than 2" at 50 with various factory ammo. Best bud peeled the Stealth Hunter off me, I still regret selling.

I seriously doubt there would be any difference in accuracy between a regular, every-day 629, vs a PC 629. Possibly you would be able to shoot it more accurately, due to hopefully a better trigger pull/break.

Encouraging in that no lemons reported so far.

Interesting if the Performance Center work would affect only the trigger pull and external features but not tolerances of cylinder and barrel boring and installation.

It's only my personal opinion, from my personal experience. I've owned three different Performance Center revolvers in the last ten years, and I wasn't impressed with any of them. More cosmetic, and marketing hype than function.

I'm not a 'hater". I love S&W revolvers. In fact, I recently sold all my semi-automatics, and replaced them with three brand new S&W revolvers, but didn't spend the extra money for PC versions. I can afford them, I just don't think the difference is worth it.

Started shooting IHMSA Silh in the 70s with a Model 29 and a Ruger SBH
Back then those were about the only Big Bore revolvers suitable..
Also hunted with both these guns and both these guns and found them accurate.
Took a 30 year break and fast forward to 2010. l am back shooting
Silhouettes again in 100yd Field Pistol and 200Meter Big Bore..
l, like jaymoore, kdiver58, and 75vette shoot Smith&Wesson revolvers.
By choice l shoot a 629PC Magnum Hunter w/factory red dot site.
Going on 8000rds its still got great accuracy... MIM parts and all..
ls the gun more accurate and a better performer than an average 629?
NO!! Not from my perspective...Not from shooting my guns..
l have other guns too..l can shoot MY PC guns better because of the
position the 0ptics are installed.. ''Barrel Mounted''. Guns balance better
with barrel mounted 0ptics for ME..

PC revolvers for the most part are just regular revolvers with fancy barrels. There was some holdover use of forged triggers and hammers, but I have yet to see one with any special action fitting.

That said, I have had a pile of them in various calibers and have kept most. So, I reckon they've been reasonably worthwhile!

Oh, BTW, as the DXs were S&Ws first foray into sorting the cylinder throat dimensional drama, it seems they experimented a bit with sizes before settling on the current across the board 0.429-0.430" dimension. Not likely there's any larger, but it's well documented that some will run 0.428" or a wee bit less. Worked great with full power jacketed loads, but fairly wretched for cast or swaged lead bullets! Easy fix for a good gunsmith, if you want to run the bare lead route. Or leave it be if you shoot jacketed rounds at full steam.

That is a good reminder about the interrelation between cylinder throat diameter and bullet type and load intensity.

I have two Rugers with problematic throats - a 44 Magnum Blackhawk with undersized throats (0.427"-0.428") and a 454 Casull Super Redhawk with oversized throats, 0.456" if I remember correctly. Their accuracy has been disappointing but I have not tried jacketed versus hard cast extensively enough to see how much bullet construction and load intensity affect accuracy.

Of course the Blackhawk is an easy fix, open up the throats a little bit. The Super Redhawk would require a new cylinder. Unless load development leads (sic) to a workaround solution.

Maybe I should set up a high speed macro camera to document the process of the bullet leaving the case and entering the barrel to see what is happening there. ... Just kidding...

I would slug the barrel to get the groove diameter before replacing the cylinder on the 454 redhawk . You might be surprised .

I am not even dreaming of changing the cylinder on the Super Redhawk. I just consider it a lost cause, an instrument for generating lots of noise and recoil. For hitting targets I use other guns.

I did some googling and forums are full of discussions of Ruger Super Redhawk having oversize throats and Ruger not doing anything about it, even when people offer to pay for a new cylinder, Ruger saying it is built to their standards. Their 45 Colts have normal throats. 454 Casull may have been made like that for liability reasons, to limit pressures.

I have bought a 454 Casull Freedom Arms, that is my solution to the Ruger throat problem.

As to the original question, the accuracy of Performance Center 629 - the smart solution might be to buy one, test it for accuracy, if it is not adequate then order another one and hope it will be better. Any reason to buy more Smith & Wessons is a good one.

sasu---l have the solultion for your RedHawk..Remington factory swaged
lead 45 Colt bullets.. 255gr and .455'' diameter. Those will surely shoot
in your Casull. Good only for 900fps tho. Still enough for Saturday
night pests.. pm me-- l will send send you a few

I haven't played with mine much, but it turned 5, 240gr coated SWC bullets into 5 touching holes with the 6th shot nearby at 25 yards off the bench. No complaints.

__________________
So many S&W's, so few funds!!

I got the initial quote for the PC 629 Hunter. Almost $2500! Yikes! That is almost Freedom Arms category as they cost from about $3500 here.

We shoot a lot of N Frame .44 magnums at our club. As a result I've had the opportunity to measure ~ 15 guns for cylinder throats size. The bad news is that the much desired P&R guns usually have oversized throats measuring up to .433. Newer guns with the cylinder stop cast into the frame have throats measuring .429 and are excellent shooters with lead, plated, or jacketed Bullets. All the performance Center guns that I measured had .4285 cylinder throats and shot tighter groups with all bullets. I shoot lead bullets sized .430 out of my Performance Center Stealth Hunter with .4285 throats and accuracy is amazing.

I don't doubt your findings, and thank you for posting them.

However, it doesn't make any sense, that S&W would deliberately make inaccurate revolvers, when they have the ability to make them right? If they use a less costly process to produce them, it would cost them more in the long run, by damaging their reputation, and loss of loyal customers.

Why do you think they would do something like this?

How old are the ones that are oversized? Are they possibly just worn out from shooting over the years?

Those throat measurements sound very good. At least they get that right, then.

A couple of things to consider. First S&W assumes that everybody is shooting factory jacketed ammo in their firearms. If you have an accuracy issue and mention shooting lead Bullets in reloaded ammo they don't want to hear about it. The throats size is much less critical using jacketed or plated ammo. Second it does cost more to make the gun right as standards and tolerances need to be tighter so tooling doesn't last as long and finished parts must be QC checked more often to detect any variations. The oversized guns I measured were definitely not worn out, in fact one was a new in the box model from the 70s. Personalized human attention given during any part of the manufacturing process is going to increase costs.

His measurements aren't too much different than mine. And, again, there doesn't seem much logic for the oversized throats, except possibly tradition and SAAMI. The firearms manufacturers went towards the top end of the allowable specification and the ammo makers trended towards the lower end.

It surely didn't help S&W's reputation amongst the long range shooters! It's now a field dominated by Freedom Arms and to a lesser extent, Dan Wesson. I've only managed some small degree of success by running soft oversized bullets, with additional wax coating on the bullets for the rounds used in the 29-3's. That and some other tweaks!

Inspired by these discussions I finally placed an order for a pin gage set so I can properly check the throats on my revolvers.

If you are going to shoot primarily Freestyle (Creedmoor, Dead Frog, Flop, etc.) then the Freedom Arms might be the way to go.

But I can't do squat with a single action Standing/Field Pistol. And I don't know anybody else using a Freedom Arms in the Standing categories. Some using Rugers, but none in the higher classes.

Pin gages are OK, but use them from the chamber side. Often there's a small constriction at the cylinder face. And/or taper from the chamber end forward, usually getting tighter as you go forward.

These do a rather better job, but cost way more than pin gages. I use such things regularly, so no particular extra expense was incurred. (This particular bore gage is a little small for .44s, but the photo was handy.) Mahr, Boice, Federal, Mitutoyo, etc.







Would suggest finding equivalent on the used market rather than buying new if you want to go that route. I don't know that it would help you all that much, unless you're just a curious sort.

BTW, not making a blanket condemnation of S&W revolvers for silhouette use, for instance, there's a local shooter who used a 617 to score what I think was the first .22 Revolver 80x80 at an IHMSA Internationals some years back! And 617s still do well enough against all comers. Sadly, no 8 3/8" revolvers in production for some time.

Market's just too small for any real interest by the big mfg's in full tilt long range accuracy revolvers. Or any other long range handguns much any more.

ETA: For the wish list: A new 10 5/8" barreled Adjustable Front Sight .44, .41, and/or .357 revolver. PC shop would be fine. Or not. Just as long as it's basically built as well as the current run of 29/629s! Would have to get several, so's to have sights set for Field Pistol, BB Revolver, and BB Standing. I'm in for three at least, wonder how many more we would need?

Here's a reality check. Having enough interest in shooting that we are on this forum devoted to a single manufacturer makes us the one percent of the one percent. Even back in the day of the -2 pinned and recessed models we all love to collect a huge percentage of these guns never fired more than a box or two of ammo. Even the beloved Model 29 wasn't setting the world on fire until Inspector Callahan added some fuel to the fire. These guns are built for the masses, not the very few of us who expect perfection.

I realize that we're on the fringes, but it's a fun fringe! And perfection isn't needed, but it sure would be nice to reduce the workload loading.

The old 29-3s and -5s can be made to do well at distance, but way lots more work. However, those four position front sights are the bee's knees for IHMSA, etc. If it was allowable to install a set on an 8 3/8" barreled modern S&W (for instance, a slight mod. to the example in Post #1), it would probably be sufficient. As it is now, doing that modification would put you in Unlimited, running against XP-100s and such But if we're wishing for a new "Production legal" revolver, why not go all out and get the 10 5/8" maximum allowed barrel? Gets a little more sight radius and leg position isn't as critical when in the Creedmoor position.

BTW, I wonder how a GoPro would hold up if mounted to the under barrel rail of the 629 above?

For what it's worth, I used to shoot Big Bore Sil. quite a bit. My gun was/is a 629 Classic DX with 8-3/8 barrel. It has a 2-7 Burris on top.

After much load development, I ended up with 18 gr. of H4227 under a 300 gr. Hornady XTP and CCI Large Pistol Mag. primers. That load would shoot 6" groups at 200 M. The recoil is mild, I have shot 2 rounds in one day (80 shots) many times with no ill effects. I had 1050 FPS at the muzzle and (according to my ballistic chart) 900 FPS at 200 Yards.

I shoot only double action for everything. As quickly as possible. I was trying to get a 40/40 in less than 1 minute total shooting time. Anyone can get them all doing it slow, where's the challenge in that? Anyway, over the course of several years, I was only able to shoot 40/40 twice, with the fastest one being 1 min. 24 sec. of actual shooting time. Never quite made it. Oh well.