4.25" 69 vs 4" 629 Mountain Gun

[Bald1]

I think the only restriction now is 10.5 max barrel length and straight wall and that only applies to the WRAs.

Does this mean you can't use a 15" Encore in 308 ?

 

[Bald1]

To me the whole idea of the 69 is its size. Therefore I'd pick a 2.75" but that doesn't help your situation. So go with the 4" 629. If not trying to conceal then who cares about a little extra weight. And a 44 has a little kick no matter what gun you're using. I'm always amazed at how many guys are sensitive to it.

 

[Casual Smith Nut]

I asked this same question couple years ago I think. Also found similar splits in opinion with most trending towards the MG.

My own findings in handling and shooting both side by side is that the 4.25" m69 is my preference. Mine happens to have a great DA and SA trigger both. I found with 240gr specials running approx 850fps that the m69 was easier to control with less recoil than the MG. Maybe the L frame with the factory rubber grip just fit me better who knows. At higher velocities and greater recoil maybe it would be a different story. I don't shoot much real magnums in the big bores. The m69 is my pick. In fact, that's the reason I have the MG listed in the ads.

Now for collectors, even with the lock, the nod goes to the MG. But since I try not to collect…

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

I have both, but, if I ain't gotter done in 5 rounds what are the odd that the 6th will finish it???

When de bar is chewing on ya leg.

 

[bananaman]

Mountain Gun all of the way! I am old & set in my ways. Just no desire for a 5 shot revolver. Bob

 

[Paul105]

I've had both and carried both. The M69 (along with the 2.75") is still here, the mountain guns are not. Here are some measurements I took back in 2014/15/16 - don't remember exactly. M69 4.25", Mtn Gun 4"
.

629 Mtn Gun weighs 39 oz
M69 L Frame weighs 37 oz

629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Diameter: 1.70"
M69 L Frame Cylinder Diameter: 1.56"

629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Length: 1.705"
M69 L Frame Cylinder Length: 1.670"

(Note: The M69 cylinder is 1.670 inches and isn't recessed for cartridge rims -- a 1.712" hand load fits, but is right at the face of the cylinder. Lymans No 49 edition shows OAL w their 425421 Keith Bullet is 1.710". A .429 minus plug gauge will enter all throats a .430 plug will not.)

629 Mtn Gun Frame Window - Height: 1.735"
M69 L Frame - Frame Window Height: 1.600"

629 Mtn Gun Frame Window – Width: 1.880"
M69 L Frame - Frame Window Width: 1.820"

629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Wall at Narrowest Point: .095" -- (.0900" between chambers)
M69 L Frame Cylinder Wall at Narrowest Point: .060 " -- ( .130 " between chambers)
(629 Cyl Bolt Cuts are over the chamber while M69 bolt cuts are between chambers)

629 Mtn Gun Frame Top Strap – Width: .665"
M69 L Frame - Frame Top Strap Width: .665"

629 Mtn Gun Frame Top Strap – Height: .220" to top of frame (includes sight mortiss)
M69 L Frame - Frame Top Strap Height: .210" to top of frame (includes sight mortiss)

629 Mtn Gun Barrel Shank OD: .630"
M69 L Frame - Barrel Shank OD: .620"

629 Mtn Gun Frame Over Barrel OD: .900"
M69 L Frame - Frame Over Barrel OD: .880"

629 Mtn Gun Trigger Reach: 3.10" (same grips for both 629 & M69)
M69 L Frame - Trigger Reach: 3.00 "

Brian Pearce -- Bolt notches weakest point - M69 thicker than M629 at this location

 

[Shibadog]

I too had a mountain gun years ago. Switched to model 69 9with the lock removed and plugged. Mountain guns been gone for years-69 is still here. My all time favorite DA .44

 

[bananaman]

Kinda what has already been said. Give me a 6 shot any day over a 5. Just the way I am. Bob

 

[mtgianni]

I hope that you have made your decision by now but a 4" 610 with 200 gr 10mm bullets does not give up a lot and has 6 shots.

 

[SFury79]

I hope that you have made your decision by now but a 4" 610 with 200 gr 10mm bullets does not give up a lot and has 6 shots.

I actually believe that semi-auto cartridges belong in semi-autos.

In this case 44 magnums are being discussed, and even the weaker cartridge options tend to be far more powerful than 10MM. That would be a significant downgrade in caliber.

If I was to go with a S&W revolver chambered in 44 magnum I would go with the Mountain gun. That, or an option going to the 5"-barrel length, because that would be my ideal sized gun for woods defense in that caliber (or higher).

My 7.5" Ruger Super Redhawk is too long for the task. If a bear is on top of me, getting such a large gun out of holster would be a real task.

 

[BarryinIN]

Like mtgianni I hope you've made a decision or at least got to compare. But FWIW, here's my opinion for you or anyone reading this.

I've never owned a 29/629, but I've owned a similar size 4" 25-5 for 39 years, and had other N-frames along the way. I bought the 25-5 with the intention of carrying it daily. While I've tried many times since, I've never managed to put up with it for very long.

I've carried K-frames up to 6", 1911s and other full-size autos and they don't hother me at all, but the N-frames are simply too wide for me. It feels like having a 5-gallon bucket under my belt.

I got a 4.25" 69 not long after they came out, and I love it. Every other .44 Mag I've had got traded away within maybe a year because they were too bulky. We don't have any animal in my state warranting .44 Mag, but I love the .44 Spl and consider the 69 a nice .44 Spl gun with a magnum option so it has seen some time on the belt.

I became a big fan of the M69.

So simply for the reason I can carry a 69, where a 29/629 (Mtn or otherwise) is a bit too chubby for my tastes, I vote the model 69.

 

[Cartwright Jones]

Model 69 Combat Magnum

• Weight 34.19 oz
• Width 1.55 in
• Height 6 in
• Length 7.8 in
• Capacity 5-shot
• Ball-Detent Lock-Up
• Lower bore axis to grip on L Frame
• pinned in sights allow for changing to user preference

Model 629 Mountain Gun

• Weight 39 oz
• Width 1.71 in
• Height 5.88 in
• Length 9.63 in
• Capacity 6-shot
• no lock
• pinned in sights allow for changing to user preference but upgraded from the factory

For the purpose of a packing sidearm in the woods how would you compare these two? To be hunting legal, whatever carried needs a 4" barrel locally so clearly these two would be very good choices. This would be used in the the mountains primarily as a defensive sidearm against whatever happens upon you in the mountains which is carried a lot and shot very little.

The 69 is 5oz lighter, 1.5" shorter, and has the improved ball detent lockup. While it has the internal lock, a delete kit is available and sights could easily be swapped to a brass bead or fiber optic at home. The lower bore axis of the smaller frame will have marginally more linear recoil.

The 629 Mountain Gun has the advantage of another round on board and a few factory upgrades in grips, sights, etc. It looks much nicer but that doesn't necessarily mean it shoots better. More mass will help tame 44mag recoil more but also makes you carry more as a sidearm all day. No stupid internal lock not only looks better but removes unnecessary mechanical complexity which is nice, though I've never had any problems with the lock in function.

I'm excited about the new mountain guns. I have one of each on order. My favorite firearm at the moment happens to be my 69. It just carries like a dream and shoots well. It gets a little zesty with full power magnum loads but shooting 310gr at 1100fps is plenty comfortable for under 100 rounds and will stop most any threat or game animal in the Ozarks

The model 29 series handles recoil half-way decently. Conversely, the M69 kicks like sister Sarah's mule and I mean to the point where after EVERY shot you have to hold the gun in the other hand while the shooting hand recovers, and I'm NOT a person normally prone to recoil sensitivity. A 34 ounce .44 magnum with TOP loads is simply going to KICK HARD and there's no way around that. Do an extra 4 ounces make that much of a difference? No, but the grips might help. Best to wear a shooting glove when playing with it, though really, one doesn't NEED to practice much with a field survival piece.
No doubt the M69 is far narrower than the M29 and gives up a whole shot for it. If you have the suds to stand and deliver to a charging bear or maniac, what are the odds that if you "can't git 'er done" with the first 5 full power loads, you can with one more? Having been in such situations, and knowing that in the hands of a skilled and composed shooter, one can git 'er done with 1-2 shots most of the time, I'd say the M69 gets the nod.

On the other hand, for a bit more weight penalty, you can carry a 1911 with .460 Rowland conversion with V2 damper that kicks about equal to .45 ACP ball while delivering 1,000 fpe level power per shot x 11 shots in a package barely and inch thick, with a BETTER trigger than any double-action revolver, and lighting quick magazine re-charges! I guess you know which camp I stoke my fire in.

 

[Stickgunner]

Conversely, the M69 kicks like sister Sarah's mule and I mean to the point where after EVERY shot you have to hold the gun in the other hand while the shooting hand recovers, and I'm NOT a person normally prone to recoil sensitivity. A 34 ounce .44 magnum with TOP loads is simply going to KICK HARD and there's no way around that.

Have you ever fired a 329PD?

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Who cares?............Buy both if you like.

 

[elgatodeacero]

I would prefer the 629 MG over the 69, mainly because the N frame handles recoil better for my hands than the K/L frames.

6 shots is better than 5, and the weight difference is so small you won't notice with a good belt and holster (Simply Rugged or El Paso Saddlery).

 

[gdpolk]

Have you ever fired a 329PD?

I have extensively and in all honesty, it's the only revolver that I've ever shot that has made be bleed THROUGH gloves. I've got thousands of rounds in each cartridge of .22, 38, 357, 41, 44spl, 44mag, and 480 Ruger through my hand in wheel guns. I've also put a few hundred down range in various 454, 500s&w, 460 S&W, and 500 Linebaugh. Full power loads in the scandium 44 are just punishing recoil. It's nice with any specials or bottom end 44 but I'm not looking to it for full tilt boogie loads in 44.

Conversely, I've ran quite a few hot 300gr loads through a M69 in both barrel lengths and while it's what I'd call zesty in the hand, its also very manageable in terms of accuracy and comfort for me.

 

[Yendor357]

I shoot a 3 inch M69, 240 XTPs going 1100+. It doesn't kick that bad, especially offhand.

Yesterday evening, I replaced the skimpy rear sight blade on the M69 with a .160(?).
This morning, it shot too high, I took the rear sight down a bit with sandpaper (taped to a flat table top). The original rear sight had a real shallow notch. And I had it jacked up too high. The new notch is deeper, with a white outline. I did MUCH better with the M69 today.

 

[Shibadog]

Stumbled across a new 629 in the toy store yesterday. Gotta say I Really like it-a Lot. My 4.24 69 has been my go to for a few years now, but I do. Believe the Mountain Gun has a better DA trigger, and those grips a beautiful.

 

[stansdds]

Stumbled across a new 629 in the toy store yesterday. Gotta say I Really like it-a Lot. My 4.24 69 has been my go to for a few years now, but I do. Believe the Mountain Gun has a better DA trigger, and those grips a beautiful.

The K- and L-frame share the same lock work and lock work geometry, the N-frame, having a larger space for the lock work, has a slightly different geometry which allows better leverage and that creates a better trigger action. That's just my thought, I could be wrong.

 

[Shibadog]

I can cc my 69 pretty easy under a T shirt own in a pancake. If I thought the 629'd carry as well I might just have to take the leap

 

[Kermit Grenoille]

I would love to add a 4" 69 to the .44 stable, but I'm holding out hope S&W will release a no-lock version.
The round is probably my favorite "fun and woods" round to load and shoot, all the way from mouse fart loads to barn burners best suited for bear defense, and that 69 is an ideal size and barrel length for a belt gun for the woods, IMO. Not terribly worried about the recoil; my "other" hand cannon caliber is .454, so...
Current .44 woods carry guns are a Ruger Redhawk and a Taurus M44, both of which shoot beautifully, but start to drag on the pants after a while...
If it weren't for the lock (and my early onset curmudgeonliness about it), the 69 would be dang nearly the perfect .44. Who knows, I could still break down at some point and get one with the lock anyway...

 

[cowboy94916]

Got a pre-lock 629 MTN for woods carry. Its all I need.

 

[TN_jeff]

Anyone have a M69 for sale ?

 

[Cartwright Jones]

I would love to add a 4" 69 to the .44 stable, but I'm holding out hope S&W will release a no-lock version.
The round is probably my favorite "fun and woods" round to load and shoot, all the way from mouse fart loads to barn burners best suited for bear defense, and that 69 is an ideal size and barrel length for a belt gun for the woods, IMO. Not terribly worried about the recoil; my "other" hand cannon caliber is .454, so...
Current .44 woods carry guns are a Ruger Redhawk and a Taurus M44, both of which shoot beautifully, but start to drag on the pants after a while...
If it weren't for the lock (and my early onset curmudgeonliness about it), the 69 would be dang nearly the perfect .44. Who knows, I could still break down at some point and get one with the lock anyway...

You think a no-lock version is the be-all, end-all? A 37 ounce .44 magnum KICKS like an insane, rented mule who wants to kick your teeth out!

 

[gdpolk]

Having shot both now side by side alongside a 686 Mountain gun these are my thoughts:

• The Mountain Guns are by far and above prettier than a 69 and doesn't have the lock
• I prefer the look and feel of the wood Bear Hugger Grips. They actually have a VERY similar contour to the Hogue overmold grips without finger grooves which I think is fantastic in function.
• Both options would make an outstanding woods carry gun but I'd prefer the 69 over the 629MG due to lower bore axis, lighter weight, and smaller proportions for a gun carried a lot in the field and shot very little. I wear a L glove size and am of average proportions.
• I'd prefer the 629MG if I really thought I needed 1 extra round of 44 or if I wanted a little extra mass for recoil attenuation with zesty loads. Both have some zip to the recoil with true magnum loads though.
• Sights on the MG are far superior but Dawson Precision makes replacement blades for the 69 that are also superb and much cheaper than the premium price of a MG over a 69.
• Rubber oversold grips are easier for hard use/weather bucking guns. Wood grips feel right in the hand.

Now the question begs, and I sincerely don't know the answer for me personally, will I bring my 4" 5-shot 69 in 44mag with me or stick with a 7-shot 686+ MG with me on woods bumming trips?

Also... I should note that the fit and finish of the Bear Hugger grips on mine was definitely subpar, especially for a grip that was heavily marketed as a focal point of the sale for being a premium pattern from when folks made grips right and handmade by TGW, which is supposed to be a premium shop. All in all, I really like the contouring on them. The wood used for most is standard grade and I would have loved to see something with some figure used instead. Also, mine came shaped asymmetrically between the right and left grip panes, with poor fitment in multiple places, covered in sanding/machining marks that should have been sanded out properly, and with very little oil on them at all. As a knife maker, I was able to very quickly address the issues in my shop and they look a LOT better now but for a $300 grip I would really expect more of TGW. If I had of bought these new and got just the grips in the mail, they would have gone back for a refund to be honest. They just weren't fit properly at all and weren't even close to finished.

I'll continue to work oil into them over a few weeks but they at least now are sanded smooth without low spots in the grain from unsupported sanding, are no longer covered in coarse sanding marks, and are fit properly...

 

[Yendor357]

I had the 2.75" Model 69.
I did not get along with that little brat.

I have a 629-4 Mountain Gun, it is Fabulous. Beautiful, Accurate. That gun and the Kramer holster that it rides in is a classy set-up.

*I replaced that stinker of an M69 with a 3 inch 686-6 Plus, it has 2 more shots than the M69, it's WAY more accurate, looks better. It sends 173 Lyman's 1200 fps. That'll solve any problem I'll ever encounter.

 

[Shibadog]

I've got a 4.25 69. Great pistol. Even conceals pretty well in an owb pancake. For a packing gun anywhere in the lower 48 it's pretty tough to beat. Mines traveled a fair bit on the trail, and a good old .44 mag it tough to stop. I usually carry a shot cartridge followed by 4 240 mags. It also does pretty well with the Honey Badgers

 

[shocker]

I really liked my 69 4.25, so much so I sold off a 4" 629. All you guys arguing that 5 isn't enough, and you really need 6, well that might not be enough so how about a 10 mm with 15 rounds?

 

[malph]

I have a Gun Safe with 29s and a 629 that I carry in the woods. Been packing them 50 years.

Out west we carry six shooters so a five shooter is for those dandy types, JMHO. My advice is for people to "Cowboy Up".

I wouldn't call anyone shooting 44mag out of an L frame a dandy. Lol

Thats like saying anyone shooting 357mag out of an alloy J frame is a dandy because real men carry steel.

On a serious note, I got a chance to shoot a 69 and a 4" 629 side by side a few years ago.

I was genuinely surprised how well that L frame handled the recoil. My guess is it had to do with the recoil from the smaller gun being more linear; lower in the hand.

Now this is subjective but I came away thinking the L frame recoiled less for a given load than the 4" 629.

I didn't buy the 69 but I came away with respect for it.