4.25" 69 vs 4" 629 Mountain Gun

[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.