629: 5" full lug v. 6" 1/2 lug

629: 5" full lug v. 6" 1/2 lug

  • 5" full lug

    Votes: 54 72.0%
  • 6" 1/2 lug

    Votes: 21 28.0%

  • Total voters
    75

gr7070

Member
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
234
Anyone handle and/or shoot these two configurations. I'm curious how similar they are in feel and if for some reason one is more often preferred over the other.

I prefer the look of the full underlug; it matches the appearNce of my 617 and 686. Although a different look might be nice in the collection as well.

Any and all comments would be appreciated.
 
Register to hide this ad
I have a 6.5" classic that was priced too good to say no to, but I've always wished it was a 5" instead. The 5" barrel seems to balance better and just plain feels better and I think looks better as well.
 
I own a 629-1 w/ 6" HB w/ ejector rod shroud (ERS) and a 629-4 with the 5" full underlug (FU) barrel.

The 5" FU barrel is actually heavier than the 6" HB-ERS. I've owned the 6" HB-ERS since 1985 and I've owned the 5" FU for a year and a half. My impression of the 6" for many years was that it was just right as far as muzzle-heaviness, until I bought the 5". Now the 6" feels "whippy" to me and doesn't settle down like it used to. The extra weight of the 5" also makes shooting with heavier loads more comfortable, though at these two lengths, it's still harsh, and a 7.5 or 8.375" full underlug barrel would tame those even more.

I'm actually in the process of having a 6" HB-ERS barrel shortened to 5" for installation on the 629-4 that currently wears the 5" FU barrel. I've never liked the looks of the FU barrel. (They're meant for Colts and should remain on Colts IMO...) Also, for field carrying, the longest barrel length I want on an N-Frame is 5", but I also don't want to carry all of that weight around. Field guns are shot little and carried a lot. I also think getting rid of that FU barrel will help me get back to liking the balance on the 629-1. Also, I can't help but think about Skeeter Skelton's 5" Model 27s and how perfectly proportioned those 5" HB-ERS barrels looked on them.
 
Years ago I bought a M544, which is a 5" barrel N-Frame in .44-40, and immediately became a convert. You would not think it would make much of a difference in feel compared to a 4" or 6" barrel, but there is just something about the 5" N-frame that makes it seem "just right" in handling, balance and pointability. Once you handle one, you'll understand what people are describing.

Since then, its my primary choice and I'll spring for a 5" S&W when ever I come across one.

I suspect that if you were to place a 5" full under lug gun and a 6" 1/2lug gun on a scale, the overall weight difference would not be that different, but the handling characteristics would be night and day.
 
I think the 5 inch bbl is one of the best balanced lengths there is, and It just looks cool.
 
I've been looking at these and am definitely leaning toward the 5" full-lug as opposed to the 6" half-lug. The other day I checked out a 6.5" full-lug, and that one was way too muzzle heavy, plus looked a little odd to my eye. I like a 6.5" barrel on, say, an old 29 or 27, but those didn't have the full-lug......which, I tend to agree, belongs more on a Colt from a style standpoint. I do think a 5" standard barrel would be sweet.
 
I've had a M29-3 6" Classic Hunter with full lug and unfluted cylinder for several years now and have come to really like it - I liked it enough to buy the M29-5 Classic in 5" and Classic DX in 6.5". At this time my vote goes to the 5" as feeling the nicest in my hand but I've only had it a couple of months. I hope to be able to get out and really shoot these three in the days ahead and just maybe my opinion will change.

Ward
 
Anyone handle and/or shoot these two configurations. I'm curious how similar they are in feel and if for some reason one is more often preferred over the other.

I prefer the look of the full underlug; it matches the appearNce of my 617 and 686. Although a different look might be nice in the collection as well.

Any and all comments would be appreciated.

I like the looks and feel of the full lug guns.

That being said, I'd opt for the longer barrel if I was going to hunt with the gun.
 
5" vs. 6" - The Eyes Have It

I'm soon to get a 629, and I've handled the 4, 5, 6.5" classics and really like the way the 5" settles into a comfortable grip for me. I also like the sight picture better and find that a 6" barrel is fatiguing on the eyes after and hour or so of shooting, whereas 4 and 5" barrels never seem to cause any eye fatigue. Of course, my eyes have quite a few decades on them, and even with good glasses they will tire with longer barrels. I don't know if other mature shooters have experienced this, but it is certainly a consideration for me.

All that said, I have a 617 6" and it's so much fun to shoot and not just because of the caliber - all-in-all it's a great gun to plink away with or do some serious training and skill building with at a reasonable cost.

Take care,

R
 
I have a 629-4 Classic 6-1/2" full-lug, a 6" 629-1 "half-lug" and a 5" 629-3 Classic DX full-lug.

DSC_0515_zps8a6a97ea.jpg


The five-inch DX is my hunting revolver. It doesn't weigh as much on your belt as the longer full-lug gun, comes out of its holster more easily and balances nicely in my hand. The six-inch 629-1 also balances nicely. It is my preference for punching paper and that's all I do with that gun. My son likes the 6-1/2" Classic so that's "his" hunting and target shooting .44 revolver.

I've never met a no-lock, non-MIM S&W that I didn't like, however. They're ALL nice!

Ed
 
The 5" barrel is a winner, but the full lug barrels are ugly. Horrid. I hate them with a passion. I had a 625-6 LH (until it was stolen), and loved it - great shooter, easily the best built revolver I had ever seen, but that FL barrel really detracted from the looks and harmed the balance. If I get around to a .44 magnum, I'll get a decent 629 with the enhancement package and have the barrel shortened by a good gunsmith.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top