629 vs 29 - moving to alaska

[LoneStarWings]

Got a new job in anchorage and want a .44, moving from the southern us. I find I shoot shorter barrels faster and with equal accuracy out to 20 yards so I want to stick with a 4". Is the stainless needed if I plan to carry the pistol on hikes around town? No plans to go deep in the bush, but would like to go to some parks when the weather is appropriate.

So it's really a stainless vs blue question since price, weight, etc all seem about the same. I like the blued look more but am aware it's more prone to corrosion. Are there any other big differences or reasons I should go for or the other? Not interested in used guns.

Vs

Edit: I will preemptively say I plan to wear jingle bells and bring spray on hikes. Overall the gun is more of a want than a need because I'm a city dweller, but living there I feel I could justify it.

 

[BC38]

For a gun to be carried in a holster, if you care about its appearance long-term, the stainless 629 is the hands-down winner.

 

[murphydog]

If you have gun OCD, either - choose the one you like the best. If not, the 629-6.

And with the stainless gun, be sure to check under those rubber grips every so often - moisture will get under them and pit the metal. Good luck in your new job and location, and let us know if you run into any bears - members here just can't stop writing about them .

 

[Benchrest1]

Another vote for the 629.

 

[shakyshoot]

As much as I love the look of a nice blued finish, if I carry a revolver it's stainless (or blued with enough wear that a little more won't matter)

 

[6string]

I'd go with a 629.
Anchorage can get pretty wet for extended periods during the mild season.
During the winter, lots of sand, salt, and crushed gravel gets put down on sidewalks. It gets all over. I wouldn't be surprised to find it in holsters.
There's a pretty good selection of sidearms just going into Walmart...Redhawks, 629s, S&W 500s, etc.
Last I recall, there were about 34 grizzlies living within the city limits, mostly in the parks. But, there are many more moose. They are common and often quite aggressive. They also often venture into residential areas. Even if you just walked occasionally, you'll definitely encounter them.

Enjoy Alaska. It's a beautiful place!
Jim

 

[crazyphil]

OOGA OOGA OOSHKA which means that I love you. (to my model 29)

Left to right:
My 29-3
In my Chic Gaylord Combat Speed holster
In My Myres 614 Tom Threepersons holster
In my Sparks 200AW (adjustable welt)
In my Viking cross draw

Click on a photo once or twice to enlarge

 

[stansdds]

The 629 will be far more resistant to corrosion.

 

[hoytx10]

The 69 will be easier to carry around town and in the bush.

 

[ken158]

If you care for your gun properly then either will do fine. Remember, stainless showed up in the 70's and there are many blue survivors out there. But a stainless will be a better choice if the elements worry you. Of course a Glock 10mm is much the craze in Alaska...

 

[oink]

If it's going to actually get used much AND you care about how unblemished looking it looks then go stainless. If it's life is going to be the occasional range trip, infrequent short hikes, you'll be very careful with it, and you'll maintain it meticulously, well then the blued is prettier. A blued gun can stand many years of hard use and function wonderfully but if it's had many years of hard use it will look it, unless you get it reblued. If you don't care if your workhorse looks like a workhorse it doesn't matter.

It sounds to me like you shouldn't rule out a model 69.

 

[Laketime]

Get the 629,and pick up a set of original two piece pachmeyer grips without the medallions.The perfect feel for your hand , and won't be squishy like the one piece versions.

 

[cowboy4evr]

I would go with the one that you like the best . Blued guns have survivied cold climate for decades . Are they more prone to corrosion and showing signs of wear , yes . But with proper maintenance they will do just fine . Ballistol works great for that environment on blue guns . I just wouldn't buy something that I'm not happy with and only bought it because , based on certain facts it made the most sense . Someday you will pull out the blued gun , look at the wear and have a smile on your face . Pull out the SS one and you will just stare at it for a moment and then just put it back , I bet no sign of emotion / feelings about your time up there . Either will serve you well , Regards, Paul

 

[brjr51]

If it's a gun you'll frequently carry, I would go with a Model 69. I've got a 4" 629 and a 2-3/4" 69 and I'd have no qualms about carrying the 69. I like it so much I've seriously been considering picking up the 4-1/4" version.

Bottom line though is get what you like, they'll all serve their purpose.

 

[M29since14]

I'm with Cowboy4evr. If you buy a good, lined holster, keep it clean and dry inside, and don't mind wiping your gun down after each use, I'd go with your preference - the Model 29. If you were boondocking for weeks at a time, that would/might be different. The use you anticipate does not seem unreasonable for a blued gun.

 

[Gunaholic]

I spent most of the 80s stationed at Elmendorf AFB. I had a 4" M-29 for most of that time and it was a constant companion on hunting and camping and hiking trips. Never had a problem. The 629 gives you a bit more slack with bad weather but a blued gun will do. YMMV

 

[DevilDog72]

Got a new job in anchorage and want a .44, moving from the southern us. I find I shoot shorter barrels faster and with equal accuracy out to 20 yards so I want to stick with a 4". Is the stainless needed if I plan to carry the pistol on hikes around town? No plans to go deep in the bush, but would like to go to some parks when the weather is appropriate.

So it's really a stainless vs blue question since price, weight, etc all seem about the same. I like the blued look more but am aware it's more prone to corrosion. Are there any other big differences or reasons I should go for or the other? Not interested in used guns.

Vs

Edit: I will preemptively say I plan to wear jingle bells and bring spray on hikes. Overall the gun is more of a want than a need because I'm a city dweller, but living there I feel I could justify it.

Good luck with your new job. My wife and I just got back from Alaska. We spent two weeks in a rental SUV touring the state. Beautiful place. I dare say once you have settled in you will start to venture out and explore that fantastic state.

We did encounter all manner of wild life.... to include a very large black bear. Buy and carry the one you like. I would not hesitate to carry and use a blued gun in Alaska.

 

[t4terrific]

Got a new job in anchorage and want a .44, moving from the southern us. I find I shoot shorter barrels faster and with equal accuracy out to 20 yards so I want to stick with a 4". Is the stainless needed if I plan to carry the pistol on hikes around town? No plans to go deep in the bush, but would like to go to some parks when the weather is appropriate.

So it's really a stainless vs blue question since price, weight, etc all seem about the same. I like the blued look more but am aware it's more prone to corrosion. Are there any other big differences or reasons I should go for or the other? Not interested in used guns.

Vs

Edit: I will preemptively say I plan to wear jingle bells and bring spray on hikes. Overall the gun is more of a want than a need because I'm a city dweller, but living there I feel I could justify it.

Make sure the bear attacks from down wind if you're going to spray.

 

[lkabug]

If you have your heart set on either 629 or 29, the Stainless makes a better choice for the woods. The model 69 deserves a look. It might surprise you given an opportunity.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

Another vote for 629.
Get some rubber grips that fit your hand.
Get some serious ammo like Buffalo Bore and practice shooting it.

 

[SuperMan]

For both durability and long term investment, how about a 629-3, -4 or -5 pre-IL Mountain Revolver/Gun.

Shoot hot .44 Specials and it should be everything you ever need...

Blue...nothing like a 29-2...if you are only going to have one spend the little extra and do it right...

Bob

 

[Dump1567]

Personally I'd go 329 due to the weight, unless you plan to do a lot of shooting. 25 oz vs. 42 oz. I thought I heard those are the preferred .44 Mags in Alaska (again due to weight). A gun you can carry all day without thinking about it.

If you're set on steel, don't overlook the Ruger Alaskans (44 oz.). I had the .45 Colt/.454 Casull for awhile. Great versatility. .45 light, .45 heavy, or full .454.

 

[TomkinsSP]

Model 29, because it will be easier to find if you drop it in the snow.;-)

 

[153]

While I agree that stainless is more weather resistant, I have never really liked stainless handguns. A blued revolver requires a bit more attention, but as it wears it gets character, and that IMO is what makes a firearm interesting.

I'm not saying "beat it up" or "let it rust", but an honestly worn pistol tells a story...

 

[Model52guy]

I lived in Alaska twice, 1969-75 and again 1987 - 95. When I first went up there I bought a ruger red hawk with 5-1/2" bbl. Got a decent shoulder holster for it. It was my carry gun for fishing and hunting trips. Only pulled it out once when a bear wanted to help me while I was fishing red salmon on the Russian river. He just took one salmon and wandered back into the brush, wasn't very worried about me. I still have the red hawk.

 

[Big Cholla]

I lived in Anchorage, hunted around, fished all over and hiked while doing all of the above. It rains a lot during the non-snow season. Buy and enjoy the stainless. You don't want your handgun carried under your rain coat. It is much too slow to draw if needed. It is easier to keep stainless nice looking and functional with all the foul weather. The advice given to carry one of the ultra lite 44 mags is wrong in this aspect. 44 Spec. is not enough caliber for Black Bears let alone Grizzly Bears. The 44 Mag. 'might' be enough if you are a very good shot while the adrenaline is sky high. One shot is not going to be enough to be absolutely sure to take care of the problem. The weight of the M 629 will help accurate placement of the subsequent shots after the first.

I faced down an adult male Griz while Moose hunting and I was carrying a Rem 700 in 300 Win Mag. I felt very much under gunned. Fortunately the Griz decided that he didn't want anything to do with me and left the area. I was fly fishing and had a young female Griz come to the bank of the stream and sit down to watch me fish. I was carrying a M 629 6" in a shoulder holster and a Rem. 870 loaded with slugs slung over my left shoulder. I didn't feel fearful by her presence because she was only interested in what I was doing and obviously did not feel threatened by my actions. She got bored after about 10 minutes and left the area.

Carry a small spray can of WD-40. After the hike, fishing or what ever is over unload the handgun and spray the heck out of the interior action. Then when home take the side plate off and clean out the WD. Even the stainless version uses non stainless internal parts. While fishing in waders I fell twice after a slip on slippery rocks and submerged me and both guns. The WD-40 treatment prevented any damage to both guns.

The advice to use two piece rubber grips is right on. Easily removed in the field. ..........

IMHO, the bear spray and the jingle bells on shoes are worthless. Stay armed and whistle a lot or talk a lot to yourself or partner.

 

[DevilDog72]

yup

While I agree that stainless is more weather resistant, I have never really liked stainless handguns. A blued revolver requires a bit more attention, but as it wears it gets character, and that IMO is what makes a firearm interesting.

I'm not saying "beat it up" or "let it rust", but an honestly worn pistol tells a story...

I know what you are saying..... this is my EDC 19-4 no longer blue but a satisfying patina of grey

 

[DB404]

I lived in Alaska (Kenai Peninsula, Prince William Sound and Interior) for many years. Alaskans used to refer to handguns for this type of use as "get off me guns", and they are very important to have if you are unfortunate enough to be ambushed by a bear while you're hiking. Choices vary based on opinions, experience and finances. Phil Shoemaker killed a brownie with a S&W Model 59 in 9mm not so long ago, loaded with Buffalo Bore ammunition. I never had to use my 'get off me gun', but I always had it with me (and usually a 45-70 Browning 1886 carbine with heavy loads). I started with a 29-2 with 6 1/2" barrel, because that's what I had when I got to Alaska. I later went to another 29-2 but in 4", and at times a 29-5 in 5" length. Mostly though, I ended up carrying a Colt Delta Elite stainless 10mm I'd had some customizing done on, loaded with Double Tap 200 grain WFN hard cast slugs at 1300 fps. (Yes, I chrono'd them - close enough.) 10 rounds versus 6; lighter; quicker. Not in the way of a pack or rifle as much as the N frame. What ever you choose, carry it where you can get at it, and in a holster you won't lose it out of if the 4 year old brownie gets to you and is slapping you around for getting too close to the pile of two year old moose bones just off the trail it has claimed. BTW, you'll lose the rifle if the bear gets to you.

 

[will527]

I was stationed at Elmendorf outside of Anchorage. Take in consideration the weather. It shows frequently, so you want to wipe it off frequently, with at least something of T-shirt quality. Every thing picks up moisture. Mine is a 629-1 3".

 

[3rdgeargrndrr]

For a gun to be carried in a holster, if you care about its appearance long-term, the stainless 629 is the hands-down winner.

IDK. A well worn and weathered but reliable blued gun looks better than a shiny steel to me.