I plan on getting a 629 sometime this year. I’ve heard mostly good things about the mountain guns, but does anyone prefer a regular 629 over a mountain gun? It seems like for magnums, you would want the extra few ounces to help tame recoil. Are regular 629s more durable than the mountain guns?
Anyone not prefer mountain guns?
- Thread starter Wfevans4
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
- Reaction score
- 776
A .44M 4" Mountain gun weights the same as a 3" 629 with a full bottom lug. Recoil is sharp in both, but the longer sight radius helps accuracy. I like the looks of the MG, but prefer to carry the 3" (IWB)
If I'm gonna be shooting more than carrying, say at the range, I would prefer the extra weight. For carrying all day, say as protection from bears or 2 legged predators, I want the light weight. As far as the recoil goes, if you're shooting something or someone that is trying to kill you, not sure you'd register the extra recoil. I've never had to shoot for my life, but I have hunted many years, and I never noticed recoil when shooting at deer. I imagine dangerous targets would only make it less noticeable.
Rock185
US Veteran
My 29s and 629s were standard 4" guns, except for a one 5" and and a 6". The 629 MGs are beauties, but that few ounces lighter weight, 39 oz., likely comes at a cost; the shooter's wrist. I no longer shoot .44 Magnum in a handgun, so I bought the 686MG instead. Even in .357, there is definitely a difference in felt recoil between my regular full lug 686s, 39-41 oz., and the new, and lighter, 34.7 oz. 686MG. I shot a 3" 29; never had a desire to shoot a .44Mag. that light again. And I definitely would not have enjoyed the recoil of the similar weight 629MG........YMMV
Yendor357
Member
I shoot my old 4 inch 686-4 better than the 686, 4.25 MG that I had for 2 days because it had to go back to have 5 things fixed. That light barrel just doesn’t have the weight induced
dampening properties of the full lug barrel.
I really want to like the new Smiths. But 2 of the last 3 that I have, had bad problems.
dampening properties of the full lug barrel.
I really want to like the new Smiths. But 2 of the last 3 that I have, had bad problems.
Hopefully S&W will make a Swamp gun.
Those not familiar with Florida, tell me they never see any Gators while in small boats on fresh water.
"But they see you, is my reply."
Maybe name it Gatoraider?
Those not familiar with Florida, tell me they never see any Gators while in small boats on fresh water.
"But they see you, is my reply."
Maybe name it Gatoraider?
Last edited:
minconrevo
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 919
- Reaction score
- 836
The 24-3 in 4" I used to own was essentially a "mountain gun". Got a like-new one a couple years after they became available. Brought into the hype and thought I'd want the light weight. Wanted a shoot often/carry often. Just not pleasant to shoot often with the effective 7.5 gr Unique under a 240 gr hard cast SWC load. Same load in a .44 mag, especially a 6", is pleasant.
A 4" Mod 66 for general outdoor problem critters, or a 6" 629, for big critters, is more my idea of a "mountain gun". I guess I'd consider a 4" thin barrel 629, if weight were a major issue for long trek outdoor activities, but only in bear country.
A 4" Mod 66 for general outdoor problem critters, or a 6" 629, for big critters, is more my idea of a "mountain gun". I guess I'd consider a 4" thin barrel 629, if weight were a major issue for long trek outdoor activities, but only in bear country.
silicosys4
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2024
- Messages
- 243
- Reaction score
- 687
I don't see the allure. I prefer the HB look and extra weight out front. An ounce of weight saving isn't a big deal on a 40oz+ gun anyways, so I've never been interested in paying the premium.
grip frame
Member
I prefer the standard 4" 629. It's only a few ounces heavier and the weight is in the barrel, helps with recoil. And in my eye a better looking gun. I prefer the -3 to -5 pre lock versions. Best .44's ever made by Smith IMO.
Cartwright Jones
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2023
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 94
What EXACTLY IS a "Mountain Gun?" It would seem the definition centers around a lightweight barrel to reduce weight, maybe other treatments to shave micro-ounces.
Here's the question: Is a standard, 6-shot Model 29 too heavy? Too hard to carry? At a mere 43 ounces it isnt exactly "heavy" by definition so what's the big deal? Why pay a premium for gun that weighs a few ounces less- maybe, when those ounces BENEFIT YOU if you have to shoot?
The standard S&W M29 isn't exactly huge, nor heavy. It's the IDEAL choice for proof against big bears, bully humans, and porculent pigs!
Yendor357
Member
A mountain gun is anything with a 4 inch Model 27 profile barrel. S&W is kind of like Harley. They mix and match parts, give it a different name, and everyone, including myself, falls for the hype. I like heavy barrels. If I want lighter weight, I go with a shorter barrel. The shorter barrels take a little more practice. I’m getting to the point that I can shoot my 3 inch Python almost as well as my 4 inch 686-4. Almost.
For a range toy, hunting revolver, or target shooting, the Mountain Gun series is not likely the best choice. For something that I would carry all day long and not shoot often, then the Mountain Gun series is a good choice.
GUNMAN40
Member
I would like to see them with unfluted cylinders and a 4-6" barrel length.
I do not have Mountain guns. They are great if you are a hiker. I ride horses everywhere I go . Therefore I own and carry Mod 29-2, 27-2 and 57 nd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2020
- Messages
- 131
- Reaction score
- 292
I prefer the full weight. I’d still buy a MG just to have..
Over the years I’ve tried to warm up to the Mountain Guns. I’ve never quite done it. They are much harder to shoot well, even in .357, and there is not that much difference in weight. The 329PD is quite a bit lighter, but an absolute beast to shoot. Of the three, I very much prefer a standard model.
If I were to buy something now, I’d look around for a square-butt 629-3 or -4 and see if I couldn’t get someone to install a black Patridge front blade and a smooth trigger, if it didn’t already have one, and do the blackpowder “chamfer” on the cylinder. I could do without the mods if necessary, but that would be my preference.
If I were to buy something now, I’d look around for a square-butt 629-3 or -4 and see if I couldn’t get someone to install a black Patridge front blade and a smooth trigger, if it didn’t already have one, and do the blackpowder “chamfer” on the cylinder. I could do without the mods if necessary, but that would be my preference.
I love the looks of the mountain gun w/4" bbl. I was in the market for one until I read posts of the difference in recoil between the mtn. gun and regular 629. Also recent posts concerning quality of new mtn. Guns. So, because I am old, and probably won't be hiking where the bears, cougars, etc. roam. I am purchasing a 629 44mag 4" bbl. Oh, did I forget to mention i am not into pain.
I don't think it's only the MGs with QC issues. It could be any model the way things are now. If you like the MG look, think about the 686 version.
My 629 MG is at S&W right now but I went to the LGS yesterday and saw a 686 MG. The timing was right on, no barrel cant, and .004 BC gap so I took it home.
My 629 MG is at S&W right now but I went to the LGS yesterday and saw a 686 MG. The timing was right on, no barrel cant, and .004 BC gap so I took it home.
The nearest mountain to me is 300 miles, we have no bears, bigfoot is dead, and I have a deal with the gators; I don't mess with them and they don't mess with me. The closest I had to a mountain gun was a model 69 and it is one gun that I have no regrets about shedding.
