Anyone not prefer mountain guns?

[BillyMagg]

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.

View attachment 773006

That's what I admire, impulse buying, with not a care in the world, Happy 4th of July Air Force, only in the USA!

 

[chief38]

If I spent a lot of time in the woods or around dangerous large game I'd definitely get myself a 44 Magnum - which I currently and have never owned one. If I was a big game hunter I would as well. That said, I never felt the need or desire to own one. When I go into the woods I carry my M65 3" stoked with Buffalo Bore Heavy 357 magnum 180 grain SWC-FP. For any game I would encounter in the locations I go that should suffice. Because of the reasonable size and weight of my 3" M65 it is always with me and never a hinderance while walking through the woods.

I have shot plenty of 44 Magnums, .500 S&W Magnums, .50 AE and alike but never really had the desire to own one. Nothing against them, just never had the "calling".

 

[Timbo22]

I have no preference between the two but don't care for the full lug barrels at all. However, if I found an N frame in the caliber and barrel length I wanted I would buy it regardless.
My 629's are early square butts; one with 4 inch and other with a 6 inch barrel, plus I have a 629-3 Mountain Revolver (round butt, 4 inch slim barrel predecessor to the MGs).
The slender, classic looking profile barrel appeals to me for standard velocity rounds like the 45 Colt & ACP and mild loads in 357 Mag. In 44 Mag, I like the fuller barrel profile even though I only shoot 44 Special level loads.
My prey is paper targets and they don't bite back if I just wound them.

 

[DGNY]

I favor the heavier barrel gun in 44MAG. With full power loads, it is reasonably comfortable and quite controllable.. I personally value the bit of extra weight.

I also happen to have the mountain gun in 41 MAG and in 45 ACP, also if you will a spiritual predecessor in the 4” 624 in 44 SPEC. In those three calibers, the tapered barrel is quite satisfactory.

Wonderful to have choices.

 

[Tripper$$]

I think it all comes down to what your primary use will be combined with your experience level. I have every barrel length and configuration in 29’s and 629’s. For extended carry as a defense against man or beast a lighter revolver has advantages but shooting them with full house loads just plain hurts. However, if something is after you it will not matter at the moment. On the range for fun shooting I use loads about equal to 44 Special in light/short guns. They’re okay when you do that. My overall favorite is a 629 Classic 5”. Easy to carry, enough length to be accurate and not a bad kicker. I’ve taken all manner of big game with it from deer to cougar and it always works when I did my part.
If someone wants to see just how tough he is and impress everyone, I load a 3” with full house loads and hand it to him. Very very few will empty the cylinder before handing it back and becoming quite humble.

 

[KurtC]

I have always felt that the Mountain Gun should have a 5" tapered barrel, not 4.

 

[One Holer]

My first revolve r was a 4" 629 no- dash. I carried it hiking and hunting in Alaska and absolutely lived that gun. I was very accurate with it and the weight didn't bother me at my age back then (early twenties). Sold it because handguns had to have a 5" barrel to hunt with in both OH and MN in the early 90's. Fast forward many years and I missed my 629. Bought a 629-2 Mountain Revolver and hated it. Balance was off and it kicked noticeably harder than my 629. Sent it down the road and got a 4.25" M69 because I have always loved L frame revolvers. It is light weight, balanced, and handles recoil surprisingly well. The only big negative is having one less shot (5 vs. 6). I may get another 629 one day, but for now I am satisfied.

 

[Mike LaNier]

The Mountain Gun concept came about back in about 1989 when Ross Seyfried (former IPSC champion) and Tom Campbell of S&W came up with the concept of a tapered barrel, lighter weight revolver for what we might call 'Wilderness Carry". They made about 5000 of them in .44 Mag, and S&W expanded the concept into .41 Mag and .45 Colt in the 1990's, and lately have been developing the concept as a feature in other calibers. As a geezer with small hands, I'm of the opinion almost all .44 Magnum loads are unpleasant to shoot, irrespective of the weight of the gun or barrel length, some worse than others, of course. I have an original Mountain Gun as well as a short-barreled Model 624, and I find shooting .44 Special loads in both is comfortable...and comforting. Just a thought.

 

[cowboy94916]

I love tapered barrel Smiths Mountain gun or not. I have owned many 29's and 629's of various barrel lengths from 3" to 8 3/8". Oddly the most contollable for me happened to be a 629-4 with the addition of custom grips. For whatever reason those grips changed the gun from intollarable to a joy to shoot. Better yet, it is nice to carry all day while hunting the north woods. I do concur with KurtC and wish Smith made more 5" tapered barrel guns ala Smith 27" 5".

 

[DEF3]

What does a mountain gun do that a nice 28 can’t do? Besides caliber choices.

 

[Jfkidaho]

A 5 inch or 6 inch “mountain gun” would be a killer combo!

 

[stansdds]

What does a mountain gun do that a nice 28 can’t do? Besides caliber choices.

Nothing, except Model 28's have been out of production since 1986 and, so far, S&W has not seen a reason to reintroduce them.

 

[Jon651]

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?

I am not a fan of the Mountain Gun version of the 629, but rather prefer the "Classic" with the full underlug if for no other reason than I prefer how it looks. I also think the 5" barrel is the right length for me, but everyone has their own perspective. All else being equal, I can't really see why one version would be more durable than another so it basically comes down to aesthetics.

 

[Jerry in SC]

It depends, I’ve never been a fan of full underlug barrels for rimfire K frames, the mountain look is out of place to my eyes. I like the Outdoorsman style lighter weight tapered barrel.

The N frame .357 and .44 Specials like the 27, 28, 24 look better with the tapered barrels.

The .41 and 44 Magnum with full underlug barrels help with control.

A 5” 27 is one of the best looking and balanced S&W’s, while the 3 1/2” 27 or 4” 28 is the coolest looking

I’m an old guy and like the traditional configurations with some exceptions.

 

[1961MJS]

It depends, I’ve never been a fan of full underlug barrels for rimfire K frames, the mountain look is out of place to my eyes. I like the Outdoorsman style lighter weight tapered barrel.

Hi, with respect to the 617 K Frames, I ordered a 617 from a local dealer to match a 686+. That was a minor whoops in that the 617 has a much heavier barrel for the same sized barrel 686+. I target shoot and can use the extra weight for practice, but I was going for Same / Same.
Later

 

[Jerry in SC]

Hi, with respect to the 617 K Frames, I ordered a 617 from a local dealer to match a 686+. That was a minor whoops in that the 617 has a much heavier barrel for the same sized barrel 686+. I target shoot and can use the extra weight for practice, but I was going for Same / Same.
Later

My son’s K-22 and K-38 Target Masterpiece revolvers (6” barrels) feel almost identical in balance. They are a sweet spot to me considering weight and balance.

 

[Stickgunner]

I prefer a 329PD over a Mountain Gun. If you want light weight, the 329PD does it wonderfully.

 

[Well Armed]

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?

Me, me, me...

 

[Engine49guy]

While the "Mountain Revolver Mountain Gun " concept began with certain features IIRC the only features that have been consistent is the round butt grip frame, narrow rib tapered 4" barrel and smooth combat trigger.
The chamfered cylinder might be one too although some seem alot less chamfered than others.
To date we have seen them in blue and SS, N frames, L frames and K frames, Magnum and non Magnum, centerfire and rim fire, rubber stocks and wood stocks and now with the introduction of the 10mm/40SW a moon clip rimless version.
(My favorite is the blue 44 mag, pre iL SWCA comemorative with gold inlay engraving and wood stocks with SWCA medalion.)
Iirc MG front sight blades were all blue Baughman blades until the new Lipseys gold bead Patridge.
On a side note considering the hefty upcharge Id like to see an upgrade to an interchangeable front site system, well that and one in 9mm with the old 547 berilium extractor system.
Here is a favorite a 629-2 with a few upgrades over stock configuration.

 

[lppd4]

I also prefer the older style model 29 configuration. I guess my preferred style would be the 3/4 barrel shroud such as those on the 29-2. Just looks better in my opinion and adds a little weight up front where you need it.