Anyone not prefer mountain guns?

[71vette]

I want to buy a new MG just to support Smith doing away with the lock, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. I guess my other "problem" is they don't really do anything that I don't already have a revolver for. I have a 4 inch 624 and a 3 inch 629 so if I'm just going to carry 44 Special, I'm covered. If the 3 inch 629 and a 4 inch Mountain Gun are the same weight, I'd rather have the handier gun. In addition, my "midrange" 44 magnum handloads are all I want to deal with in my 3 inch so I'm betting it'd be the same with the MG.

I'm going to wait till this fall either way. Got too many other things going on and don't shoot the guns I already have enough as it is......

 

[Engine49guy]

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.

I kinda like having the option of both.
The evolution of the wide rib is interesting in itself.
Iirc the wide rib barrel first appears in early 1949 on the K38 "Heavy" Masterpiece ( first appears in the 1950 AMC Iirc) and was done to increase the weight of the K38 (which was lighter due to its larger bores) to be closer to the K22 and K32 (which prior all 3 had the same barrel rib profiles).
The K22 and K32 barrel ribs were also made slightly wider but not nearly as wide as the K38.
The second and third were the 44 Magnum and Combat Magnums which Im betting was to aid in dampening recoil .
The ejector rod shroud is another story since it was in existence much earlier, ( was it introduced on the triple lock?)
On a side note imo " barrel shroud" is a misnomer when describing the ejector rod shroud, also wouldn't say its "2/3" because that depends on the barrel length although I understand the topic is 4" Mountain guns.

 

[Jerry in SC]

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.

That’s a very good looking 629

 

[Wampus Cat]

I like the looks of the mountain gun. and I think that's what makes them trendy. You pay extra for trendy. My preference is the 629 with 4" barrel. It is a perfect compromise among price, accuracy, balance, and weight needed to tame the .44 cartridge. It it looks just about as good as a MG. I reload, so recoil isn't a big problem because on the range and plinking I have several good recipes that provide accuracy without the heavy kick. I can shoot 200 rounds and it doesn't bother me. If you're going to be in grizzly country, you want the hand cannon rounds. About two dozen shots with those will do in your wrists and shoulder big time. I have reloaded those kinds of rounds. But don't bother doing reloads with that kind of power any more. If I ever need them, I'll just pay the exorbitant cost of $50 or $60 a box for the best.

 

[Engine49guy]

Had to clean some guns tonight so gave me an opportunity to take a comparison photo of a 686-5+ Mountain gun and a 66-5 Combat Magnum, these are about the same age the 686-5 has a large right side tm and is laser etched , serial prefix is CCN shipped 1998 by my notes.
The 66-5 is rollstamped with small left side tm, serial prefix CDP shipped 1999 from my notes.
Both are mim internals and internal firing pin but pre iL.
Stocks are Herrets Rb to Sb Cocobolo.

 

[raygixxer89]

Had to clean some guns tonight so gave me an opportunity to take a comparison photo of a 686-5+ Mountain gun and a 66-5 Combat Magnum, these are about the same age the 686-5 has a large right side tm and is laser etched , serial prefix is CCN shipped 1998 by my notes.
The 66-5 is rollstamped with small left side tm, serial prefix CDP shipped 1999 from my notes.
Both are mim internals and internal firing pin but pre iL.
Stocks are Herrets Rb to Sb Cocobolo.

Wow, I didn't think that the bbls were tapered THAT much.
Nice pics.

 

[msinc]

I had a "Mountain Gun" once...it was a 629. I wasn't long selling it. Not that I don't like the gun, it just didn't do anything for me {well actually it put a couple hundred bucks in my pocket}. What makes a 27-2 with a 3 1/2" barrel not a mountain gun????
The fact is if you want to sell something, anything, just put the word "Mountain" in front of it. We had a litter of barn cats to get rid of several years ago. Nobody wanted them, until I advertised that they were mountain cats....got rid of the whole mess in about two hours. Buddy of mine had his dog get out and two months later he was "blessed" with a litter of the ugliest mutts you ever saw. I think the daddy was a wart hog. He sold them as mountain dogs too......
"Mountain gun"........what will they come up with next????????

 

[BabaBlueJay]

I suppose it depends on why you want one. For a legitimate mountaineer or big game hunter who might be rucking through the back country for days on end, yes every bit of weight you can cut is essential.

For the rest of us, the added weight makes the full underlug barrel much more pleasant to shoot.

 

[Stickgunner]

I suppose it depends on why you want one. For a legitimate mountaineer or big game hunter who might be rucking through the back country for days on end, yes every bit of weight you can cut is essential.

For the rest of us, the added weight makes the full underlug barrel much more pleasant to shoot.

If someone is fixated on weight, for real or imagined purposes, the Mountain Guns aren't light enough to make a substantial difference. If the idea is to save weight, get a firearm that will actually save you weight. I mentioned the 329PD earlier, and stand by my thoughts that it is more of a Mountain Gun than the engraved models ever will be.

 

[wproct]

I think they look kind of neat, but not enough to get me interested. I don't carry, and I've always liked the heavier models with full underlug barrel.

 

[msinc]

Here is my two "mountain guns"....carry one every time I go to my cabin in the mountains.....

 

[Hal H.]

My only experience with the 44 magnum mountain gun is due to it’s lighter weight the recoil is pretty stout. If you only plan to shoot it in emergencies, then it’s fine.

 

[Yendor357]

The only thing “Mountain” about mine is the mountain of problems with it. I had it for 2 days, Smith has had it for a month. It’d be funny if I wasn’t out $1200 with zero to show for it.

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

… but does anyone prefer a regular 629 over a mountain gun?

Are regular 629s more durable than the mountain guns?

I had a 629 but I let it go for another 29. I was packing N Frames in the mountains and the woods for a long time before the Mountain Gun came out.

I would think the heavier 629 would be more durable than the Mountain Gun. As a reloader I tend to put a lot of rounds down range.

 

[stansdds]

I had a 629 but I let it go for another 29. I was packing N Frames in the mountains and the woods for a long time before the Mountain Gun came out.

I would think the heavier 629 would be more durable than the Mountain Gun. As a reloader I tend to put a lot of rounds down range.

The durability comes from the strength of the cylinder, frame, and lock work. Other than chamfering the front edges of the cylinder, which does not affect the structural integrity of the cylinder, there is no difference between these items in the standard and Mountain Gun versions.

 

[Trooper224]

I had one of the early examples in .45 Colt. It was an excellent gun and I wish I had it back.

 

[3/4Flap]

Just like you should not buy a gun based on the story, you should not buy a gun based on the name. Having said that, I like the features of what Smith calls the MG.s I and a buddy had the early versions, mine in .45 Colt his in .44. We both had problems with them and got rid of them.
As for "mountains", I live, work and play in them and a handy wheelgun is a plus. Grizzly are moving into our area and the Feds have decided to dump 25-50 just east of me continuing their insane ESA program. These realities have my son who is a resource manager (forester) for a timber company & all his fellow foresters rethinking their 9mm's, .22 Mags, .40's. My son manages ~85,000 acres of remote timber ground and spend a lot of time alone as do all his fellow foresters. He already has a Ruger Redhawk 5 1/2" gun which IMO is the best .44 ever built, but it is heavy. He's carried it but the miles he puts under his caulk boots cause a lot of reflection on what he is packing around, considering all the rest of the stuff he carries as well. Hip holsters left him long ago and a shoulder holster, the only real option is a pain under his gear vest.
All that to say that in mountains where a "mountain gun" might just matter, I bet he'll take a look at one, tho not until they have some semblance of quality and reliability associated with them.
For myself, I'm set. I've had many heavy sixguns over the years. My remaining Smiths are a gifted 6" 28-2 and a 29-9 Heritage. The latter is IMO THE quintessential "Mountain Gun" for me. Very skinny UNribbed 6 1/2" bbl, .44 Mag. Still heavy for hip rider as all N-frames are TBH, it is nevertheless about as light as one can go in steel. Very much handling like the S&W 2nd Model Hand Ejectors (.45's, .455's) and sort of similar to the ribbed 1950 Target. It's been with me on a number of adventures over the years on the ranch here and in the mountains and I'm keeping it.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Just another vote here, FWIW. I wouldn't carry a 629 Mountain Gun on a bet. I once climbed Mt. Washington with a 4 inch 29 in a Milt Sparks Summer Special, and the 29 arrived wet. It survived, but I went looking for a 629. I found a 629 MG, but even though it had good grips (Hogue), the recoil was unreasonable, in view of my desire to have at least a two shot capability. I passed on it. I eventually found a PC double Magnaported 3 inch 629 which worked with hot loads, even better than my 4 inch 29.

I have also noticed that my factory 1917 reproduction recoils a lot more than my 4 inch cut down 25. I think that weight in the barrel matters more than weight elsewhere in controlling recoil, all out of proportion to any carrying difference.

Best wishes in your choice.

 

[bph9]

When I saw a video of a Big Game guide gun down a Grizzly with a Smith 9x19 auto pistol I said if I ever went to Alaska I would probably take a lightweight plasticky semi-auto 10 mm that has more firepower than a revolver and has an instant reload with a spare magazine than taking a Revolver that holds only 6 shots and can malfunction far quicker if dropped in the mud. If the 9mm can do it the 10mm certainly can too and probably just a little bit better.

 

[afret]

I think the guide got lucky the bear was going after his clients and not him so he had time to shoot the bear multiple times and he was using +P cartridges with 147 grain hard cast bullets.