Model 29-2 and 629 questions.

peppercorn

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
401
Reaction score
203
Location
Pac NW
Hello everyone. I am new to the forum but born into a Smith and Wesson family some 46 years ago and have been an owner since 1983.

I have a Model 29-2 8 3/8 which I purchased in near new condition when I was 18. Today that gun is in the same condition, which brings me to my questions.

Just this past week I purchased a 629 Talo 3 inch NIB with the intention of back country carry and general shooting.

Can someone please link and or direct me to a historical timeline on the changes made to the model 29 through the dash (-) iterations?

I have been looking for a model 29 4inch or 6inch in addition to the 3 inch I just purchased. I stumbled across a post somewhere that mentioned something about 'cast' parts and the newer versions/iterartions not being as well made as earlier versions.
Does this imply the NIB Talo 3 inch I just purchased is inferior in quality to my 'old' 29-2 and, if so, why?

Any and all information would be appreciated and any recomendations on a model, or range of models, to look at in my search for a 4 inch model 29.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
personally i would stay with the 29-2 or 629 no dash or dash 1. they won't have all the latest improvements but they have forged parts and at least some handfitting. i used to carry a 29-2 61/2 on a daily basis and they do get heavy after a while. the 29-2 and 629 no dash are pinned and recessed guns just like your first 29. to me that is a big plus. if you are planning on carrying a lot you might want to go with the 629. i'm not a big stainless handgun fan,but they do have their uses. i think i own one stainless revolver.
 
perrazi,
Thanks for the response, I do appreciate it.
I guess I am still wondering what changed in the later dash guns and when? You eluded to 'forged' parts and 'some' hand assembly so I can assume this has something to do with it.
I am also wondering if the 'new' 629 I just purchased, which I don't have in hand as of yet, has any weaknesses one should be aware of?
 
If that talo gun has the lock, it sucks.

The 629-2 4 inch is the perfect handgun - I have four of them.

My beater is a 329pd with the sucky lock defeated and tritium sights, plus a good action job.
 
The standard catalog of Smith & Wesson is a good reference for detailed information on these guns.I think I paid around $25 at Amazon.com.Well worth the price.
 
Welcome to the Forum! Check out the stickies!

Originally posted by 500 Magnum Nut in the "500 Magnum Nut's FAQ's" sticky:

What is MIM?

Here is an older post that I have copied here, what is MIM?

By popular request, here's the post from Mr. Herb Belin of S&W -----------------------
"I have read with much interest the many comments in this forum pertaining to MIM, MIM Parts and the use of same in a S&W product. So far I have come away with several impressions and they are "people in general don't like/trust MIM parts" and "no one has said why" I will take a stab at this issue and see where it goes.

As background to our decision to use MIM in some areas of our Mfg Process we took a long hard look at our "Life Time Service
Policy". It was clear to us that any change in any of our products such as the use of MIM components had to show equivalent or better performance and durability to those components that were being replaced or the "Lifetime Service" would haunt us forever. The second consideration was to determine if the change was too radical a departure from S&W mainstream design.

For the performance and durability issues we decided that if MIM could be used for the fabrication of revolver hammers and triggers successfully this would truly be an "Acid Test". There is nothing more important to a revolvers feel than the all-important Single Action Sear that is established between the hammer and the trigger. Mechanically few places in a revolver work harder than at the point where the hammer and trigger bear against each other. If these surfaces wear or loose there "edge" the "feel" is lost. Initial testing was on these two critical parts. Over time we arrived at a point where our best shooters could not tell the difference between a revolver with the old style hammer and trigger and the new MIM components. Special attention was given to their endurance when used in our very light Magnum J frames such as the early prototype 340 & 360 Sc's. None of our revolvers work their components harder than these small magnum revolvers. Throughout this testing MIM held strong and finally we determined that this change judged on the basis of durability and feel was a good one.

The second area of concern to S&W was our customer's reaction to this departure from the traditional. Many heated, intense discussions resulted but in the end the decision was made to move ahead with MIM.
The issue of cost was only one of the considerations in making this decision. Equally as important was the issue of part-to-part uniformity and the result of this of course is Revolver-to-Revolver consistency. We found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and triggers required almost no Fitter intervention in those areas during final assembly and final inspection and Trigger Pull Monitor rejection rates dropped markedly on finished guns. From an internal process point of view it appeared a "Winner".

Lets shift gears for a moment and talk about the MIM process. It is unclear to me as to the reason for many of the negative feelings on the forum concerning MIM. Typically when people complain and aren't specific in the reason why, the problem is often created by a departure from the "Traditional". Perhaps that is indeed what is bothering some people when they view MIM.

The term MIM stands for Metal Injection Molding. It holds some similarities to Plastic Injection Molding and many differences as well. To start we would take a finally divided metal powder. This could be stainless or carbon steel. Today even Titanium is being used in some MIM fabrications. We would mix the metal powder and a thermoplastic binder (generally a Wax) forming slurry of sorts when heated and inject this mix into a precision mold and finally form what is known as a "Green Part". This part is roughly 30% larger than the finished part it will become at the end of the process. Interestingly enough the Green Part at this stage can be snapped in two with simple finger pressure. The Green Parts are then placed in a Sintering furnace filled with dry Hydrogen gas and the temperature is brought almost to the melting point of the metal being used. Over time the "Wax" in the Green Part is evaporated, the metal fuses and the part shrinks 30% to it's final correct dimensions. At this stage of the process the MIM part has developed 98 to 99%of the density of the older wrought materials and a metallurgy that is almost identical. Dimensionally it is finished and no machining is required. However the job is not yet done and the MIM parts are brought to our Heat Treat facility for hardening and in the case of Hammers and Triggers, Case Hardening. Depending on the particular metal alloy that was used at the start of the process we apply a heat treat process that is the same as would be used if the material were the older wrought style. Final hardness, Case thickness and core hardness are for the most part identical to parts manufactured the older way.

Lets look for a moment at how we achieve dimensional precision when comparing these 2 processes. The old parts were each machined from either bar stock or a forging. Each cut and every resulting dimension was subject to machine variations, Cutter wear, operator variations etc. If every operation was done exactly right each and every time and the cutter didn't let you down you would have produced a good part but sometimes this didn't happen resulting in a rejected gun and rework or in the worst case an unhappy customer. With MIM parts you must still machine to very high tolerances and your cutters have to be perfect and your machinist has to be highly qualified but all of this only has to come together one time. That time is when the injection mold is made. Typically a mold for this process costs S&W between 30,000 and 50,000 dollars. Once it is perfect every part it makes mirrors this perfection and you have in my view a wonderful manufacturing process.

Hopefully this description will help us all better understand the MIM process.
Please forgive the spelling errors and misplaced punctuation. I have no spell checker on this and the phone continues to ring!

Have a Great Weekend,
Herb

Additional Point.
Currently S&W is paying about $1.20/Lb for stainless steel bar stock. Raw MIM stainless steel inject able material costs $10.00/Lb."

And also, this thread might answer some of your questions about the model changes: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...2-etc-when-cylinder-recoil-problem-fixed.html

Bear in mind the M29 and 629 model changes don't necessarily correspond with each other, for instance, the "endurance package" that started with the 629-2E and completed with the 629-3 was incorporated with the M29 in the dash 4 version, if my recollection is correct.

I'm certainly no expert, especially compared to the other members of this forum, but I hope that will help you.

And, I think you probably have a fine revolver with the Talo. Manufacturing has changed over the years, and while the older guns have features and hand-fitting not found on the new ones, the tolerances are generally tighter and more consistent on new guns. Except cylinder gap, it would seem;(

HTH
 
Last edited:
Stainless rules...

I have to agree with the previous poster regarding the marvelous 629-2, I have 2, both with unfluted cylinders and factory combat grips, a great combo in my view. If you get one, you might want to measure the cylinder throats. I used pin guages to measure mine. I found out that the one I shoot is oversize, but it still shot great anyway! I also have a pair of 629no dashes-there's just something about them. I don't think we'll be seeing any more like these guys-fancy technology and all included. I don't think there will ever be a time when they will be able to make a machine that can duplicate what a human craftsman invests of himself in one of these fine blends of form and function-The Real S&W's. Just my take, Flapjack.
 
Wow, I am glad I asked.
Interesting reads, posts and links, to say the least. I have spent most of my free time in other persuits outside the firearms circle over the years and really haven't availed myself to much, if any in some cases, of this information. So I will probably come up with a few more questions in time, hopefully well thought out.
The MIM parts read and subsequent links related and the Model 29 dash link was also helpful.
I plan on carrying and using the 629 3 inch once it arrives and I have also ordered a set of Eagle Grips Rosewood round butt conversion grips for it, complete with S&W 'Logos'. So I guess I'll see how this gun shakes out first hand soon enough.
As for the four incher, I have seen a couple of 629-1 and -2 guns that seem fair priced but am still looking for a 29...now -2, -3 or -5, as that seems to be the general consensus here as to which way to lean.
 
Last edited:
Flapjack (and all the rest of you 80's owners); you might want
to check out the oversized cast bullets from Oregon Trail.
The sell a .431 (Laser Cast Silver) bullet in 200 and 240 flavors
that actually measure .432.
This is the exact chamber throat dimension of most of my 80's
44s. 629-1 and 624s.
Why Smith chose to make these the way they did will forever
be a subject of campfire debate, but there are ways of taking care
of the problem.

I have a Dan Wesson that is .002 UNDERSIZED. This is
a REAL problem. I have always wondered why I had a pressure
problem with this gun. Only took me 20 years to apply the proper
instruments and find out what the deal was. For the record it's
a first run (pre serial number) stainless .445 Supermag
It's going to get reamed before I shoot it again.

---
Nemo
 
The Model 29-2 with 4 inch barrel is a great revolver as the 629 with 4 inch barrel. My 629 with 4 inch barrel is a no dash and to me is the best of both worlds.
 
Flapjack (and all the rest of you 80's owners); you might want
to check out the oversized cast bullets from Oregon Trail.
The sell a .431 (Laser Cast Silver) bullet in 200 and 240 flavors
that actually measure .432.
This is the exact chamber throat dimension of most of my 80's
44s. 629-1 and 624s.
Why Smith chose to make these the way they did will forever
be a subject of campfire debate, but there are ways of taking care
of the problem.

I have a Dan Wesson that is .002 UNDERSIZED. This is
a REAL problem. I have always wondered why I had a pressure
problem with this gun. Only took me 20 years to apply the proper
instruments and find out what the deal was. For the record it's
a first run (pre serial number) stainless .445 Supermag
It's going to get reamed before I shoot it again.

---
Nemo


Is there any current 'over the counter' ammunition that has a reputation for working the best in a 29-2? Maybe I have had a problem I have been completely unaware of all these years.
And what about the new 629?

I guess fat, dumb and happy isn't all it's wrapped up to be...Lol!
 
Back
Top