Model 29-3 Quality

[Slyk54]

This may belong in the next forum; I'm not sure when the 27-3 started manufacture-

Anyway, I recently read an article about the 29-3 and how it wasn't nearly as good as the 29-2 or later models of the 29 since it wasn't a P&R gun, wasn't as strong as other models, etc. The primary complaint was about it holding up under thousands of full-house shells-

A local shop currently has a 29-3 for a bit over $700- seems to be in good condition, round-butt grips, blue steel, full underlug, and so forth.

If I purchase this gun it won't see heavy wear; I would shoot factory loaded stuff, probably quite a bit of 44 special and that no more than 500 - 600 rounds per year.

Should I keep looking for a 29-2 or later model due to the "weaknesses" of the 29-3?

Thanks!

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

The 29-3 isn't "weak", it just doesn't have the endurance upgrades. The endurance upgrades don't make a gun any stronger (they are all made of the same steels), but they do make them much more durable, which keeps them from loosening up with regular use of full power ammo, and I am talking about factory ammo, not hotrodded handloads as some would lead you to believe were the cause of all the problems. My first 29 was a -3, and I loved it, but I did experience some of the flaws that were being reported by shooters, and I used factory or equivelent handloads, not hot loads. I regularly got the double firing pin indentation on the primers, and I felt the trigger kickback sensation anytime I went above .44 special level loads. The endurance package eliminated all of those problems and more. I sold that gun and bought several with the endurance upgrades, and have never had any other problems.


The only full underlugged 29-3 that I am aware of was the Classic Hunter model with the adjustable front sight, and it has a square butt, not round, so maybe the one you are looking at has been altered by someone it its past. Any 29 that has a round butt should be a -5 or later.

 

[Slyk54]

Thanks for the reply; not to derail this post but the gun I am looking at is stamped inside the crane as a -3. Barrel length is approx. 5", and there is no roll-mark identifying it as a classic hunter. It is blue steel, full underlug, and I have may have mis-spoken when I said round-butt; the grips are finger grooved and have the round-butt base. I guess it is possible that these are actually on a square-butt gun?

Anyway, I guess anything is possible, like a different barrel installed on the -3 frame?

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

First, are you measuring the barrel correctly? Are you measuring from the front of the frame, or cylinder? Measure the barrel from the face of the cylinder to the end of the muzzle on revolvers for correct barrel length. Remember that the barrel shank sticks through the frame, and almost touches the face of the cylinder. That means it might be a 6" barrel instead, but the rund butt still sounds like a conversion to me on a-3.

There may have been a special run of the -3 guns that used the 5" barrel and round butt gripframe, but I am not aware of them. The earliest that I am aware of are -4 and later guns, and they have a non fluted cylinder, along with the underlug on the barrel, and red ramp front sight. It is possible that the gunhas been custom roundbutted and had a full underlug barrel installed, because that was a fairly popular conversion back when that barrel profile first came out.

Pictures would really help with identification.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

I've got a 29-3 that I bought new. It originally was a 6" barrel. About three years ago I had the barrel replaced with a 4" one. I've not had any problems.

 

[doublesharp]

Only thing I've noticed on the -3s and newer is the blueing is kinda hit and miss. Many have a splotchy look compared to the gloss of the -2 and earlier. I always thought the prettiest blue guns came out of the 50s and early 60s.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

...the -3s and newer is the bluing is kinda hit and miss. Many have a splotchy look compared to the gloss of the -2 and earlier.

I agree with that! The barrel I had installed on my 29-3 was from an earlier gun with a pinned barrel and lazy &. The bluing is much deeper and brighter on the barrel tan on the frame/cylinder of the 29-3 its attached to.

 

[dmar]

I've got a 29-3 that I bought new. It originally was a 6" barrel. About three years ago I had the barrel replaced with a 4" one. I've not had any problems.

That's a great looking -3... I've got a couple of 29-2s, and they are great guns. I also have a 29-3, and to be honest, the -3 has great fit/finish. The blueing is beautiful, and the wood grain is very nice. After reading posts from other S&W enthusiasts, I suppose there could be some issues with full power magnum loads over time, but the -2s don't have the "endurance package" either...

I think it comes down to how important having a pinned and recessed gun is to you, and how much you are going to shoot full power magnum .44s (in my experience, not something I enjoy doing for very long...). If you want to shoot the heck out of a S&W .44, get a later model gun, otherwise the -2s and -3s are great guns. I would always want to examine any S&W revolver before buying, as there can be fit/finish/wear issues on any of these guns. And, you want to make sure the price is right for the particular model and condition.

Of the models mentioned, I do prefer the -2s, but think if you've got a nice -3, I think they are great too. It seems that the -3s really don't always get a very fair rap, but I love mine; YMMV. Good luck with your decision.

 

[blaiwayw]

Just comes down to, are you going to shoot it or collect it, or both. At $700 you should be looking at a -2 version. I think the -3 version is a bit overpriced. You will eventually sell it and buy the P&R version. The S&W revolver mania cannot be satisfied at one. You'll spend more time cleaning and admiring it than shooting it anyway.

 

[Doc44]

From a functional point of view, there is no difference between a 29-2 and 29-3, except the cylinder of the -3 is easier to clean since it is not counterbored. The review of the 29-2 and earlier model variations versus the 29-3 was in error as the -3 and earlier variations are same when it comes to internal and external lockwork and heat treatment of the metal.

In the early 70s, shooters complained to Elmer Keith the quality of the 29 had gone down when the screw in the trigger guard was eliminated. Shooters and collectors dislike change and older is always better (even when it isn't).

Bill

 

[29aholic]

I dont know. I have a -3 that a few here have seen pics of and one or 2 have seen in person. While I never gave it a steady diet of grizzly loads through it, it has had more than a few and I never experienced any unlocking or hammer/trigger rebound. Believe it or not, I am 43 and I bought this gun new when I was 18 and it has had literally 10's of 1000's of rounds through it. I used to shoot at least 100rds a night 6 nights a week for several years through that gun. I have put at least 3 12lb kegs of 700X at 7grs per through my gun (do the math) not counting hot loads and factory with nary a problem. This was back in the day when I knew what a P&R gun was but didnt realize a value difference.
I was in a very unique position to where I was able to burn a lot of powder at little expense to myself and I'll go out on a limb here and say very few gun writers have shot as many rounds through the same gun as I.
As Tim has stated, if you want the ultimate 29 for endurance buy a -5, but my -3 is still alive and well.

 

[akguy1985]

i love my 29-3 4in