not sure about 29
- Thread starter ultra12
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
I have shot 29s on a regular basis for around 8 years. Never once have I had the cylinder reset itself. From what I understand the fellows having the problems where pushing heavy heavy bullets pretty fast. I personally am sweet on the 29-2s but each to his own. I have a couple 29-3s and they have been great guns too. My 29-10 is a nice gun as well but it seems like they changed the action a bit.
Most shooters probably will not experience the cylinder problem in an older 29-2, but the upgrades didn't involve only that.
The 29-5 was legitimately a product-improved version of a classic Smith revolver.
As such, I prefer to have the "better" version.
Denis
The 29-5 was legitimately a product-improved version of a classic Smith revolver.
As such, I prefer to have the "better" version.
Denis
Joni_Lynn
US Veteran
The 29-5 is by far my favorite for shooting. The 29-6 is a very close second place.
Depends on what you want, but since you say you don't want to worry about the cylinder running backwards, buy a 29-5 or later model. If you don't plan to shoot anything heavier than 240-250 grains, I really don't think you would have any problems with a 29-2 that is properly maintained. The 29-2s are certainly prettier guns, compared to the standard 29-5.
Joni_Lynn
US Veteran
If you just want a gun with the endurance package you would start looking for a 29-3E, 29-4 and up.
The accuracy package was started with the 29-5 Magna Classic, Classic DX & Classic.
All nice and all slightly different from each other in small ways.
The accuracy package was started with the 29-5 Magna Classic, Classic DX & Classic.
All nice and all slightly different from each other in small ways.
PA Reb
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,511
- Reaction score
- 1,816
"M29since14" hit the nail right on the head - it all comes down to what the shooter wants. The model 29-2 with a 6 1/2" barrel is better balanced and certainly has more eye appeal than its cousins (29-5 or later). The 29-2 does just fine with any load it was made to handle and the problems didn't start until people began to push the limits with their reloads. Personally, I love the model 29s/629s and have several from the 29-2 to those currently in production. If I want to push the envelope with a hot hunting load, I take anything from 29-5 on up. If I want to be "Harry stylish" and stay within the limits, I crank a few with the 29-2. Those who call the 29-5 and later a "better version" are missing the concept entirely!
Mule88
Member
Whats the difference between the 29-5 and 29-6. My dash 6 still has forged parts and hammer mounted firing pin?
PA Reb
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,511
- Reaction score
- 1,816
Here's a pretty good online article that may answer your questions.
http://www.bowersweapons.com/SMITH AND WESSON MODEL 29 HISTORY.htm
Joni_Lynn
US Veteran
On the 29-5 Classic to 29-6 Classic the extractor star is changed, a shorter slightly different rear sight leaf and I think the thumb release for the cylinder is MIM.
Earlier 29-5 models have a square front to the rear sight versus the rounded front found on the newer ones.
Earlier 29-5 models have a square front to the rear sight versus the rounded front found on the newer ones.
My reference to the 29-5 being "better" is in regards to the endurance package.
I own 5 .44 Mag revolvers, all chosen for longevity.
I don't care about a Dirty Harry connection, I care about my own connection.
I would expect the 29-5 to hold up better over the long run than a 29-2, and that makes it better, for me.
I have no idea what makes a 29-2 "better balanced" than my 29-5, or what else I've "missed" in the concept.
What exactly IS the concept?
My 29-5, incidentally, has been factory re-furbished & it's gorgeous.
Denis
I own 5 .44 Mag revolvers, all chosen for longevity.
I don't care about a Dirty Harry connection, I care about my own connection.
I would expect the 29-5 to hold up better over the long run than a 29-2, and that makes it better, for me.
I have no idea what makes a 29-2 "better balanced" than my 29-5, or what else I've "missed" in the concept.
What exactly IS the concept?
My 29-5, incidentally, has been factory re-furbished & it's gorgeous.
Denis
PA Reb
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,511
- Reaction score
- 1,816
"My reference to the 29-5 being "better" is in regards to the endurance package."
Better only if you want to shoot hotter loads and push the envelope. Otherwise, the 29-2 will handle what it was meant to handle as well as your 29-5.
"I own 5 .44 Mag revolvers, all chosen for longevity."
The 29-2 will last every bit as long as your five .44 magnums.
"I don't care about a Dirty Harry connection, I care about my own connection."
I don't believe anyone tried to make Harry a connection. I simply said when I want to be "Harry stylish."
"I would expect the 29-5 to hold up better over the long run than a 29-2, and that makes it better, for me."
In my opinion, you're wrong but get whatever floats your boat.
"I have no idea what makes a 29-2 "better balanced" than my 29-5, or what else I've "missed" in the concept.
What exactly IS the concept?"
I guess you have missed the concept. The 29-2 with a 6 1/2" barrel is a better balanced gun in my opinion than a 29-2 or any other dash that has the 6" barrel.
"My 29-5, incidentally, has been factory re-furbished & it's gorgeous."
I'll bet it is. I have a 29-5 that hasn't been refurbished and its gorgeous also!
Better only if you want to shoot hotter loads and push the envelope. Otherwise, the 29-2 will handle what it was meant to handle as well as your 29-5.
"I own 5 .44 Mag revolvers, all chosen for longevity."
The 29-2 will last every bit as long as your five .44 magnums.
"I don't care about a Dirty Harry connection, I care about my own connection.
"I don't believe anyone tried to make Harry a connection. I simply said when I want to be "Harry stylish."
"I would expect the 29-5 to hold up better over the long run than a 29-2, and that makes it better, for me."
In my opinion, you're wrong but get whatever floats your boat.
"I have no idea what makes a 29-2 "better balanced" than my 29-5, or what else I've "missed" in the concept.
What exactly IS the concept?"
I guess you have missed the concept. The 29-2 with a 6 1/2" barrel is a better balanced gun in my opinion than a 29-2 or any other dash that has the 6" barrel.
"My 29-5, incidentally, has been factory re-furbished & it's gorgeous."
I'll bet it is. I have a 29-5 that hasn't been refurbished and its gorgeous also!
Disagree that the 29-2 will hold up as well as the 29-5, even with standard .44 Mag loads.
The durability was increased with the endurance package, and that was not done entirely for 300-grainers or for silhouette shooters.
The 29-2 most certainly will not hold up as well or as long with any loads as my two Redhawks and the Blackhawk. My other .44 Mag is a 629-3, which I'd also expect to hold together longer than a 29-2.
S&W made the endurance package changes for good reason. The 29-2 had its deficiencies.
The EP addressed as many of those as reasonably possible, given the envelope restrictions entailed in the N-Frame.
I don't make these statements to "float" my boat, nor am I trying to be sarcastic or snide.
Yep, I'm still missing the "concept".
What IS the concept?
Half an inch difference in barrel lengths is the "concept"?
That .5 inch may make a major difference in balance for you, but it's not even noticeable to me. Nor would it have any real significance if it was, since I'm more interested in longterm mechanical reliability (my .44s are not range toys) than a slight balance variation between the two.
I find your assertion that the 29-2 will hold up as well as later versions wrong, and if your only reason for promoting its superiority over the 29-5 is that it balances better, I find that invalid, too.
I won't argue beyond what I've said. I answered the original question, I'd go for the 29-5 in a heartbeat over the -2 version.
If you want the last word, go ahead.
Anybody else is perfectly free to make up their own mind as to which is "better".
Denis
The durability was increased with the endurance package, and that was not done entirely for 300-grainers or for silhouette shooters.
The 29-2 most certainly will not hold up as well or as long with any loads as my two Redhawks and the Blackhawk. My other .44 Mag is a 629-3, which I'd also expect to hold together longer than a 29-2.
S&W made the endurance package changes for good reason. The 29-2 had its deficiencies.
The EP addressed as many of those as reasonably possible, given the envelope restrictions entailed in the N-Frame.
I don't make these statements to "float" my boat, nor am I trying to be sarcastic or snide.
Yep, I'm still missing the "concept".
What IS the concept?
Half an inch difference in barrel lengths is the "concept"?
That .5 inch may make a major difference in balance for you, but it's not even noticeable to me. Nor would it have any real significance if it was, since I'm more interested in longterm mechanical reliability (my .44s are not range toys) than a slight balance variation between the two.
I find your assertion that the 29-2 will hold up as well as later versions wrong, and if your only reason for promoting its superiority over the 29-5 is that it balances better, I find that invalid, too.
I won't argue beyond what I've said. I answered the original question, I'd go for the 29-5 in a heartbeat over the -2 version.
If you want the last word, go ahead.
Anybody else is perfectly free to make up their own mind as to which is "better".
Denis
Similar threads
- Locked
