S&W 629 Mountain Revolver
- Thread starter rfo1
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
VaRecon
Member
Rare case where the rubbers look good IMO. Nice gun.
My only problem would be it doesn't cover the backstrap.
But then again I have not shot a whole lot of .44
My only problem would be it doesn't cover the backstrap.
But then again I have not shot a whole lot of .44
The Wife and I have been carrying 4" S&W 44 Mags for years when in the field, hunting fishing, backpacking etc...
So several years back I bought her a Mountain revolver.
It is just enough lighter that you can tell a difference when carrying it in the holster. We mostly carry cross draw, unless we aere some place where it is better to have it "out of site".
I liked it so much I had to buy one for myself.
In fact the only toime I have carried a "Regular 629" was when I went to Zimbabwe. I took instead for 2 reasons. One if it got stolen in air travel I could replace it easier than a MG, and I would be shooting only Garrett ammo, and the heavier 629 does kick a little less.
I think the Mountain Gun in 44 Mag is the perfect compromise, in power, controlability, carryability, and accuracy, for a field gun.
So several years back I bought her a Mountain revolver.
It is just enough lighter that you can tell a difference when carrying it in the holster. We mostly carry cross draw, unless we aere some place where it is better to have it "out of site".
I liked it so much I had to buy one for myself.
In fact the only toime I have carried a "Regular 629" was when I went to Zimbabwe. I took instead for 2 reasons. One if it got stolen in air travel I could replace it easier than a MG, and I would be shooting only Garrett ammo, and the heavier 629 does kick a little less.
I think the Mountain Gun in 44 Mag is the perfect compromise, in power, controlability, carryability, and accuracy, for a field gun.
Also let me add in 2006, after I retired, the wife and I were in a gun store, and she handled a handgun with a pair of lazer grips.
She said she liked the lazer, so I bought both of us a pair of Crimson Trace for our Mountain Guns, and sighted them it.
They work GREAT. I have shot several running small varmints with them.
I have yet to miss. I do KNOW I would not have hit most of them with out the lazer.
The lazer does work that good.
I have one on an AR15. It is sighted in.
I could shoot a gallon jug of milk off of your head at 100 yards, from the hip.
She said she liked the lazer, so I bought both of us a pair of Crimson Trace for our Mountain Guns, and sighted them it.
They work GREAT. I have shot several running small varmints with them.
I have yet to miss. I do KNOW I would not have hit most of them with out the lazer.
The lazer does work that good.
I have one on an AR15. It is sighted in.
I could shoot a gallon jug of milk off of your head at 100 yards, from the hip.
one eye joe
US Veteran
smokey04
Member
Beautiful guns all, I love mine but I'm looking hard for a .45 ACP MG. Nick
Stainz
Member
My first .44 was my 629MG, bought new 11/02. Through my own stupidity - and wanton laziness - I destroyed it ~5.5 yr back. S&W replaced it with a standard 629-6 4"-er, as no MG's were in the pipeline then. They didn't have to, it was clearly my fault and I told them so, but, after perusing it's remnants, they offered to replace it for a song - which I gladly sang. All that said, I have one admission...
I like the stock 4"-er better. That may make me a heretic - but - the additional 2 oz - a whole 5% of it's mass - is all 'out front' - keeps the muzzle down a little better. And - away with the MG's black/black front/rear sights - in with the red ramp front and white outline rear - faster pickup for my 'mature' eyes. Then there is that bigger hammer - and trigger. The roll marked barrel holds up to cleaning - my 'laser etched' .45 Colt 625MGs' markings are difficult to even see now. No plans for a standard barrel 625 in .45 Colt, however - I've not seen one! If I ever find a decent 625MG in .45 ACP I can afford, it's mine.
I know, how'd I 'ka-boom' my 629MG... simple. Shoot 150+ lead bullet .44 Russians and Specials - then - without cleaning the chambers - it was late - I stuffed - with difficulty - six 300gr LSWC over 6.1gr Titegroup (~810 fps) in .44 Magnum cases into the soiled chambers. The first shot was low - the next three pinged the 16" steel plate at 110yd. The fifth round made a 'boommfff... tinkle tinkle' sound. I used 6.2gr Titegroup - 10.2gr was the maximum that could be dropped without serious compression, due to the long 300gr LSWC bullet. According to Hodgdon's, that would have been safe. But - a stuck bullet - like one slowed in it's crimp release by built-up crud from shorter cartridges - would destroy even a Ruger. S&W and I agreed. I was fortunate - blessed, actually - and unhurt. I dodged a stuck bullet!
Stainz
PS S&W returned the only part that wasn't rendered into rubble - the 629MG's barrel!
I like the stock 4"-er better. That may make me a heretic - but - the additional 2 oz - a whole 5% of it's mass - is all 'out front' - keeps the muzzle down a little better. And - away with the MG's black/black front/rear sights - in with the red ramp front and white outline rear - faster pickup for my 'mature' eyes. Then there is that bigger hammer - and trigger. The roll marked barrel holds up to cleaning - my 'laser etched' .45 Colt 625MGs' markings are difficult to even see now. No plans for a standard barrel 625 in .45 Colt, however - I've not seen one! If I ever find a decent 625MG in .45 ACP I can afford, it's mine.
I know, how'd I 'ka-boom' my 629MG... simple. Shoot 150+ lead bullet .44 Russians and Specials - then - without cleaning the chambers - it was late - I stuffed - with difficulty - six 300gr LSWC over 6.1gr Titegroup (~810 fps) in .44 Magnum cases into the soiled chambers. The first shot was low - the next three pinged the 16" steel plate at 110yd. The fifth round made a 'boommfff... tinkle tinkle' sound. I used 6.2gr Titegroup - 10.2gr was the maximum that could be dropped without serious compression, due to the long 300gr LSWC bullet. According to Hodgdon's, that would have been safe. But - a stuck bullet - like one slowed in it's crimp release by built-up crud from shorter cartridges - would destroy even a Ruger. S&W and I agreed. I was fortunate - blessed, actually - and unhurt. I dodged a stuck bullet!
Stainz
PS S&W returned the only part that wasn't rendered into rubble - the 629MG's barrel!
one eye joe
US Veteran
UGLY story, Stainz...........
With no intent to rain on the OP's parade, I have to agree with Stainz. The older I get, the less I am able to tolerate anything that kicks more than an ordinary 44 Magnum with ordinary 44 Magnum loads.
That said, I do have a "mountain gun" - of sorts. I have always had an intense dislike for round-butt frames in the Ks and Ns, so when Hamilton Bowen agreed to fix up a comparable gun on the standard frame, I was happy to give it a whirl. Mine has his "blackpowder" chamfered cylinder, much like the OP's gun, and Mr. Bowen was kind enough to humor me and installed white/red sights, which I like (he does not
). It is a great S&W 44 Magnum, in the mold of the 4-inch 1950 Target (pardon the affront to those who may consider that so), but it is notably more difficult to shoot accurately than a standard model, IMO.The real question for mountain guns, for me anyway, it what stocks to put on them. With the round-butt frame version, I was never happy with anything I tried. With the Bowen square-butt version, I have a set of smooth stags (magnas) with a T-grip, which works pretty well, but something just a shade bigger would be better. A set of fancy wood, smooth target stocks, about the size of the old NT-38 stocks S&W used to make, or just a hair trimmer, would be ideal... I think.
I just bought a used 629-4 with a four inch barrel...call me stupid {i'm used to it with the wife}, but what exactly is it that puts the "mountain" in a mountain gun??? When I first heard the term everyone was talking about guns with a 3" barrel but then I actually saw guns with the words "Mountain Gun" engraved on the barrel and all of them I saw had a 4" barrel. Is my 4" barrel 629-4 without the engraved name on the barrel still a "mountain gun" or what??? Thanks for any info in advance.
The lightweight features are what make the pattern. The tapered barrel, the "chamfered" cylinder, the round-butt frame, and, yes - the 4-inch barrel, in the N-frames.
629-4s were made in all of the patterns, I believe. "Mountain," standard, and "Classic."
629-4s were made in all of the patterns, I believe. "Mountain," standard, and "Classic."
one eye joe
US Veteran
M29, I'd LOVE to see some pics of your revolver. I am NOT enamored of the RB frame, except on my CCW snubbies. Finger groove grips of any brand just do not fit my hand. I solve the problem by using AhrendsWith no intent to rain on the OP's parade, I have to agree with Stainz. The older I get, the less I am able to tolerate anything that kicks more than an ordinary 44 Magnum with ordinary 44 Magnum loads.
That said, I do have a "mountain gun" - of sorts. I have always had an intense dislike for round-butt frames in the Ks and Ns, so when Hamilton Bowen agreed to fix up a comparable gun on the standard frame, I was happy to give it a whirl. Mine has his "blackpowder" chamfered cylinder, much like the OP's gun, and Mr. Bowen was kind enough to humor me and installed white/red sights, which I like (he does not
The real question for mountain guns, for me anyway, it what stocks to put on them. With the round-butt frame version, I was never happy with anything I tried. With the Bowen square-butt version, I have a set of smooth stags (magnas) with a T-grip, which works pretty well, but something just a shade bigger would be better. A set of fancy wood, smooth target stocks, about the size of the old NT-38 stocks S&W used to make, or just a hair trimmer, would be ideal... I think.
RB frame to SB grip, smooth tactical conversion grips. I have them on each of my RB S&W revolvers. They work well for me, and may help you out as well.....
Attachments
With no intent to rain on the OP's parade, I have to agree with Stainz. The older I get, the less I am able to tolerate anything that kicks more than an ordinary 44 Magnum with ordinary 44 Magnum loads.
That said, I do have a "mountain gun" - of sorts. I have always had an intense dislike for round-butt frames in the Ks and Ns, so when Hamilton Bowen agreed to fix up a comparable gun on the standard frame, I was happy to give it a whirl. Mine has his "blackpowder" chamfered cylinder, much like the OP's gun, and Mr. Bowen was kind enough to humor me and installed white/red sights, which I like (he does not
The real question for mountain guns, for me anyway, it what stocks to put on them. With the round-butt frame version, I was never happy with anything I tried. With the Bowen square-butt version, I have a set of smooth stags (magnas) with a T-grip, which works pretty well, but something just a shade bigger would be better. A set of fancy wood, smooth target stocks, about the size of the old NT-38 stocks S&W used to make, or just a hair trimmer, would be ideal... I think.
I have to agree! My Mountain Gun is a .45 Colt and anything much beyond factory spec ammo gets pretty uncomfortable. I've shot loads through it that enter .44mag territory and its a real handful. I can't imagine a .44mag MG loaded with anything more than a hot .44 Special to be enjoyable for more than a few rounds.
FWIW, I'm running Ahreds Retro Target on mine. The finger groove Ahrends that came on it were taken off and fitted to my dad's 686. As much as I love the look of wood grips, something like the Pachmayr Decelerator would make for a more enjoyable experience.
Thanks, I just returned from the gunshop where my gun is waiting for paperwork to return. I had to have a look and see exactly what it is...I remembered the tapered barrel and the round butt frame but didn't recall seeing any bevel on the front of the cylinder. Sure enough, on the right side of the barrel "Mountain Gun" engraving. Didn't have any where near the bevel on the front of the cylinder though. Dont know how I missed seeing the engraving, the gunshop owner said the same thing!!! Wow I now own a real live honest to god Mountain Gun!!!!
Snapping Twig
Member
Beautiful!
I do love the Mountain Guns!
I held off on posting this, but there is a bit of a similarity here, let me demonstrate...
That's a 4" 624 no dash with a set of grips I had in stock from another roscoe I bought new.
Other than caliber and the BP cylinder, I'd say there was a passing familiarity.
Although it's NOT, I feel that the 624 COULD be considered an early Mountain Gun, especially if loaded with Skeeters.
I do love the Mountain Guns!
I held off on posting this, but there is a bit of a similarity here, let me demonstrate...
That's a 4" 624 no dash with a set of grips I had in stock from another roscoe I bought new.
Other than caliber and the BP cylinder, I'd say there was a passing familiarity.
Although it's NOT, I feel that the 624 COULD be considered an early Mountain Gun, especially if loaded with Skeeters.
I agree. It is a shame the reputation of the 624 was kind of soured by the incorrect metal issue with the cylinders in some of the earlier production of the model. Like any 4-inch 1950 Target would, it fills the bill very well in this area when loaded with 250Ks to 1000-1100 FPS. I don't do it myself, in my 624, since I have the 629 for that purpose, but I would have no qualms with doing so, if I didn't. The 624 lacks only the name stamped or etched on the barrel, as far as I am concerned, and I kind of like it that way.
In the 4" S&W 44 Mags, I have found that the Speer 270gr Gold Dot SP, and the Federal 300gr Cast Core are more comfortable to shoot than the Factory full power Federal, Winchester, and Remington 240gr loads.
This includes not only the Mountain Gun, but the 4" 329 as well.
This includes not only the Mountain Gun, but the 4" 329 as well.
one eye joe
US Veteran
That's good info. Thanks for posting it..........
jubela#4
Member
That 629 Moutnain Gun looks great. Great photography as well.
Similar threads
- Locked
