Shooting a Model 29 4"
- Thread starter JimWest
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
I say you gotta have one. A Glock doesn't compare in any way, IMO. I wouldn't trade my 4" 29-2 for six Glocks and a partridge in a pear tree.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 7,100
The idea that a Glock 22 in .40 S&W is a suitable gun for this purpose is laughable.
The only Glock that comes close would be the Glock 20 in 10mm custom loaded with heavy, deep penetrating bullets so that the ballistics are as close to a .41 Magnum as possible without unnecessarily high pressures - I think you can safely get to within 15% or so of a suitable .41 Magnum load. Kent Lomont used such loads in his Glock 20, and he encountered grizzly bears and other predators. He said the .40 caliber was simply not up to the task.
I know of no maker that makes such 10mm ammo, but if anyone would, it would be Buffalo Bore.
Unless you can find such ammo, the Model 29 with 4 inch worked well for Elmer Keith and it will work well for you. I would stay with bullets in the 240 to 250 grain range. Elmer's famous load would be the one I would want. Your only source for the real properly hard cast 429421 is Lynn Halstead over at Dry Creek Bullet Works. Give him a call. If you reload and want the real Keith bullet, you have to ask as it is not on the web site.
The only Glock that comes close would be the Glock 20 in 10mm custom loaded with heavy, deep penetrating bullets so that the ballistics are as close to a .41 Magnum as possible without unnecessarily high pressures - I think you can safely get to within 15% or so of a suitable .41 Magnum load. Kent Lomont used such loads in his Glock 20, and he encountered grizzly bears and other predators. He said the .40 caliber was simply not up to the task.
I know of no maker that makes such 10mm ammo, but if anyone would, it would be Buffalo Bore.
Unless you can find such ammo, the Model 29 with 4 inch worked well for Elmer Keith and it will work well for you. I would stay with bullets in the 240 to 250 grain range. Elmer's famous load would be the one I would want. Your only source for the real properly hard cast 429421 is Lynn Halstead over at Dry Creek Bullet Works. Give him a call. If you reload and want the real Keith bullet, you have to ask as it is not on the web site.
Last edited:
A little side by side shooting comparison should tell you which is more powerful. 
WPWarhawk
US Veteran
I suggest the stainless version, the model 629.
A 4" 29/629 and bear spray.
apples to oranges
Stevie
Member
The 4" Mod 29 works just like any other S&W revolver..open cylinder..stick 6 .44 mags/.44 specials..close and shoot..not hard at all.
As for back woods backup in Alaska...if you really expect to tangle with a bear while using a handgun..then I would suppose your choice should be obvious
As for back woods backup in Alaska...if you really expect to tangle with a bear while using a handgun..then I would suppose your choice should be obvious
AKRuss
Member
I agree with most above in that a .44 magnum is a good gun for the intended job. I carried a model 29 for about 36 years while working in Alaska. However, shooting a .44 magnum well takes lots of practice and ammo. If you're really in need of bear protection, there's nothing like a large rifle and a few buddies would be nice too.
Having worked in far backwoods Alaska in 1965, I would sincerely suggest a 29 or 629 with a side of 10 or 12 gauge. The 629 Mountain Gun is my personal choice although I have a 6.5" Model 29 too. We were taught that the purpose of the firearm was (1) loud noise, and if that didn't work, (2) to get a bear's adrenalin going which supposedly destroys their sense of smell... giving you time to run and get out of their sight. If they can't see you, they can't find you. That's what were taught although I never tested that theory.
Last edited:
Art Doc
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
I currently own 2 M29-2s (6.5" & a 4" version) and I find them brutal with full loads. Firing a fast (and accurate) repeat shot is impossible.
Even the 44 Magnum is marginal if you actually need to stop a big bear. If I really thought there was a chance of being being attacked by a bear I wouldn't go there. If I had to go there, I would want more than a pistol.
I'm thinking a 12 gauge auto (fast follow up shots) with an alloy receiver (for low weight) and an 18" barrel (compact) with a big, brightly colored front sight (for quick acquisition). A 3" Magnum slug in the chamber backed up by 00 buck filling the magazine. Put a sturdy sling on it and put it muzzle down over your shoulder. Practice bring it up and getting off a fast aimed first shot. Practice doing this a lot.
No, not as convenient as a revolver in a holster, but if you lose the lottery and get charged by a bear this is the gun you want.
Even the 44 Magnum is marginal if you actually need to stop a big bear. If I really thought there was a chance of being being attacked by a bear I wouldn't go there. If I had to go there, I would want more than a pistol.
I'm thinking a 12 gauge auto (fast follow up shots) with an alloy receiver (for low weight) and an 18" barrel (compact) with a big, brightly colored front sight (for quick acquisition). A 3" Magnum slug in the chamber backed up by 00 buck filling the magazine. Put a sturdy sling on it and put it muzzle down over your shoulder. Practice bring it up and getting off a fast aimed first shot. Practice doing this a lot.
No, not as convenient as a revolver in a holster, but if you lose the lottery and get charged by a bear this is the gun you want.
JAREDSHS
Member
a four inch 29 would work the best for me why trust your best interests to the wimpy 40 S&W ?
onetonson56
Member
I carry a 629 no-dash 4 " when in bear country. I have no idea whether it will stop one, but it makes me feel better. I can tell you that if you touch one off without hearing protection your ears will ring for days. Don't ask me how I know this. I guess it is better to be deaf than dead.
Mike
Mike
SP-
There have been countless tests by the AK F&G and other sources that show buckshot being next to useless on large bears, so I would never recommend it.
I carried a Redhawk everywhere I went when I lived up in AK, and it wasn't very confidence inspiring when there were brownies around. Better than throwing rocks, but not much. Unless a person has stood close up and personal with those bears, they can't really grasp just how large they are.
Personally, I would much prefer a good lever gun like the Marlin 1895 or Winnie '86 with stout handloads or BB type ammo, than any shotgun, with any type load. In fact, when I came back to Michigan, the first thing I did was buy a Marlin 1895 just for protection against the big bears for when I went back up, which never ended up happening for reasons rather forgotten.
As far as the OP's ?.... take the 29/629 and never look back, but don't load it with the wrong ammo or you may as well have the 40. Buy some good hard cast BB or Grizzly ammo designed for use in a S&W platform, or load your own to the same performance levels and then practice as often as you can. In time the recoil won't seem as bad, and making fairly fast followup shots with accuracy is feasible. I'd prefer a good 280 grain or heavier bullet for penetration on large game over the original Keith design, but it will work.
BTW- there are tons of places to get the original Keith design from besides Dry Creek, but his are as good as anyone's, and he is a good man to deal with. I have a bunch of Cry Creek 44 Keith bullets here right now.
JMHO YMMV
Art Doc
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
"buckshot being next to useless on large bears"
I find that amazing. What range did they test at? Buckshot is certainly a close range weapon, but at close range I would think it would be effective against any thin skinned animal. This is what professional hunter Peter Capstick stated in his book "Death in the Long Grass." He said a 12 gauge with 00 buck was the best close range tool for dangerous African animals.
Well, I did a quick search and found several discussions on this topic and the consensus was that 00 buck is useless on bears. Saw comments included "like shooting a 22"" and "like throwing rocks" which seems a bit much to me. I would point out that only one guy saying this had ever actually shot a bear and I suspect the range was too great for good effect. In fact, from his description of the incident (the bear didn't even flinch) I bet he missed.
But whatever, use slugs, then.
I find that amazing. What range did they test at? Buckshot is certainly a close range weapon, but at close range I would think it would be effective against any thin skinned animal. This is what professional hunter Peter Capstick stated in his book "Death in the Long Grass." He said a 12 gauge with 00 buck was the best close range tool for dangerous African animals.
Well, I did a quick search and found several discussions on this topic and the consensus was that 00 buck is useless on bears. Saw comments included "like shooting a 22"" and "like throwing rocks" which seems a bit much to me. I would point out that only one guy saying this had ever actually shot a bear and I suspect the range was too great for good effect. In fact, from his description of the incident (the bear didn't even flinch) I bet he missed.
But whatever, use slugs, then.
Last edited:
I have several books here by famous writers like Boddington that totally disagree with Capstick on the use of buckshot for dangerous game in Africa, and Boddington took surveys of quite a few professional hunters throughout Africa, and goes into some detail on the use of it against leopards.
The AK F&G as well as the USGS have run tests with buckshot against brown bear skulls from close ranges varying from 10-50 yards. The skulls used were taken from recently killed brown bears, caped out, but with the flesh still intact, including the eyes, brain etc. The skulls were placed in position to simulate a charging bears head position. In most cases, the buckshot merely glance off the skull, or stuck in the flesh that remained on the skulls. Only in a very few instances did a pellet or two from 00 or 000 buck make it through the skulls.
Slugs were an entirely different matter. It was found that the original Brenneke type slugs performed about the best and most consistently.
Similar threads
