How brutal is firing a S&W 329 PD?

The 3 choices you've outlined are all good guns. The Glock 43 is quite a bit different than a Glock 40 or a 329. The 329 is going to have a more versatile bullet selection and power level selection. The 329 is going to have more harsh recoil when shooting full magnum loads and probably less recoil than the 10MM when shooting .44 special loads. If you are planning on reloading I'd go with the 44. If you aren't going to be reloading I'd go test both of them out if it is that hard to make up your mind. I imagine that shooting the 329 with magnum rounds is going to be brutal.
Like others have said a couple dozen .44 magnums starts to hurt the wrist even with 6.5" all steel N Frame. I shot 100 rounds out of my Colt Delta Elite last week the first time I took it to the range and the recoil was significant but not nearly as bad as my 29-2 with magnum loads.
 
I have an 8" Octagon Contender in 44 magnum. It is a very light gun though no where near what you are asking about. I load 11gr Unique with a 255 hard cast and it is okay. Know with Buffalo Bore "Lighter Recoil" 255SWC it is an absolute animal, fired 5 of those and puttem up! :eek:
 
Having owned a S&W 'Backpacker' .44 Magnum, a 340PD .357 Magnum, and Colt Defender .45 (with Cor-Bon +p .45s) I can say there is a limit what you can stuff in a gun and it be useful.

The 340PD with full .357s was awful. Like a ping-pong paddle slapping your hand every time you touched off the rosco.

The Backpacker, with full .44 magnums, made me flinch after a few cylinder loads.

The Colt Defender, with 'flying ashtrays' would twist in my hand upon firing and I'd durn near loose my grip on the gun.

And I say this being no slouch in the cannon department. I have 4 .44 magnums, all S&Ws, all 4 inches, and two are 'Mountain guns'. Also used to have a .454 and soon will have a Toklat .454.

But, in my opinion, those flyweights are NOT worth it, at lease with full loads.

Deaf
 
Eyeballin' the muzzle energy charts at Ballistics by the Inch, the two loads they tested in .44 special put out around 400 ft-lbs from a 4" barrel. It takes a +p load for 9mm to generate that kind of energy. The much wider selection of .44 magnum loads they tested run about 480-840 ft-lbs. That speaks to the diversity of .44 magnum and the power levels it opens up. Most of the 10mm loads were in the 400-600 ft-lb range.

Muzzle energy obviously doesn't tell you everything about performance but it is handy when comparing different calibers. As you can imagine, more energy down the barrel generally means more energy in recoil. Of course, there are a lot of factors involved in determining how you feel that recoil, especially with different kinds of gun.

Personally, I don't think I'd want to shoot anything more than specials from a 329 PD. If I'm in a position to really need .44 magnum, I'd bring a gun more suited to it. If that means lugging around a steel gun, then so be it. I do it now in .357 and it isn't awful. That said, the smallest .44 magnum I'd consider is a model 69 with moderate loads.
 
@ Darker Loaf

Any reason why you're fixed on what seems to be a rather light weight gun in such a strong calibre?

There are heavier, more manageable guns that are still portable in the right holster: chest/shoulder rig?

Why then consider a gun that you'd probably shy away from using?
 
I recommend you go to buffalo bore's website and look at their ammo selection for 10mm and .44mag. Also, read their descriptions and warnings carefully.

I don't know Ballistics by the inch well. I do know that I remember factory load specs (for non- cowboy loads) that put .44mag between 715 ft/lbs and 1300 ft/lbs.

I know factory load specs for .357mag from 470 ft/lbs to around 720 ft/lbs.

I never was interested in 10 mm, but doubt they exceed .44mag.

I feel no need for a .44mag in my local woods, as cougar and small black bear are less likely tnan hop-heads. If I were in Montana I would go .44mag in an all steel gun.

What about the ruger super redhawk alaskan? All steel .44mag or .454Casull with a stubby barrel. More recoil taming weight than 329, and all steel allowing stronger loads without as much potential for crimp jump.

Just a thought.
 
jmstr wrote:

I don't know Ballistics by the inch well. I do know that I remember factory load specs (for non- cowboy loads) that put .44mag between 715 ft/lbs and 1300 ft/lbs.
Click to expand...

A lot depends on barrel length. If you look at the .44 magnum page, you'll see a link to this graph of muzzle energy. With the 69 or 329 PD, we are only talking about a 4" barrel. Published velocities or energies for various ammo are often taken from longer barrels that give more attractive numbers. Of course, these are only four factory loads and they don't include monster loads like Buffalo Bore's Heavy .44 Magnum +P+, which should NEVER be fired in a 329 PD.

44mag.png


(Sorry for the image size. I don't know how to make it smaller.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the feedback! I really appreciate it, guys. It really sounds like a .44 mag, as I thought, would be brutal in a 329 PD. That makes sense. Further, it sounds like the advantages of .44 are blunted in a 4" barrel, putting in more in 10mm territory (except for very hot loads).

So, if I want a woods/hunting gun that I will actually shoot, it sounds like a Glock 40 would be best or an all-steel .44 or up would be better. That means I doubt I will ever take a magnum handgun, short of a 10mm, backpacking.

Pond, James Pond: "Any reason why you're fixed on what seems to be a rather light weight gun in such a strong calibre?

There are heavier, more manageable guns that are still portable in the right holster: chest/shoulder rig?

Why then consider a gun that you'd probably shy away from using?"

Well, because I've taken guns backpacking and even a 28 oz gun tends to get left home for me. On the last trip I was on, my pack weight was 20+ lbs above the people I was backpacking with. They spend their money on high-end backpacking gear, not guns, so ever piece of gear they pack is lighter than mine, down to the snowshoes and even their pants. While, I will steadily upgrade my backpacking gear making it lighter, I don't want to plan to take a heavy gun. Taking some pounds of gun means putting myself at a distinct disadvantage against my peers.

Probably any gun I take backpacking would end up on a chest/shoulder rig. When backpacking, I already have too much stuff around the waist to make belt carry practical or comfortable.

So, I really wanted feedback from TFL on the experience of shooting a light-magnum. It sounds like something I don't want to own. I don't want to own something I am not proficient with AND something that would make it difficult to gain proficiency. Meaning, in terms of the caliber debate, most magnum handguns would only be used for hunting or range use, where I am not carrying 60-70 lbs already up and down hills and mountains on rough trail.

So, since I have some 9mm options, the only "better" gun would be a gun in the same weight class with more power OR a smaller gun. That's why the G40, G20, and G43 are on the list. The G43 would be lighter and smaller than anything I own. The G20/40 (preference goes to the G40 for a factor length legal hunting barrel) adds capability over 9mm, but no additional weight. I've owned a 10mm and have shot G20's so I know that 10mm is fine with me.

NOTE: I am not making huge jump from 9mm, since I have shot a lot of .357 and some 10mm. (Also plenty of .40's and .45's.) That being said, I want to be realistic about what is fun to shoot. I don't really want to own non-fun guns to shoot. 10mm's are fun. .357's are fun. Sounds like only a full-sized .44 mag would really be fun to shoot.
 
I was in the woods with my Redhawks this very afternoon. Lovely weight only belt, but I'm not carrying a pack! If it's the sort of gun that you'll only fire when you need to then fine, the S&W could work for you. But as you know, practice makes....

It does sound more and more like that 10mm would be more convenient for you...

(what the hell am I saying?!? :eek:)
 
Heh. Well, I may own an all-steel full-sized magnum handgun at some point. I should probably just get better at packing and buy better backpacking gear. My packs in the winter time have been somewhere between 70 and 90 lbs. We mostly only do winter backpacking because I guess we are sadists and masochists of a certain stripe preferring cold and snow to mosquitos, deerflies, and horseflies. We only do hills and low mountains, no flats.

Some of my friends after years of backpacking are down to ~40 lbs. However, they have several $1,000's more in their gear than I do.

I do have to admit I am leaning towards a G40.
 
We mostly only do winter backpacking because I guess we are sadists and masochists of a certain stripe preferring cold and snow to mosquitos, deerflies, and horseflies.
Click to expand...

Sign me up!

I'll be on mag revolver carry duty!! :D
 
Cosmodragon,

Thanks for the chart and explanation. Also for acknowledging the issue of loads listed.

Am I right in thinking the loads listed are primarily self-defense rounds?

For woods carry I lean toward heavy metaplate, bone-crushing, rounds. Everything I've read says to avoid hollowpoints of any stripe if shooting a thick-skinned [and furred] animal.

I also like the explanation of factory claims, test barrel length and comparisons.

Thanks also for linking the Buffalo Bore round.

One thing I REALLY like about Buffalo Bore is they usually use more than one gun to test the round and they identify the gun and the barrel length, with corresponding velocities.

And then they have charts where you can compare the drop in velocity/energy based on distance the round is fired for each 100 ft/second.

This also allows me to find the most appropriate energy for the velocity that matches the length of barrel I use.

Thanks again for linking all of that!


OP: I respect the concern about not carrying extra weight. I face the same issue daily, but it is in the form of extra flesh.

When I debate carrying a pack, a heavy gun or buying lighter parts for my bicycle or motorcycle, I keep coming back to the idea that I should first drop 75lbs of body mass, which is healthier also, before I worry about 20 oz of packed weight.

Now, when I was young and fit, I did buy carbon fiber and titanium mountain bike parts, to save 45 grams of weight.

With me, no matter how cumbersome the gun is, I can't complain about the 7.5" SRH strapped to my chest and its' weight until I lose at least 75 lbs. Until then it is the pot calling the kettle black.

If I were fit, I would have your worries.

Sigh.
 
OP -- Sounds like you have made the best choice for you and your described circumstances. There are certainly no flies on the 10mm.

One clarification is probably in order. There is no way that a 10mm is in any way equal to a 4" .44 mag. I have chronographed factory 240gr Federal .44 mags at 1,220 fps from my 4 1/4" M69. You can easily get 1,250 fps with a 250/250gr .44 in the 4" gun. A top end load in the 10mm will do 1,200 fps with a smaller diameter, lighter weight 200gr bullet. I have also chronoed the 325gr Beartooth WLNGC at, 1,180 fps from the 4 1/4" M69 with a load listed on Hodgdon's website. Of course there is a price to be paid in terms of recoil with these loads.

The .44 Mag can be loaded (and most likely commercially avail) to do anything the 10mm can do and a whole lot more. Loads can be tailored to individual recoil tolerance and area specific threats.

Anyway, I'm a bit biased in favor of the .44 Mag, and the older I get, the more I hate shaggin' brass:eek:

With that said, I have several 10mms (1911s and G20s) and enjoy shooting them.

JMHO,

Paul

Paul
 
Pond, James Pond: "Sign me up!

I'll be on mag revolver carry duty!!"

It's too bad you don't live in the States--I'm sure that's a refrain you are sick of hearing on this forum by now. But if you find yourself coming to the middle of the U.S. of A., private message me. Likewise, if I find myself out Estonia way, I'll do the same. I have relatives in Poland and Germany, and who knows? I'm sure I'll make it back through Europe at some point, and Estonia sounds cheaper than Germany or Austria by far.

You've also hit upon a wonderful thing about backpacking in groups. Each person can take a few extra pounds of X, Y, or Z. I usually unwisely, will hike in several pounds of beer, but the thing about beer is you can drink beer, but you can't drink a gun.

jmstr: I feel you on the weight! I probably need to lose 10 or 20 lbs, or at least do some more cardio. The people I backpack with will load up their pack weight and do hills in their off time, so at the least, I should probably take up running.

Paul105: I know that .44 mag eclipses 10mm. That's why I considered the 329 PD, but I won't own a gun that isn't fun to shoot, so it looks for a like a general-purpose magnum, the 10mm will do me better. Someday, I'll step up to a .44, .454. or .460 (most likely because of .45 ACP potential), but it'll probably be relegated to range use and hunting, not backpacking, because it looks like magnums require at least 50 oz to be comfortable during firing. I've heard ported/comped .460's and .500's even are comfortable to fire out of the 5" S&W models, which are about 60 oz.
 
Slimjim9
That sure doesn't make intuitive sense.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. Same round, the 69 has a longer barrel = higher velocity and weighs less. Keep in mind that the 3 inch 629 was a round but with small pachmayer grips.
I was totally surprised at the difference in felt recoil. It just proves what a set of grips can do.
 
jmstr wrote:

Am I right in thinking the loads listed are primarily self-defense rounds?

For woods carry I lean toward heavy metaplate, bone-crushing, rounds. Everything I've read says to avoid hollowpoints of any stripe if shooting a thick-skinned (and furred) animal.
Click to expand...

Curiously, they might be. Those are all hollow points of some kind or another. I immediately thought of the monster loads as contrast but there are plenty of non-monster factory loads with hard casts, soft points, and other bullets in the 240-300 grain range. I don't know how much more energy you get out of them as velocity tends to trade off with weight, at least with the non-monster stuff. :rolleyes: A quick look at advertised muzzle energies for regular hunting loads in the 300-grain ballpark looks to be on par with the high end of what's on the chart.

The take-home point is that bullet construction matters. It influences where and how a bullet dumps its energy. Hollow points generally mean quicker expansion and shallower delivery. That's great for two-legged threats. In .44 magnum, it's great for deer. With bear and some other beasts, the vital stuff tends to be deeper inside and behind stouter stuff so you want a load designed to put it there.
 
if I find myself out Estonia way, I'll do the same.
Click to expand...

Slight momentary tangent.

The national forestry commission in Estonia recently opened a hiking path around the country avoiding roads and populated areas whenever possible. It is now about 841km long. Got enough beer to cover that? ;)
 
Darker Loaf, to ask a different version of the question, where do you do most of your hiking and what's the biggest dangerous animal you might encounter? Since you are bumping into power and weight issues with your .44 magnum choices, could you get by with a .357 magnum? You already said you enjoy it and there are plenty of options.

Another important question is exactly how much and what kind of hunting you might be thinking of doing. Generally, the lighter carry guns you mention aren't widely celebrated as hunting guns. There is a reason that dedicated hunting handguns have longer barrels. It sounds like you are thinking about emergency survival or opportunity shots. In case of the latter, please be responsible! You probably know this already but just in case, it's got to be said. It can be tempting to take long or tricky shots with inadequate ammo or the wrong gun. Don't do it. Too many of those kinds of shots just end up wounding an animal for nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top