Model 29

C

Clint Tickler

New member
Have been wanting a 44 mag for a while and was leaning towards the Super Red Hawk but ended up getting a Model 29-3, with a six inch barrel. I've never hunted with a hand gun but may do some in the future but mostly wanted a new caliber to do load work on and target practice. Also I thought it complimented my pre-model 27 and Model 15. Other then from perhaps a collectors view point is ther any disadvantage with the 29-3 not having a pinned barrel and counter bored cylinder? What about strength compared to the Ruger? Is the 29 still being manufactured? Thanks.
 
Smith & Wesson no longer make the model 29, they still make the 629 in original and Classic configurations. Smith seems to have gone to all stainless guns. The 29 is not as strong as the Super Redhawk. The 29 was Smith's largest frame revolver and they adapted it to fire the 44 Magnum. Many have reported Smiths going out of time when subjected to heavy magnum loads.

The Super Redhawk was built from the ground up to withstand a constant diet of magnum loads.
 
The SRH will take more punishment than the 29. That being said, I prefer the Smith. Better handling, better trigger, better aesthetics. If you decide to lose the Smith, let us here on TFL have the first chance at it.
 
Tickler, you can't even compare the strength of the S&W 44 mag to the Ruger. I owned a Mod. 29 & ruined it by shooting 300 44 mags in it. My Ruger SUper Redhawk has now fired 1,000 44 mags & shows no wear.
 
Thanks for the replies. Now I guess I'd ask your opinions on what would be considered maximum safe loads for this gun that wouldn't cause premature wear. Sounds like maybe 300 grain bullets are a bit much. Maybe this belongs in the reload section but interested in any input. Thanks again.
 
Thanks Zander. That was interesting. I will tend to be conservative for both myself and the gun.
Again I'd ask for opinions on the recessed cylinder advantages or I should say the dis-advantage of no recessed cylinder. Thanks. Also pinned barrel vs non-pinned.
 
I just recently inherited a heavily used 29-4 with a 8 3/8 inch barrel that was purchased in 88 or 89. I used the revolver inspection guide here at the TFL library. It passed with flying colors. IMO the SW 29 is a well designed revolver that seems to be quite sturdy. I dont have any experience with the Ruger but I wouldnt guess it could be that much better than the SW 29 since it would be hard to improve significantly on a fine firearm like the 29. If its good enough for Dirty Harry, its good enough for me!

29-4.jpg
 
-3 and after have the "improvements" to ensure reliability.


Clint.......cool "handle".............wonder how many people "get" it?
 
The pinned barrel and recessed cylinders were stopped to save manufacturing costs in my opinion. Neither are really needed. I've yet to have any revolver barrel come loose, pinned or not pinned. Back in the day of ballon rimmed rounds, rim failure was possible and the recessed cylinders on some old guns was beneficial. With moderen cases the chance of a rim blowout is nil, so why go to the added expense of recessed cylinders.

The Rugers are stronger, but as someone said the Smith has it beat in the trigger and action department. One of my 629's is about 20 years old and has fired several thousand full power 44 specials with no ill effects. The newer 629's are said to be built even stronger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top