New to me 44mag reloading

I used jacketed data , Hodgdon has that maxing out at 15gr . I figured I’d stop at 14.5gr because of the magnum primers I’m using . All cases ejected fine , none stuck that I can remember and it was something I was paying attention to .

I also shot a few more of those unknown loads . Those also eject just fine , I’m still concerned about those but I think 14gr of the HS-6 should be ok with the plated bullets but I trust your judgment so I’ll make sure I run that 14gr load over my chono to be sure it’s not faster then expected.
 
I could have had a spunky batch of HS-6 when I did my workup.

Your plated bullets likely don't have a cannelure. Your seating depth could be more shallow. Your primers may not be quite as hot as CCI 350's.

I have also run into times when the same ammo shows signs of pressure in one gun, and not the other. (My 686 4" bbl shows pressure signs long before my 3" or 8-3/8" bbl 686's; or my Python.)

So I find our differences curious, but not entirely surprising.

You mention your gun is a 629-1. I'm curious what is the bbl length.
 
Your plated bullets likely don't have a cannelure.
Click to expand...

They do have a cannelure :cool:

Barrel is 5-3/4” , pinned but cylinder is not recessed :-( . With help from UN we think it was made between 82 and 84 maybe as late as 85

R3ixdS.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have a 629-1 (8-3/8" bbl). I purchased it new on 12/19/83. Took possession on 1/4/84 (15 day wait at the time). It was my second gun purchase.

Of interesting note, it is stamped differently than yours. It reads exactly "M.629-1" The serial # is ACT 9xxx; if that's any help.

The barrel is not pinned.
 
My serial # starts N872XXX . It's my understanding the 1 after the 629 indicates the first modification to the original design so if you have a 629-6 it's on the 6th design change . Because of that I "was" thinking the 629-1 all were pinned barrels but no recessed cylinder . Well yours blows that theory all to hell . I have access to an old M-29 , I'll check that out and see what's so different about the 629-1 .

Does yours have the firing pin on the hammer ? mine does .

Also I need to correct the build date , my serial # indicates 1980 to 83
 
Yes. Mine has the firing pin on the hammer. I don't think they put the firing pin in the frame until much later (like 2000's - I could be wrong). BTW, the cylinder charge holes are not counter-sunk ("recessed," as you phrased it) - I've never seen a stainless Smith with counter-sunk charge holes)

I find it curious that both the serial number and model number are formatted so differently between the two guns. It's like they aren't even the same manufacturer. The serial numbers of all my Smith revolvers (7) are formatted the same: LLLNNNN.

I don't know that much about the history of Smith revolvers, serial numbers, revisions, etc.
 
Friend bought a 629 in 81 and it did not have a pinned barrel. can no longer remember if the chambers were recessed or not. After a few hundred rounds (more than 2, less than 5) and mostly .44 special, the barrel started to unscrew. You could see the rib was canted.

He sent it back to S&W (run by Bagor Punta at the time) and they sent it back to him, barrel now straight, with a note saying "nothing wrong with the gun".

He then sold it.

Dropping the pinned barrels and recessed cylinders (on magnums) happened at different times with different models, and literally, older parts were used alongside new ones until the old ones were used up. SO any combination of cylinder and barrel are possible during the transition years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top