S&W Big-Bores Not That Accurate?

G

Grapeshot

New member
Hello. I am considering the purchase of a 629 4" .44 mag. with the standard barrel (no Mountain Gun, thanks!).

For those of you who own and shoot one, especially one of the new ones, what kind of accuracy are you seeing at 25 yds. off a bench?

My experience with big-bore Smiths is not nearly as positive as with their K-frames accuracy-wise. For instance, I just picked up a used 6" 686 not long ago which was of the modern production style (MIM and all that) and even the first 6 shots out of this strange-to-me gun were in a tight 1.5" cluster. Since then the gun has been nothing but exceptionally accurate, some groups being one-hole 6-shot groups. A 6" 66 my dad owns is not quite this accurate, but probably is good for 1.5" to 2" groups, and my brother's 19 is a one-hole grouper.

Why then does this level of accuracy NOT translate over to the larger N Frames? I don't think it's me, since I've done way more shooting with them, trying to get them to be this accurate.

I have had a 4" 629 (many years ago, can't recall much about it), a 6" 29, an 8 3/8" 629, and a 625 Mountain Gun. NONE have managed much better than about 2.25" - 2.5" groups with any factory or handload I've tried. I'm thinking the 4" 629 would even give 2.75" groups occasionally, part of the reason I got rid of it. This accuracy performance is very mediocre compared to the big-bore Rugers I've shot, a .44 Redhawk and a hot-loaded 4 3/4" .45 Colt Blackhawk, so much so that I don't think it's the shooter.

So, are your N-frames just more accurate than the ones I've owned? Input would be helpful, as I am interested in replacing my general purpose 1991a1 Colt with an even more general purpose 4" .44 mag. for hunting/holster packing/self-defense. But then I've read that Smith's accuracy standard for standard .44's leaving the factory is 3" at 25 yds. Hope that's not true.

If accuracy in the newer Smith .44 is as lackluster as my previous ones, I might just go with a 4" .357.

Thank you.
 
The word on the street is that N-frames are as good as L-frames.
My 586 outshoots my 627, though. I don't have any idea why!
My 657 outshoots both.
My .41 mag blackhawk outshoots any of the above, but the trigger isn't as nice.
AFAIK, the L and N frames are as good as it gets in DA.
I haven't shot a k-frame yet, so pardon my lack of insight on it.
 
My Model 27s are ammo finicky. Once the load of their choice is found tho, inch at 25yds is normal. TERRY MURBACH relates similar experience with 27s.

My Model 29s seem to be happy with bout anything but do require tailored ammo to get under an inch.

Don't own, but have played with, later guns.....have found a few that had under bore sized chamber mouths, and different diameter chamber mouths in the same cylinders. Once they were reamed to size, accuracy improved. Also have seen a LOT of late guns with timing differences between chambers.

Sam
 
Thanks for the replies, guys!

Sam, you're just the feller I'd hoped would reply. Given what you said, what kind of accuracy might I expect out of the box? I don't have access to a good gunsmith. Thanks!
 
My N frames have all been very accurate. This is just my personal preference but i think you would be happier with a 6-1/2" barrel instead of the 4". 44 magnum really isn't at its' best in a 4" barrel. With the 4" you will have appreciably more blast and a slight drop off in velocity. Many folks like their 4" Model 29's, but I have never been one of them.
 
Mobias, thanks for the input. I also prefer the 6" length for any purpose. The problem is, I just want something more compact for carrying concealed sometimes. I usually carry IWB, so the longer tube, while more useful, just isn't going to fill the bill. If I want a longer barrel, I already have the 6" 686 and a 7.5" Redhawk .45 Colt.

Maybe I just want the 4" since nobody else makes one ... guess I don't need a very good reason to buy another gun, do I?
 
I only have a half dozen or so N frames so I don't have a large sample tocompare, but so far they've all been both accurate and a real joy to shoot.
 
I noticed you said "big bores" so recognize that maybe you mean soley the large caliber guns.


But for "large frame" guns, my N-frames are accurate little monkeys. My 38/44 is probably my most accurate gun seeming to shoot everything nicely from 130grn FMJ Win. USA ammo to some hotrod 158LSWC.


Been a long time since I've actually shot groups with the guns but my 38/44 and my 45LC are both a real hoot, just accurate and FUN!
 
Wowee - - -Some shootin', guys.

I do like accurate firearms, of whatever type, but, realistically--For concealed carry? A four-inch Model 29 (no Mountain Revolvers, please) is certainly possible to hide, but, have you ever weighed one of them? Or, better still, carried one for any length of time? I don't mean strapping it on and walking around the range for an hour. I mean, wearing it every time you're away from the house, for, say, two weeks?

That Mountain Revolver or Mountain Gun is looking better and better. And, much as I love the big revolvers, my daily choice is for something lighter. Even (horrors!) a lightweight auto pistol. Any decent-caliber sidearm you can comfortably carry, and hit a drink can from 25 yards with, standing unsupported, is a good concealed carry sidearm.

Hunting and target use are another topic, of course.;)

Best,
Johnny
 
I've probably put 12,000+ rounds through four S&W Performance Center 44 Magnum revolvers over the last three years. Off hand the best I can do at 25 yards with cast bullet reloads is a bit over a 2 inch group.

The problem I encountered that I've never seen elsewhere is that this shooting "burned" metal off the front of the cylinder. The cylinder openings are definitely getting larger via some form of gas cutting. These are NOT hot loads. At the lower limit of Lyman's recommended loads for the bullet weight actually. All three such guns are going back to Smith this coming Friday.

This problem has not shown up on any other caliber of Smith. Incidentally the 41 Magnum is noticeably more accurate than any other revolver I've shot. Under two inch groups at 25 yards.
 
That Mountain Revolver or Mountain Gun is looking better and better. And, much as I love the big revolvers, my daily choice is for something lighter. Even (horrors!) a lightweight auto pistol. Any decent-caliber sidearm you can comfortably carry, and hit a drink can from 25 yards with, standing unsupported, is a good concealed carry sidearm.
Click to expand...

That describes my .45 Colt Moutain Gun to a tee. The last time I was at the outdoor range I put up about a dozen soda cans and 20 oz. plastic drink bottles on the target frames at 25 yards. Using 255 grain SWC's at about 900 FPS I almost had to TRY and miss. It was not difficult to knock them off even firing double action once sighted in.
 
Johnny, yeah, I know they're pretty heavy, but not much more so than my Colt Government .45 ACP. I've also carried the Mountain Gun and didn't mind it too much except that I just never liked shooting it - too much muzzle flip.

I have better options for CCW, and probably would only occasionally pack this one. This gun will fulfill my "if-I-could-only-have-one-gun" ideal. I don't really handgun hunt at ranges beyond about 30 yards, so a smaller handgun for packing around the farm in an open holster is mostly what the gun will be for. However, if I want to tuck it under my Carhart coat for a trip to get milk, so much the better.

Oh, and Kenneth, that's fascinating that Performance Center guns would be doing that to the cylinder. Please keep us informed on your findings.
 
Oh, I was actually meaning the .44's and .45's on the N-frame, although the info about the .357's is also very interesting.

Ideally, I would like a .45 Colt M25 4", but it's just so rare a caliber here that there's no hope for that. Also, I hear they have some accuracy issues due to oversized cylinder holes. To be safe, I thought I'd stay with the 629 .44 mag. 4".

Thanks!
 
I am somewhat taken aback at any suggestion that N frame Smith&Wesson revolvers are not accurate. This speaks more to the shooter than to the weapon.
 
Grapeshot,

I've got a 1970's vintage 6" 25-5 and a 1980's vintage 4". Both have cylinders that measure right at .4505". Accuracy is outstanding.

I do seem to remember reading "somewhere" that the very early 25-5's did have oversize cylinder holes. I think that was waaaay back when part of the shooting world still considered .453 to be the correct size for .45 colt.

Joe...
 
Thanks Joe, maybe they're not as bad as I thought. Perhaps I will come into contact with one like yours.

Interestingly, after posting this thread I picked up the new Shooting Times. In it, Mike Venturino has an article on shooting vintage S&W big bores (.44 Russian, Spec., and Mag.). He didn't get glit-edged accuracy out of any of them, with most groups being between 2.25 and 3 inches. The M29 did slightly better, being around 2 or 2.25 inches I think.

This is certainly very good accuracy, though not outstanding when compared to what bullseye shooters would expect from the old standard K-38. It's not even up to the standard set by my Redhawk of years past, which shot 1-hole groups of about 1" to 1.5".

I would very much like to believe I could get a new 629 4" that shot this good. Thank you for the encouraging words.
 
Grapeshot...
Re accuracy new out of the box; it is a crapshoot. Some of the new ones need a lot of work and others are sweet from the git go.

Johnny....
N frames heavy, yes; but suspenders make a world of difference. Sometimes I carry a couple of em all day.

Sam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top