Smith & Wesson 329PD or Colt Anaconda?

N

nagantfan

New member
I need some advice, folks. I've located two .44 revolvers that interest me a great deal. One is four-inch Anaconda, the other is a lightweight 329.

The Smith is light (which I like for carrying, wtih .44 Specials), points well and feels very good in my hand. Couldn't ask for a better grip for my hand, either.

I am recoil-sensitive, though, so I have my doubts. I won't be shooting .44 Magnums out of whichever one I buy, and I'm getting it for carrying (cold weather only) and for plinking.

The Anaconda, on the other hand, would be about as recoil-proof a piece as you could get firing .44 Specials.

But, it's heavy (bad for carrying), doesn't feel nearly as good in my hand as the Smith and doesn't point as well, either.

Anyone with experience with either (or both) of these weapons?

Is the Smith accurate? Will it last? Will it blow my hand off? (I had a 296 that I sold....too much recoil, and the grip wasn't very good for me)

Is the Anaconda accurate? Would it be worth the extra weight of hauling it around to get the recoil reduction?

The two are comparably priced...

Talk to me, folks...
 
You should be comparing the Anaconda to the 629 Classic. If you are recoil sensitive don't think 329. They are pretty rough. If you just want to carry it and not shoot much then the 329 is OK. I have had 2 scandium revolvers and with magnum loads they are painful. The Smith and Colt are both fine revolvers and it comes down to what you prefer. To me there is'nt anything finer then a S.S. S&W revolver with a full lugged barrel.
 
Yes, except for the common caliber you're comparing apples and orangutans. I suggest going with the Colt if you're recoil sensitive. I have a S&W Model 29 Mountain Gun that weighs in at 39 ounces that I consider just the thing for shooting .44 special type loads. I'm not all that recoil sensitive, but I'm not sure I'd like the same loads in that 26 ounce 329 myself.
 
I had the 4" Anaconda in .45 Colt. Absorbed recoil well but was very un-ergonomic. I also had a 3" 629. Very ergonomic, and comfortable with all but hot loads. If you want to know what the 329 feels like, lay your hand on a table and smack it with a ball peen hammer.

Like the other have said, you should look for something in a 3-4" 629.
 
I Thank You Guys For Your Help

Thanks for the input, folks. You guys have talked some sense into my head.

I'll just wait until a .44 comes along with good ergs and which weighs more than the scandium. It'll happen sooner or later. Like you guys say, 629, with a 3 or 4-inch barrel, with the right grips and sights.

I didn't mention that I had a 39-oz. Ruger Blackhawk that I loved shooting .44 Specials out of, but I hated the sights and the bbl. (7 1/2") was too long for frequent carry.

There are a lot of Rugers of all kinds of models (single and double action, various barrel lengths, etc. ), available for reasonable prices in my area, but I haven't found quite the RIGHT one yet....3 or 4-inch barrel, adjustable, NON BLACK sights, and which feels good in my hand....There are a few that qualify on all but the feel good in my hand criterion; they feel like holding an anvil, kind of like KurtC's post about the Anaconda.

Funny thing is, I'm like 6'1" and 260 (bench 425, chest 48 or 50"), so you'd think recoil wouldn't bother me that much. But man, it does, at least with handguns. Other funny thing, too. Recoil doesn't bother me worth pee-diddle in shoulder arms...12 ga. slugs out of light shotguns, my M44's with heavy ball loads (174-grain and 203 grain). Funny, funny, funny how individual and seemingly inconsistent it all apparently is. I've got small hands, so maybe that's what it is.

Hey, Guys, thanks again and have a good weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top