so called "mountain guns"

K

kcub

New member
What a great marketing idea! Someone sold ice cream to eskimos on this one and deserves a cigar.

How do we sell these undesirable, short barreled, hard kicking, no fun at all, nay, I'll pay you if I don't have to shoot it, behemoth snub revolvers in ridiculous chamberings up to and including .500 S&W?

Some clever salesman must have noticed the length of bear threads all out of proportion to actual real world encounters and had an epiphany.

So, in a less cynical vein, what do you like or have? Usually 2 - 4 inches of barrel, but let's just say less than 6 inches. And it has to be at least 357 magnum or forty something.

A revolver that is reasonably easy to carry on one's hip for protection against man, mountain lion, bear, or bigfoot. And possibly for opportunistic hunting of come what may.
 
I used to have a S&W 45 Colt, "Mountain Gun." I really liked it. The slightly tapered barrel was lighter, and better balanced in my hands than the typical S&W heavy barrel. Sort of like the difference between a Model 10 heavy barrel, and a Model 15.

I don't hike in bear country. About my longest hike it from the front door to the car door. The only bears I've ever seen have been on the Skyline Drive/Blue Ridge parkway. They were about the size of a big dog. I still liked the gun.

Alas, it had to be sold during a period of "economic downturn" at my house.
 
- High caliber
- High power potential ammunition options
- Lowest manageable weight for the caliber/power
- Medium dimensions...

What's not to like ?
 
mehavey said:
- High caliber
- High power potential ammunition options
- Lowest manageable weight for the caliber/power
- Medium dimensions...

What's not to like ?
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! I have a nephew that lived in Alaska & he had bear & moose issues, in town, when least expected.
 
I never had one that was called a "Mountain Gun," but I did have a Model 624, which was a .44 Special. It was virtually the same. I'm referring to the 4" barrel version but I also had a 6 1/2" barrel version, which I thought was the more desirable of the two. But the shorter barrel was handier, to be sure.

The Model 27 used to be available in a 3 1/2" barrel version (as well as about every other barrel length), so the concept has been around longer than I have. I don't think I'd care to have one in .44 magnum, however, the regular heavy-barrel version being light enough, given the caliber. Of all of the possibilities, and they are almost limitless, I'd take a .41 magnum Model 58 over any of them, if there were dangerous animals in the neighborhood. When I had both a 4" Model 29 and a Model 58, I honestly couldn't tell the difference in recoil between the two guns. You'd probably have a larger selection of ammunition for a .44, though.
 
I have a S&W Model 25 Mountain Gun in .45 Colt. It is one of my favorite modern day revolvers.

I was of the understanding the definition of a Mountain Gun was a 4" barrel only. I have not heard of any 2" models.

Mine is approximately an ounce lighter than my S&W Model 686 unloaded. Then when you load my Mountain Gun with six rounds of .45 Colt it is about and ounce heavier than the loaded 686. The Mountain Gun is N size and the 686 is L size.

I do not notice any negative recoil iusses with mine. Yes it is a rather large heavy firearm. The larger grips do spread the recoil out. I find my small S&W Model 42 short barrel has more punishing recoil in .38 Special.
 
I think they were great.
They were named a "mountain gun" but were made in the way a classic S&W was supposed to be shaped in my opinion. Tapered barrel and chamfered cylinder. They just looked right.
I detest the unfinished look of the full underlugs and the bulky ways most newer revolvers are made. They sell ok, so I must be in a minority, but I can't make myself like them. The idea of making a revolver as heavy as possible seems to defeat the handiness for me. "Why carry 2 pounds on the belt when you can carry 3"?
I used to own an 8-3/8" S&W M-29, and when I see 6" 357 mags made that weigh more they leave me wondering why I or anyone else would want such a thing.
I wish S&W would bring back the old 1950 styling on all its revolvers and I also wish Ruger would bring back the Security Six, or at least slim down the GP100 to a classic 1950 size. I think the world of the GP, but their barrels are literally 2 times -2-1/2 times bulkier than they need to be
 
One old-timer writing in the late 1950s was also lamenting the passing of lighter barreled target revolvers. I guess that was when heavy or heavier barrel target revolvers were in vogue. For a while, when policemen were paid more for good range scores, they would shoot really heavy barreled revolver because they're easier to hit with. Then they'd carry them for a while before switching back to standard revolvers. Standard used to mean a six-inch barrel, too.

The GP100 did come with a short lugged barrel for a while and in several variations but I imagine they sold all they thought they could before reducing the line-up.

I'm afraid not much from the 1950s is coming back. Even then they wanted things from the 1940s, like long-action revolvers.
 
The quote "mountain gun" was a 4 inch but it started a trend. For example the 2" 454 Ruger Alaskan of which the majority were not sold in Alaska. In fact, they were hard to get so successful was the scam.
 
original

The original S&W Mountain Guns were stainless, round butt, tapered barrel 4" N-frames in .44 mag first, then .45 Colt later. They combined some attractive features, the round butt and shorter, light weight tube and corrosion resistant steel, made holster carry easier for those who wanted to carry a mag powered, big bore revolver over the long term.

To those that did not need mag power, but could abide with mid-range loads, the original mtn revolvers were attractive as well.

Those stubby Rugers, I agree, are ugly and beasts.
 
The definition of a Mountain Gun was and is whatever the marketing types say it is. First one was a 4" M29.
Wee barreled, large calibre revolvers aren't about being pretty or fun to shoot though. More about pretending you can save yourself from Yogi or Snagglepuss with any handgun cartridge.
 
It is not exactly a "mountain gun", but I have a three inch S&W 696 (five-shot .44 Spl.), that is a favorite. It is all steel and quite heavy, so I do not see it as a mountain gun, but other owners of the same may disagree. You may be able to infer my intended use for it by the bobbed hammer.
001_zpse2e55cca.jpg
 
Last edited:
I would carry my 5.5" Bisley Blackhawk in 45 Colt with 325's at 1200fps.

If i were going new, I think I would go for a 4" 629, maybe with a red dot on top and some porting.

As for the 2.5" 7lb 500 s&w.....leave those for the youtube'rs!
 
I've observed that the "Hand cannon" calibers get sold almost as often as they get shot, so I find it hard to miss the correlation.

I've been TOLD that the .460 S&W and .500 S&W pistols aren't REALLY all that expensive. In fact, the pistol is FREE! It's the $160,000 HUMVEE on which these hand cannons must be mounted to fire them, that costs a lot. That could explain it.
 
Realgun: I spy a Diamond D Guides Choice rig there. Have one myself. :cool:







What's with all of the ridicule and condescension of the X-frames?? Not for you?? Don't buy one. Obviously there is a market. I can tell you they are a lot of fun to shoot! Is it more than the vast majority NEEDS?? Sure! But where is the rule that states you can only own what is deemed needed?? Of what concern is it to anyone but the prospective buyer who is interested in owning one? I'd be willing to bet that most of the naysayers haven't even given one a whirl at the range...
 
It's my understanding that the "Mountain Guns", manufactured by S&W, were all 4" barrels.
I do have a couple of the 3" big bores .44's - one 624LHS & a 629-4. Both are fed mainly a diet of .44Spl. The .44Mag loads, out of the 629, are just too hard on the hands to plink with.

629-4 3"


624LHS 3"
 
4" Blue S&W M57 Mountain Gun is part of my accumulation. It is what I carry in the woods if I want something with a bit more punch and occasionally as a side arm hunting with a rifle. I however could never really appreciate the difference between a regular M57 and the mountain gun from a practical point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top