[WebHobbit]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19184&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

OK!

I've narrowed down my impending .44 Magnum purchase to two models. 629 Classic 5 inch or 629 (regular) 6 inch.

This:

http://webhobbit.net/fora/full_44.jpg

or this:

http://webhobbit.net/fora/half_44.jpg

Intended usage will be for "fun" (shooting no heavier than 240 grain Magnums) and to a lesser degree back up home defense (I have .357 as primary HD/SD). Whichever I get I will be replacing the stock square butt conversion Hogues with regular round butt Hogues as I have small hands.

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's-

Either choice would be O.K. by me; but its just
something about those 5" barrel's that make
me smile!:) :D :uhoh: Go for the 5" S&W 629
Classic; but not later than a -5 configuration!:rolleyes:

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[WebHobbit]

I was gonna order a new one. :uhoh: -6 I suppose? Why is -5 better? No silly lock?

[Ala Dan]

Correct there WebHobbit, my friend-

NO SILLY INTERNAL LOCK!

FootNote: You have probably read my many post
regarding MY Smith & Wesson 629-5 "Classic" with
the 5" barrel. I just could not ask for a six-shooter
to be any slicker; and fit and finish are perfect! Kind'a
wish my 686-5 .357 DCM was a 5 incher; instead of
a 6"!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[WebHobbit]

You may remember me posting about my 5 inch 686? It's pretty rare but they did make 'em!

I guess I could look for an older non-lock gun on GunBroker.com.

Anyone here have experience with that site?

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's Again Web-

Yes, I do remember someone having a 5" S&W 686;
but I forgot it was you!:uhoh: What dash number
follows the 686?

FootNote: with a 5" S&W 629-5 "Classic" you could
have a matching pair!

Respectfully,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[WebHobbit]

My 686 is a -5. It has the MIM stuff but no stupid lock.

I wish I could find a pre-lock 629 Classic 5 inch. You are right-- that would be a sweet pair.

:)

[Frohickey]

629 full-lug, to help with recoil.

Though, for me, I would get a Ruger Redhawk in 45Colt. For those times when you want really hot loads to show off. :p

[valnar]

It's really up to you. I have a .357 model 686 Plus that I really wish they made with a half-lug. The L-frame is heavier than it needs to be for my mostly .38 diet, and I like the look better of the half-lug!

-Robert

[JohnK]

I would go with the regular short underlug gun (the REAL classic) and not what S&W calls the Classic. No particular reason, objectivly one is as good as the other, I just like the looks of the short underlug better.

[Penforhire]

Now Valnar, I love my 686 plus partly for its total stoutness. I've been feeding it 125 g Cor-Bon's and it just wants more! I'd have never picked a rig that big just for measly little 38's.

[WebHobbit]

Wow....the half-lug (true-classic) voters are winning 8 to 5 over the full-luggers.

Never expected that!

You people are making this a rough decision!

:D

[cratz2]

I think that a 5" barrel is about right for a general purpose revolver that won't see a lot of concealed carry time. And I've always thought the full underlug looked a bit bloated. I like the hanf underlug. Come to think of it, in 3" or 4" guns, I think I like the heavy barrel/no underlug look of some of the Model 10s.

On the other hand, if you're going to be doing as much shooting as carrying, the full underlug might come in handy. But the reduced recoil effect of the full lug might be offset with the longer barreled but lighter 6"...

Decisions, decisions.

I'd get the 6" half-lug gun myself.

[tex_n_cal]

The 5" full lug is a nice gun, though I do like my 6.5" 629 Classic, as well:D

The greater mass of the full lug barrel should make it hang a little steadier, besides reducing recoil some, too. As far as looks go, recall that the Colt Python started the full lug barrel craze long ago, and it started it mainly with its looks:)

That said, I think I'm going to buy a 329PD as my next revo.

[Rich357]

I prefer the heft and balance of the S&W 629 Classic 5". I have other S&W .44 Mags but this relatively new (has the lock) 5" I enjoy shooting. It is amazingly accurate.

Rich

[WebHobbit]

Rich357 - did it take you long to "warm up to" the lock?

Everytime you see that stupid hole in the side do you wanna
:barf: ?

I really wish they didn't do that! :(

[Simian]

I picked up the 5" Classic. I like the 5" tube and I really prefer the full lug. I wouldn't worry about the lock. Mine has it and unfortunately it is now a part of life.

[WebHobbit]

Simian, Rich357 (& others) do you find that the lock mechanism "rattles" when you handle the gun? I read in some thread that one guy had to use some lock-tite on the thing to stop the noise.

[WebHobbit]

OK...what's the deal?

S&W has been making the 5 inch Classic for a few years now, right? So why am I not finding holsters for it? So far I've checked Uncle Mikes, Bianchi & Galco...so far no joy.

:(

I'm not gonna try to conceal the thing but I would like a basic "range, woods" belt holster for it. I know you CAN use the Uncle Mike's generic "for revolvers with 5-6.5 inch barrels" but I'm anal enough to HATE the extra space on those. I know because that's what I bought for my 5 inch 686 and it does bug me!

:rolleyes: :( I know, I know I'm friggin' neurotic! :D

[Simian]

I have had no problems with the lock. I have or have had 6 revolvers with the lock. As far as a holster for belt carry, look at sidearmor on the web. They make a rig for N-frames.

[WebHobbit]

Found a nylon holster here:

www.always-armed.com

for 12.99.

;)

Perfect cheap "range/woods" holster & it's for a 5 inch med/large revolver.

[Magnum PI]

I would prefer the 5 incher full lug.

That said, whatever I buy will not have the integral lock. It works fine, however, my problem is with it "being" there. The lock on the newer S&W's is there to protect S&W and no one else.

I choose NOT to accept (or support) S&W's choice of putting it there....and I do not agree that it is a "fact" of life. It is one step closer to having smart-guns and keypads on the next generation of firearm. I am exagerating here, but consumers accepting guns with the lock also accept one additional level of erosion to the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Anyone have a problem with Smart guns if the technology was perfected??

Also, does anyone know if any states REQUIRE new guns to have an integral locking device???? Probably CA if any......

MPI

[Simian]

Magnum PI

I am not going to get into some type of match here, but please do not imply that I or anyone else who has a new S&W "accept a further erosion of our rights." The lock IS a fact of life that has been debated over and over again on these pages. That does not mean that I agree with it, quite the opposite, I think that it is stupid. However anything new that S&W makes will have it for the forseeable future and if you want one, then that is what you are mostly going to have to deal with.

I do not sit back and watch our rights slowly taken by constitutional erosion, I fight by other means. Sitting and fighting among friends or preaching to the chior does little in my mind. I choose to give money to local and national organizations that will help my voice be heard. If we could all do our part and give time, money, effort...then we would get the message to those who matter.

Sorry don't want to argue, just felt attacked without provocation...

[Magnum PI]

My appologies.

I, too, am a NRA Life Member. I, too, also agree that chatter among friends does little, while participation in national organizations matters most. We are players on the same team.

What I am saying is that we differ in opinions of how to achieve a means to an end. We both obviously do not wish to see our rights eroded away. I feel that acceptance of the S&W integral lock tells S&W that the consumer is OK with it.

Let me ask you this hypothtical question. Would you buy S&W "smart-revolvers" if the technology WAS perfected? Where would you draw the line? Would you say that it was just a "fact of life" again? or would you DO something about it? In any event, you appear to believe that accepting the lock and buying S&W's product does not "hurt the cause" and I believe that is does.

In my experience, general marketing practice dictates that when a consumer buys a product, it sends a message to the manufacturer that the consumer is OK with the product....AKA the consumer ACCEPTS the product. The manufacturer has no incentive to change it's product. If you buy the product, but disagree with something like the "lock", the manufacturer could care less. You have still purchased their product. End of story.

The S&W lock is not there BY LAW, therefore, fighting with legislators about gun rights does little to combat that directly. I guess that is the essence of my disagreement with you. The lock issue is not a disagreement with legislation, but a disagreement with something S&W has chosen to mandate for ALL. Why hasn't S&W allowed the consumer to decide what they want by offerring BOTH models?

Sorry to be in disagreement, but this is how I feel. If manufacturer's aren't pressured enough by the consumer, then the manufacturers will CAVE EVERY TIME to "political pressure" because that's what will hurt them the most.

By buying S&W's products now Simian, I believe you are "unintentionally" sending a message that you are in complete agreement with the lock. You have given S&W ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE to change.

In my OPINION ONLY, I must stand my my original statement. "....consumers accepting guns with the lock also accept one additional level of erosion to the rights of law abiding gun owners." Good intentions or not, it is erosion nonetheless, and I choose to make my stand now and hope that others feel the same as I do.

MPI

[WebHobbit]

Politics aside I must admit that this whole lock thing DOES have me pretty upset with S&W. And this is coming from a BIG S&W "fan-boy". I guess fan-boy might be a semi-accurate description...I mean I got the T-shirts, knives....hell I'm drinking from a S&W coffee mug RIGHT NOW!

;)

But I digress.

I HATE the idea and the look of that stupid HOLE IN THE SIDE OF the otherwise beautiful frame! :fire:

:cuss:

I guess I COULD just buy used....but I'd rather buy new. That's just me. [shrugs]

Aside from the aesthetic disaster that is the integral lock the worst part about it is that totally KILLS one of the primary arguments to choose a wheel-gun over an auto-pistol.

For years the wheel-man's argument always included this wonderful gem:

"The DA revolver's simplicity of design & heavy pull REQUIRE an intentional conscious decision to fire. The DA revolver's inherently SAFE design free from extraneous gee-gaws, levers & buttons require no "safeties" and are still very quick into deliberate action."

The above words are my own...ones I've used manay many times over the last 10 years in friendly arguments with auto-pistol guys.

S&W have taken a giant black marker to that paragraph.

Thanks Smith & Wesson!

:banghead: :cuss: :(


The more I think about the lock the more I rethink just scrapping the 629 idea and ordering a nice Vaquero Bisley .44. :what: :scrutiny:

[Simian]

I see your point. The one thing that I can't stand about issues like this though is that anyone who picks up a new S&W from now on WILL have the lock. It is a shame that we would breed this type of though process into our future and not even give them the choice. I guess it upsets me that when things like this go south, by choice or not, the company will probably never again do without it. Anyway, no problem in disagreement, seems that we have the same goal in mind, just different thought processes.

[Magnum PI]

Webhobbit,

You do have a good point with the “simplicity of design” argument. I have used this statement for years when recommending a firearm to people who are first-timers and want something for home defense. They need to worry more about proper marksmanship, proficiency and defensive tactics as a beginner in my opinion. Now they are “less-simple” it seems.

I, like you, are a big S&W fan as well. GREAT guns! The look of the lock doesn’t bother me much because it’s so “inconspicuous” BUT it is inconspicuous for a reason. S&W thinks that by making it inconspicuous, most gun buyers won’t have a problem with it being there far VARIOUS reasons. The lock isn’t the problem, what the lock MEANS in a down spiraling trend is the problem.

Also most importantly, I am not suggesting that we should boycott S&W altogether, because that is what the Anti’s want….to send them out-of-business. What I WOULD like to do is have MAJOR INFLUENCE (and not secondary influence) over a manufacturer’s product decisions.

That said if I want a NEW 329PD Scandium because I like PAIN, I will buy one!! Haha. HOWEVER, if I want a model that exists now that was made PRIOR to the lock, I will definitely buy a USED firearm without the lock.

MPI

[Magnum PI]

Simian,

I DEFINITELY DO share your disappointment for people who wish to buy a NEW gun. They have no other choice now. For me, it’s relatively easy NOW to buy a pre-lock used revolver IN ‘like-new” condition……BUT I feel sorry for people 20 years from now who will not have this luxury. And the saddest part is that this is exactly what the anti’s want….to “phase” this in over time.

I know it’s highly unlikely, but I really DO hope that S&W changes. In the meantime, I will be buying all the “Pre-Lock” revolvers that I have always wanted…while I still can. JEEZ, talk about stimulating the market!

MPI
:cool:

[Gila Jorge]

WebHobbit: Galco makes the Phoenis for the 625-
5 inch which my 629-inch fits perfectly. I carry it as a true Mtn gun. Also have the 4 inch Mtn Gun but only shoot Spcls in it. Also carry it more often. Can't beat Galco Phoenix holsters.

[RCL]

Given the choice between the two, I would opt for the 6" M629. I prefer it's classic look. However, unless the gun was to be used as primarily a hunting weapon, I myself would get a 4" M629-5. I think the shorter tube would make for a better "all around" gun. Just my opinion, FWIW. ;)

[Rich357]

At least three of my S&W revolvers have the lock. It doesn't rattle. It
hasn't been a problem, although I don't put a lot of rounds through any of
these new S&Ws.

I think the S&W revolver looks better without the lock but it doesn't keep
me awake at night knowing it is there. I would certainly prefer S&W didn't
have the lock.

The idea of "boycotting" the new S&W lock type revolvers leaves me with
mixed feelings. I understand there aren't many ways of making a noticeable
difference except by not buying a product you don't agree with. However, if
this not buying new S&W revolvers caused S&W to go under or drove them to LE
only sales... would what we have lost have been worth the fight?

In the last few years, IMHO, S&W's revolvers have been better than the
several I purchased in the late '70s and early '80s when S&W was owned by
Bangor Punta. S&W has had a major creative boom going on the last few years
at their Performance Center. They have come out with a number if
innovative, high quality handguns.

The "smart lock" idea I'm strongly opposed to. It leaves way too many doors
open.

Glock has a optional "lock". I'm not happy about that because some state
will likely insist that only the lock version is "ok" for sale. I'm
getting the Glocks I want now, while I have a choice.

Rich