S&W 44 Mags

Model 69 seems highly versatile and eminently packable.

Specials for normal carry, magnums in the woods.

Or a good hardcast "hot" special to do it all!

Styx said:

For a just because gun with no particular role, what are some thoughts on the 5 shot S&W 69 Combat Magnum 2.75" vs the 6 shot S&W 629 Plus. 3"?

Click to expand...

Why the short barrels if not for a concealment role?
"Just because" is more fun when you've got accuracy on your side, and a 6" barrel .44 is super accurate

My 39oz 629 Mountain Gun is about as small as I wanna go with Magnum's.
It mostly see's 240grn loads at around 1100 fps, full house loads are a handful.

I have the 4.2" model 69 to go with my 4.2" SP101 and I love it. I wouldn't exactly call it compact, but much smaller than a N frame. Lots of firepower for the size. Any cartridge that ends in magnum with a sub 4" barrel is kind of pointless to me, but you do you.

The 69 is an outstanding revolver but if you intend on .44mag being the primary player in what you are shooting through it I would go with the 629.

Love my 629 Plus! A great range gun, loves all my hand loads. You could do worse. I see some question of 3” barrels. I just like it, gives up nothing to a 4” other than a few FPS. The factory wood grips just plain old suck! Look good but hard on the hand. $20 Hogue rubber tames recoil nicely.

Pic is with aftermarket grips not the originals they were put back in the box after the first range trip.

I had considered the 69, found nothing wrong with it, I just liked the N Frame better. I do not carry it much but would have no problem doing so, in this configuration it’s not bad on the hip.

Edit: 200 RNFP Cowboy level Specials are like shooting .38 wadcutters in a K frame. Just bigger! I load that round, 260 Grain SWC’s and Skeeter loads, plain old fun, can do it all day. The Classic 245 SWC 10 Grains of Unique .44 Magnum is pleasant. Factory 240 Grain will get your attention but are not excessive.

Targa said:

The 69 is an outstanding revolver but if you intend on .44mag being the primary player in what you are shooting through it I would go with the 629.

Click to expand...

I agree with Targa. I DO like my 69, but if I was running full-house 44 Mags all of the time, I'd too would go with the 629.

Till I die:

Howdy

I have not shot one, but I handled one of those five shot jobs in a shop a number of years ago. 44 Special, yes, but I don't think I would like holding onto that puppy with full house 44 Mag ammo.

The S&W website says it weighs 34.4 ounces. A model 29 is going to weigh somewhere in the vicinity of 10 ounces more.

Nickel Plated Model 29-2 with barrel cut to 5 inches. Much more comfortable with 44 Mag loads.

I've got both. I prefer the M69 - it has become my favorite revolver - I shoot it two or three times a week. Personally, I find the recoil of the M69 less than the 3" M629. Here are some chrono results accumulated over time.


Chronoed these from the 2.75” M69. Three rounds at 5 Long paces from muzzle and 68 deg F. Larger sample could change the results a bit. Largest ES was 42 fps. All in new Starline cases and CCI 350 primers.


225gr Barnes XFB with 18.1 gr A#9 avg (1,214 fps (muzzle vel from Labradar)

240gr Cutting Edge Flat Point Mono – 22.6 H110 1,218 fps (1,247 fr 2.5” 329 Alaska Backpacker) Muzzle vel from Labradar

240gr Zero JSP with 24.0gr H110 avg 1,126 fps

240gr JHP Fed Factory avg 1,125 fps (bought at an estate sale “44a 1981 production” – 1,375 fps from 7 ½” RSBH)

260gr WFNGC w/23.0gr H110 avg 1,125 fps

265gr CSWCGC (Lyman Thompson) with 17.5gr A2400 (Deep Seat – crimped over front drive band) 1,119 fps avg

265gr SWCGC (429244) 23.5gr H110, seated and crimped in crimp grove in Mag cases ---------- 1,162 fps


310gr FNGCDC (Lee) with 20.0gr H110 avg 1,100 fps

325gr WLNGC (BTB) with 22.0gr H110 avg 1,104 fps



The 4 ¼” gun gives 40 to 100 fps additional velocity.


I Was curious, so I bought some 305gr Buffalo Bore and Underwood ammo – here are chrono results.


Buffalo Bore, 305 LBT LFN HC rated 1,325 fps
Underwood, 305 LFNGC Plated (HiTech?) rated 1,325 fps
LabRadar muzzle velocity at 33 deg F


S&W M69 2.75" ===> BB 1,195 fps ===> Under 1,147fps
S&W M69 4.25" ===> BB 1,276 fps ===> Under 1,248 fps
Ruger SRH 7.5" ===> BB 1,395 fps ===> Under 1,315 fps

My short M69:
.

.
And the 629
.

.

For practice:

240/265gr Cast over 17.5gr of A2400 deep seated and crimped over front drive band in .44 mag cases

.................. 240/265gr Cast over 6.5gr of HP38/W231 deep seated and crimped over front drive band in .44 mag cases for 880 fps in 4 1/4" gun

.................. 240/265gr Cast over 5.gr of WST (Win Super Target) deep seated and crimped over front drive band in .44 mag cases for 700 fps in 2 3/4" gun

FWIW

Have shot a S&W Mod 29--- .44 mag (hot loads):
2in---ouch---ouch---thankfully not mine
4in---ouch---round butted it and shot .44spl in it
6in---OK---a friend reeeeally wanted it so he got it
8 3/8in---sweet shooter---shot for over 20yrs until my hand gave out and was joined by old friend Arthur Ritis

In my opinion in either a M69, M29, or M629, get a 4" barrel or longer.

I like the smaller frame size of the L-frame M69 with the 4" barrel.

I do not like shooting my 2-3/4" M69 or 3" M624 (44 Special). I'd hate to try a 3" 44 Magnum S&W N-frame.

Understand the appeal of short big bores; have a 3" 625 that is a favorite. A 3" 69 looks like a lighter, smaller alternative to a 629, tho' a Mountain Gun is a good choice.
As some PPs have noted, recoil is less and less your friend as the years roll on.
Just had the 6" 629 out, reminded myself of how great a revo it is, and the 3 deer I took with it. But it has probably been 15 years since I loaded any .44 Mags.
Moon

I also like S&W wheelguns with 4" barrels and, preferably big holes in the front end. They include a pre-war .38, a 686s, a M29, a 625JM .45ACP and a .45 Colt Mountain Gun.
A 5" 327 and a 3" 686+ rounds out the set.

I'm a piker with only 3 right now. I enjoy all the barrel lengths, not that I personally have them all. The 5" is ported and the 8" is wearing a Sig Romeo 5 red dot for hunting. The 69 is bedside and hasn't seen a lot of practice. (need to change that)

Driftwood Johnson said:

Howdy…The S&W website says it weighs 34.4 ounces. A model 29 is going to weigh somewhere in the vicinity of 10 ounces more…

Click to expand...

Howdy DJ,

My Model 625 Mountain Gun weighs 38 ounces. The smaller 44 Remington Magnum should not add that much more weight. So, roughly 4 ounces difference.

I have been curious about the Model 69 with a 4.2” barrel but have never come across one. I prefer the 45 ACP but they can not squeeze that into the L frame.


Kevin

japle, envy your 625 Mountain Gun; wasn't even aware that combo existed.
StrawHat, real fan of less powerful N frames, either .45 Colt/ACP, or downloaded .44s. Was thinking of working up some reduced, lead, loads for the 629, including resighting it for the lower power stuff. But the other .45 Colt/ACP guns are a better answer.
Wonder if a .45 could be fit to an L frame? Seems that couple thousandths would work.
Not about to part with the 629, because I don't have to.
Moon

Targa said:

The 69 is an outstanding revolver but if you intend on .44mag being the primary player in what you are shooting through it I would go with the 629.

Click to expand...

.308 Norma said:

I agree with Targa. I DO like my 69, but if I was running full-house 44 Mags all of the time, I'd too would go with the 629.

Click to expand...

When I wrote I agreed with Targa about not wanting to run a steady diet of full-house 44 Mags through my Model 69, I was thinking more about the wear and tear to my revolver than the wear and tear to my wrists and elbows. Even a so-called "built like a tank" Ruger Super Blackhawk will shoot itself loose with a steady diet of full-house 44 Magnum loads. And it will do it sooner than a lot of shooters seem to expect. That's why when my wife and I were shooting IHMSA, she had two Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 Mags - so that she still had a 44 Mag revolver to compete with while the other was back at the factory being "tightened up." BTW, Ruger never charged us a dime.
At any rate, I really do like my Model 69, but I suspect a heavier 629 would stand up to a steady diet of full-house 44 Mag loads a little longer. And I'm pretty sure my almost 74 year-old tendonitis elbows would appreciate the "heavier 629" too.

I only own one .44M, and I don't shoot it, because nobody else but the factory has since it was made in 1979. I think I'm the second owner, other than the LGS where I found it.

I really like the Model 69. I could maybe buy into the snub idea for an IWB CCW - but at least for me, another inch or so of barrel doesn't make a significant difference in comfort or concealability, but does make a huge difference in my ability to hit. I'll also admit to disliking the recoil from the thing, with full patch loads. I'd be choosing from the low end of the published loads...

I'm also a fan of just about any of the Model 29 permutations, but by then I don't get the snub idea at all. No N frame is especially portable, and lopping off a bit of barrel really doesn't help, in my experience. For higher volume shooting of full power (not the +P and +P+ stuff being used in Rugers and such, but the "traditional" 250@1200 range) I think the 629 with anything from a 4" to a 6.5" barrel is ideal, either as a range gun or an outdoorsman's gun.

Of course, if you just have to have a big bore snub because, well then all bets are off. Just don't try to make me shoot it!

I like both.

halfmoonclip said:

japle, envy your 625 Mountain Gun; wasn't even aware that combo existed.

Click to expand...

No, no, no! The 625JM (.45ACP) and the Mountain gun (.45 Colt) are two different guns. I lusted for the .45 Colt Mountain Gun for years and finally had to pony up a wheelbarrow full of cash to get one.
I run fairly light loads through it, one load using a cast full-wadcutter.

The two Smith's you're interested in: M-69 with a 2.75" bbl., and a 629 with a 3" tube are both CC pieces, IMHO. Either will do for that role, but the 69 is significantly lighter for all day carry. Since it's a carry piece, carried lots, but shot little, the lighter weight on the belt makes sense. A 629 is significantly heavier but you do get that 6 shot cylinder as a bonus.

Neither is a fun range gun with real .44 magnum rounds. I have both, albeit, with 4.25" & 5" bbl's respectively and find them comfortable with Skelton type loads (moderate .44 Special loadings: 240 gr LSWC's at ~950 fps). But with full house .44 magnums, (for the sake of argument: 240 gr LSWC's at ~1200+ fps), the M-69 (weighing ~38 oz. unloaded) is NOT FUN. The 629 .half a pound heftier, is ok but still not fun for a full morning at the range...guys who claim to 'love the recoil' are full of beans in my opinion and will suffer from wrist and elbow problems as they approach their 60's...

Good luck with your choices, but I'd bet a month's pay, you'd enjoy a longer barrel, and truth be told, with a revolver that size, the additional 1" of barrel length will make zero difference in your ability to carry it on the belt. I do, almost daily here on our farm, in an OWB of my own making, and have no problem with concealment under a shirt tail or jacket. And the longer barrel would make either gun a heckofa lot more fun to shoot. Best regards Rod