How Tough is a 629-1?

[cliff355]

Recently I got out my 6" 629-1 which has been in retirement for about the past decade and a half and am planning to return it to the field. I got it new in the '80s and at that time it was the most recent version.

However, it appears that Smith & Wesson is now up to the 629-6 and I'm wondering if all this water over the dam has made my gun obsolete. I shot it quite a bit with full-power loads (not exactly max though) and it always seemed to work pretty well. What I am wondering is are the new guns significantly stronger or better than the dash-1 version?

I'm not planning to shoot absolute maximum loads in it, but if Smith & Wesson determined they had to come out with five more revisions of this model, maybe I should look into the latest one. Any input would be appreciated.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

The revisions are just to make manufacturing easier, not necessarilly improvements to the gun. No longer pinned and recessed, -1.
redesigned cylinder latch, -2.
Square ejector star, -3.
Remove the hammer nose and replace with integral firing pin,-4
Safety lock over cylinder latch, -5. etc.
Some would argue that these are not improvements at all, but just gun design by safety committee to allow S&W to continue manufacturing in Mass.
In fact, the earlier guns are more desirable.

 

[cliff355]

Thanks Phil. This gun is in pretty good shape so I will probably stick with it for now.

 

[Majic]

As long as you stick to factory or factory equivalent loads and not the semi-custom heavy loads you will be OK. The newer guns (629-2E and up) have the Endurance Package and are somewhat stronger and more durable guns. The Endurance Package really is a mechanical improvement.

 

[huntershooter]

Being familiar with the 29 series revolvers, I don't know which "dash" in the 629 series is indicative of "endurance" enhancements. These involved engineering to prevent cyl. skipping, etc. While I don't disagree with the above posts, you are correct in that these revolvers were re-engineered to better tolerate full power loads. Brian Pearce had an article a few mos. back in "Handloader" which lists these "improvements" by model/dash number.

 

[Confederate]

Since the 629-1s were the same gun as the 29, at the time, only stainless steel, you should do fine with factory loads. In fact, having the pinned barrel and the recessed chambers are touches of class you probably won't see in production guns anymore. I shot my nickle-plated 29 with full factory loads and some of them would'a liked to have knocked my fillings out of my teeth, but neither the 29s or 629s had the same trouble that the 19/66 had with full magnum .357 loads. Still, the Smith .44s weren't intended for the type of reloaded ammo that Ruger Redhawks will take.

 

[CSA 357]

i had a 6 inch 629-1 it was a great shooter i finaly got loose and wouldnt lock up on all cylenders i traded it off after 1000s of my hand loads, i now have a 629 no dash and it it the tightest smith i have ever owned or seen, ill be good to this one and shoot mostly light loads in it, i dont realy care for hot 44 magnums like i did at one time *csa*