older S&Ws VS. newer Performance Center S&Ws?

Status
Not open for further replies.

coosbaycreep

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
435
Location
near Roseburg, Oregon
I'm looking at getting another S&W .44 mag very soon most likely, but had several questions first.

I already have an older 6.5" 29-2 with a trigger/action job or whatever, and it's probaby the nicest shooting gun I've ever shot. However, I've really been wanting one with a 4" barrel, and I want one I can shoot a little hotter loads in without wearing it out quite as fast. The hottest loads I've shot it through is 240gr hornadys. I mainly just shoot some lower power 240gr FMJ though, and I also shot some 210gr winchester silvertips and 210gr speer gold dots through it yesterday that shot pretty good in it.

I really like the looks of the new two tone performance center guns, but I don't think they make one like what I want with a 4" barrel, and they cost enough that it will make it more difficult for me to get one of the other guns I've really been wanting lately too, which is much more likely to be banned soon than a revolver.

As far as the P.C. guns, I like the looks of the black frame with a stainless cylinder, especially the unfluted cylinder. I've asked about having the 29 I already own getting a stainless cylinder and shorter barrel put on it on THR before, and was told it'd be a waste of money, which I agree with after looking at the costs involved.

I've seen 329PDs that look the way I want, but they were a snub nose. They also make a 4" that I've seen with an unfluted cylinder, but the whole gun is stainless (629P.C.?), and it doesn't look as wicked without the black frame. The Stealth Hunter is a good looking gun that's made in the color scheme that I want, but it's even bigger than the gun I already have. I know they also make some of the 8-shot .357s with a 4" barrel and black frame with stainless cylinder, but it's in the wrong caliber, and they have an ugly compensator thing on the end.

Does anyone know if S&W makes a gun like what I want with a 4" barrel?

Cost is another big issue. If I get a new smith, it's probably going to cost me $900-$1200. That's a whole lot of money for me. On the other hand, I seen a real nice looking 629-3 with a 4" barrel at a pawn shop for $549 the other day. Whether or not it's still there right now, I don't know, but that'd leave me a lot of extra money to buy ammo and put towards the semi-auto .308 I've been wanting.

I don't shoot a lot, and when I do shoot, it's usually just at cans and stuff on BLM land. I don't need anything super accurate for competition or anything like that. Any normal functioning S&W is going to be far more accurate than I am, but how much of a difference is there accuracy wise between a new PC smith and an older one like a 629-3?

I know all smiths are weaker than Rugers (and buying a ruger isn't an option, they're ugly and it's not what I want), but is there much of a difference between new S&Ws and old S&Ws as far as durability and the ability to handle hotter loads go? I'm not planning on shooting any P+ loads through whatever I get, but it'd be nice to be able to shoot the hottest standard pressure loads and not be concerned with damaging the gun.

The internal locks are ugly on the new guns obviously, but that's not enough to keep me from buying used instead of new either.

If I buy used, is there a certain dash model (-3,-4, etc) that's best to look for for what I want? (Which is basically just reliability and accuracy).

Other than the fact that I like the more modern looks of the newer PC smiths over the older regular 29/629s, are the new guns worth almost twice what I could buy a nice, used .44 for?

I'd rather have a good shooting 4" for under $600 even if it meant it didn't look as "cool" as I'd like it too, if there's not much difference in durability/reliability compared to the newer guns at twice the cost, so I'd appreciate advice from those of you who have shot both the new and older S&Ws.

Also, I'm not concerned with collector's value or resale. I know a new gun will almost always lose value when you go to sell it, where as a used one doesn't lose as much. I plan on keeping whatever I get for life most likely, and I plan on shooting it (as much as I can afford or my tendonitis can handle) and occasionally carrying it, so I'm not concerned with what holster wear or lots of rounds will do to the resale.

thanks
 
The 329PD is not a fun gun to shoot.

As a .44 Mag, it makes a much better .44 Special!

rc
 
My brother sent the 329PD to Smith for a steel cylinder, and it made a HUGE difference!! What a pleasant gun that is now!
Total cost a bit high, in my opinion. About $180 above the base gun.
Cheaper and better would be a new MG
 
but is there much of a difference between new S&Ws and old S&Ws as far as durability and the ability to handle hotter loads go?

If you're not going to being some warm loads through it I'm not sure it matters. If you are then I think you want a 29-5 or 629-2E or later. Here's a little linkage to a John Taffin:
http://www.sixguns.com/range/SmithWesson44Mag.htm

While my preference is for older S&W's generally the .44 Mag is an exception - I feel much better with a post-1990 product. I'm not running the types of loads that Mr. Taffin describes but I might and it'd be nice to know I won't be getting a backwards rotating cylinder out of the bargain.
 
Hi,

Some S&W 29-4 revolvers got the new "reliability" (or endurance) package, with a stouter bolt and larger notches on the cylinder for the bolt to lock into. However, like Hawk mentioned, the 29-5 series and newer has it and this makes it a stronger gun to shoot lots of stout loads vs. the earlier S&W .44 Mags.

Since you already have an earlier Smith M 29, look at the photos of the notches on this M29-5 to see how they are longer and more substantial vs. on your older gun. This is the tip off to the stouter guns! This M29-5 had an unfluted cylinder, which is really consequential to this subject.

2078646Piebaldand29.b.JPG


I've used this M29-5 to take many a whitetail through the years . . . and always with the very stout Federal 300 grain "Castcore" hard-cast flat point bullet that absolutely PLANTS the deer. This revolver has been shot a lot and is still nice and tight!

Hope this helps,

Tom
 
If you want a 4" 44 Mag that takes hot loads forever I'd look at a ruger Redhawk. Well maybe not forever but mine is still going strong after nearly 25 years with zero problems.
 
I know all smiths are weaker than Rugers (and buying a ruger isn't an option, they're ugly and it's not what I want), but is there much of a difference between new S&Ws and old S&Ws as far as durability and the ability to handle hotter loads go?


Any 629 -3 and after and 29 -5 and after have the endurance package.

I would go for that 629-3 and then send it back to Smith for a master revolver action package, and it will have an action just like a PC for $300 less, and no lock or MIM parts.

I have a 629 no dash and a 629-2, and i dont hesitate to shoot any SAAMI spec load in them, with no problems. The whole story about them being weak is Bull Manure, made up by the Boat anchor, I mean redhawk, fans. A friend of mine used to shoot IHMSA silouhette with a nickle plated 29, he used a 325 grain hardcast with an obscene amount of slow powder, to get it to 1400 fps he claims. He had to have the 29 rebuilt/ retimed about every 15,000 rounds. As long as you shoot SAAMI spec loads, and keep within load manual data the gun will outlive you.
The new PC guns are also great I bought a 627 PC last year, and after shooting a couple thousand rounds through it I am very pleased. Iwould not advise anyone to buy the titanium cylinder models though (two tone?), just my opinion.
 
Gota love the Internet, one a rumor takes hold it never goes away.

Yes the Ruger is a heavier revolver but it will handle Magnum loads NO BETTER than the current S&W revolvers available. A M686 will last just as long as a GP100. The reason Ruger revolvers are larger is because of the metal they are made of. They have to be larger to be as strong as the all steel S&W models. (BTW, I own products from both companies and like them all)
 
A M686 will last just as long as a GP100.

Maybe so, but serious handloaders and niche market commercial loaders like Buffalo Bore do NOT believe that the 629 will handle overpressure rounds like any of Ruger's .44 Magnum offerings.

Why would an ammo maker tell you not to use their ammo in a popular revolver? It wouldn't make a bit of sense for them to tell you not to buy their products unless they had a very good reason.

That said, I like Smiths. However, it's not a good idea to be spreading rumors yourself, when it comes to super-hot magnum loads -- someone might get hurt.

The reason Ruger revolvers are larger is because of the metal they are made of. They have to be larger to be as strong as the all steel S&W models.

Much as I like Smiths, this is also an internet rumor.
 
Firearms enthusiasts are a conservative and hidebound lot. A background against which our tort system encourages caution.

While I may be very much mistaken, it's my opinion that a 2009 model 629 will not "grenade" with anything that wouldn't do a similar job with the Redhawk.

But because, once upon a time, in the dim and distant past, there was a model 29 that would turn into a backward cylinder spinning frame stretched wreck (copyright Tamara) at the sight of Buffalo Bore or Cor-Bon, the specialty manufacturers will caution against the use of such a product as they simply can't (and shouldn't) trust their client base to figure out if they've got a "new" or "old" S&W. I would trust a 29-10 to swallow anything Ruger can handle but surely not a 29-1. There they be monsters. And litigation.

Ask about Alliant Red Dot and you'll hear it burns dirty. The formula was changed some time ago - possibly when Carter was in office but the old formula is still proclaimed like it's new news everyday on the intertubz.

I like Ruger just fine but comparing the strength of a 2009 Ruger to a 2009 S&W isn't the same as comparing a more or less current Ruger to something S&W put out in the 1970s fer cryin' out loud. I guess the fact that something with a frame lock just flat out-performs something earlier in a narrowly focused field (strength) doesn't sit well with some folks as well.

Now, super Redhawk to current 629 - that I'm not comfy with. But, then again, the SRH is more appropriately compared to an "X" frame anyway, IMHO.

If one doesn't go totally whacko, over the edge, nutzoid with the comparisons vis a vis, "apples to apples" the S&W does quite well.

I still like Rugers but the urban legends need put to rest.
 
ArmedBear,
I am a serious reloader and I don't agree even though you switched from the .357 Magnum to the .44 Magnum. I was also talking about factory ammo, not extremely hot stuff which is over SAAMI specs. That's OK though if you feel to change the rules to push your opinion.
 
A M686 will last just as long as a GP100. The reason Ruger revolvers are larger is because of the metal they are made of. They have to be larger to be as strong as the all steel S&W models.

Thank you, Archangel. But it's not that Rugers aren't all-steel, it's that they are cast vs. forged. This makes a big difference in the strength/density ratio. You can make a stronger gun smaller (forged, S&W) than the other way (cast, Ruger). But your point is correct.

Hawk Thanks to you, too. Best post I've seen on this subject in a long time.

Remind me again why it is that I want to shoot overpressure rounds.

Please???

And to Master Blaster, another hearty thank you. Sensibility reigns. Man, this is my day. Three really sensible, intelligent posts on a rabid subject, all in not only one day, but on one page! You guys made my day. But just a correction:

Any 629 -3 and after and 29 -5 and after have the endurance package

Actually the 629-2E and 29-3E are the beginnings of the "Endurance Package." All above that have it. But I have had no problem with any SAAMI spec ammo up to 300grains (largest I've tried, not the limit I've encountered) in my 629-1.
 
Great thread! As someone who has been into semiautos all my life, and has been just recently buying a few older Smiths, this informationi is invaluable - thanks to all!

Now a specific question: I just found a sweet SW 629 no dash, 4" ported barrel, pinned and recessed, with presentation grips. A real beauty.

My plan would be to only run .44 special through this particular gun. Good plan? Or could I safely run some Magnum through occasionally?
(Afterall, that's why we buy them, right?)

Last question: I've got the fever and the newer PC 629s have caught my eye as well. Do those compensators really work or just show and no go? LOVE that Competition Limited.

Thanks again for all the sage advice!
 
S/w

I would like to jump in and ask a question or two. I'm new to this fourm
and have a md19 as a back-up. I'm thinking on up grading to 686 and was hoping someone had an opinion.
Thanks
 
Dan, it would be OK, even desirable, for you to open a new thread to ask your completely off topic question.

Welcome to the forum!
 
Thank you, Archangel. But it's not that Rugers aren't all-steel, it's that they are cast vs. forged. This makes a big difference in the strength/density ratio. You can make a stronger gun smaller (forged, S&W) than the other way (cast, Ruger). But your point is correct.
Oro,
That's what I meant. (as you knew) Thank you for clearing up the terms because I wouldn't want to mislead the other readers of this thread. I'm usually more careful on how I write things but sometimes I get sloppy... :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top