S&W 29-2 or 29-5

[Jimfern]

It looks like I may have a chance to buy either a nickel plated 29-2 or a 29-5 with 29 Classic embossed on it. I liked the nickel finish on the 29-2, although it is scratched up a bit, but no flaking. I also like the rounded edges of the cylinder, full under lug and deep bluing on hte 29-5.

I would appreciate any advice on which would be a better deal. They are both the same price and the owner said the 29-2 is about 50 years old. The inside of the barrels of both look like they have been shot very little.

Both have 6.5" barrels.

Here is what the 29-5 looks like:
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2100/2193.htm

The 29-2 looks like this, but maybe scratched up a little more. Can you polish that out?
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=127522378

Thanks for any advice you can provide.

 

[AlPackin]

I'd buy a 29-2 before a 29-5 just because ... I don't think I'd go for that 29-2 though at that price ... I bought this one on gunbroker about a year and a half ago for $550

 

[bluetopper]

The 29-2 just because it has a pinned barrel and a recessed cylinder thus being a little more collectable.

Gorgeous 29 AlPackin!

 

[wraco]

29-2

 

[Jimfern]

Thanks for the advice. Does anyone know if you can polish out the scratches on Nickel? That's the only thing that really got me looking at the other one.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

Go for the 29-2...much higher cool factor.

 

[Iggy]

A gentle polishing with Flitz or Mother's Mag polish will spiff up that Nickle.

 

[Oro]

I would also agree with the 29-2 UNLESS it has seen hard use and mechanically is not as good. There is a sticky in the forum on evaluating the condition of a revolver by Jim March - go through those steps with each gun and have the necessary tools (mainly a precise feeler guage set).

A 29-2 was made from 62 to 82, so it could be up to 47 years old, or as young as 27, but not quite 50. Original grips on an older model would be desirable. A 29-5 is an excellent gun, by the way, so don't pooh-pooh it, either. The lug on the "classic" models reduced recoil quite a bit, even with stout loads, and it is very well made. It also has what is known as an "endurance" package and if your intent is some silhouette competition or heavy loadings, it would be a wiser bet in the long run.

Hey, if you want, pm me, I am in the mood for a 29 and I might buy whichever you don't if they are nice guns.

 

[David E]

It was my understanding that the 29-2 was the last of the P&R 29's and they had a SIX inch barrel, not the 6 1/2"

Of the two, the 29-2 would be my choice hands down. It weighs 47 oz, which is still "reasonable" for carrying afield.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

It was my understanding that the 29-2 was the last of the P&R 29's and they had a SIX inch barrel, not the 6 1/2"

The 29-2 P&R guns were made from 1961 to 1981. The 29-2 6.5" barrels were changed to 6" in 1979. So both the 6" and 6.5" barrels were on the 29-2's during different production times. Mine pictured above is 6.5" and was shipped from S&W in May of 1975.

 

[AlPackin]

beautiful piece C&L ...

The N Frame is a really old design, (like 100 years if I recall) and not really built for non-stop full magnum loads. I love the silhouette long barrel version which started with 29-3 but they had their problems with a steady diet of magnum loads (cylinder rotating backwards etc).

I treat mine as a collectors item and load full wadcutters for it, everybody loves shooting it.

I shoot the H110 butt kicker magnum loads through my Super Redhawk.

 

[LTR shooter]

I would be more apt to go with an old 29 if it were blue like AlPackin's above.

I had a 29 Classic and it was quite a shooter and with the endurance package upgrades would hold up better at shooting magnum loads. The accuracy of the 29 Classic I owned was the best of any revolver I had ever owned at the time.

For a collector , finding an older, well cared for 29 is a real treat!