S&W 29-3 Question

[el44vaquero]

I google searched the 29-3 since I'm looking at buying one and found the following article:

With the dawning of 1982, and Smith & Wesson under the control of those who seemingly cared nothing about providing quality sixguns, two major changes were made to cut costs. The 29-3 arrived without the pinned barrel and also counter-bored cylinders disappeared. Up to this point in time, all Smith and Wesson barrels were held tightly in place not just by thread pressure but also by a pin that transversed the frame through a slot in the top of the barrel threads. With today's strong brass, counter bored cylinders, or cylinders that completely enclose the rim of the cartridge case, are probably not needed. They also fill with crud and must be periodically cleaned or cases will not chamber BUT they are a sign of manufacturing quality and they are gone.

For years, Smith & Wesson refused to acknowledge a problem that definitely existed. It became especially prevalent when silhouette shooters started pounding hundreds of rounds of fullhouse loads down range in a single day. When a cartridge was fired, the cylinder would unlock, rotate backwards and when the hammer was cocked, the fired round would be back under the firing pin. Silhouetters literally "beat their swords into plowshares" as far as the Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum was concerned. About the same time silhouetters were pounding 240 grain bullets unmercilessly through the Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum, handgun hunters discovered 300 grain bullets which put a further strain on the mechanism whose basic design went back to 1899.

Instead of listening to silhouetters about this problem, Smith & Wesson refused to publicly acknowledge that anything was amiss and instead brought forth a Silhouette Model in 1983. This model featured a ten and five-eighth's inch bull barrel and sights with a standard adjustable rear sight with a higher blade and also a four position adjustable front sight. The front sight was to be set for the four distances addressed in long range silhouetting. Nothing was done to correct the mechanical problem. Of all the .44 Magnum Smith & Wesson sixguns I have shot over the past four decades, this one, Smith & Wesson's answer to the unlocking cylinder problem, is the only one that I have ever encountered in which the cylinder unlocked and rotated backwards on a regular basis! Needless to say, silhouetters did not flock to the .44 Magnum Silhouette Model.

For someone who doesn't plan on shooting this a lot and the gun probably won't see more than 1000rds through it in it's entire life, would this still be a problem?

 

[huntershooter]

Depends on what you're going to shoot out of it. 1000 rds. of 300 gr. JHP @ 1300 fps might loosen a 29-3 up enough to send in for repairs. My 4" 29-3 gets fed a lot of 240-265 gr. lead @ 1200 fps+-. No problems after thousands of rds. Brian Pearce (a BELIEVABLE gun writer) had an article in HANDLOADER this past summer, that dealt with Mod. 29's (29-2, 29-3, 29-4, and the different 629 series guns). He divided the ammo into mid-range, warm and full house catagories, with recommendations as to which ammo group is ideally used in which 29/629 series gun. My experimentation and experience supports his article. I would try to find a copy of this as it would be quite helpful. Good luck.

 

[el44vaquero]

thank you

 

[Old Fuff]

It's mostly bull, with a little truth.

The problem with the no-pin barrel is that it is fitted to a crush-fit, and removing and/or replacing the barrel should be done at the factory. If you don't plan on any barrel swaps the pin is a moot point.

When the .357 Magnum was introduced in 1935, cartridge cases had balloon heads, which were weak, and considering the pressures the case head had to be supported. After World War Two this became a moot point as .357 Magnum ammunition was switched to solid-head cases. It should be noted that neither Colt or Ruger have used recessed head chambers in their Magnum revolvers.

Right or wrong, the pinned barrel/recessed chamber Magnums are perceived to represent better overall workmanship then later product guns. I think there may be some truth to this, but it doesn't have anything to do with the practical applications of the pin and/or recessed chambers.

Excluding those that fire handloaded ammunition with extra heavy bullets at maximum pressures, the .44 Magnum Smith & Wessons have stood up reasonably well. If nothing but a stedy diet of high-end ammunition is going to be used, a Ruger Redhawk would be a better choice. For what you propose I don't think there would be any problems.

 

[P95Carry]

I love P&R Smiths and wanted at Tulsa show last April to find a dash 2 but - this dash 3 called me!! It was little used, nice and tight and despite what the article says - still a very fine piece IMO.

If I want to hammer a gun with hot .44's I'll use my SRH but otherwise, this piece is well worthy of a place in my safe (and some shootin!).

 

[Confederate]

I love the counterbored chambers. Always have, always will. Having to clean the gunk out of them is merely apology for cutting corners. Even my inexpensive Astra .44 mag has counterbored chambers.

 

[SouthpawShootr]

I'd buy a -3 (or anything up to a -8) if I could find a 29 at a decent price. Most of the ones I see at local shows are either outrageously high (for ones in pristine condition, this is about the same price as a new 29-10) or are real high for the condition. One dealer had a 29-2 that looked like it was a daily carry for $600. So I waited until I came across a blued 29-10 without the gold logo and broke down and bought it. This will be a shooter. I'll get a nice safe queen 29-2 later. Would I have preferred pinned and recessed? Yep. Prefer no lock? Yep. Does it really matter to me all that much? No. I wanted the pinned and recessed b/c the finish is so much better. I'm not into shooting punishing loads and my 29-10 will likely get no more than a box or two of full power 240 grain .44 magnums with the remainder being .44 specials. I'm thinking of picking up a Ruger Alaskan in .44 or maybe a S&W 500. That Ruger looks like it could shoot thousands of proof level loads.

 

[Ranger 40]

Smith & Wesson changed hands over the years. Every time it sold some one cut cost to make more profit. After Bangor Punta Sold Smith to I think Sigler Heater Co. things went down fast.
They quit fitting and firing and pinning the barrels to zero on the range. They dropped the chamber counter bore, which gave strength to the back of the chamber when shooting heavy loads. The crush fit barrels were often out of line
and the rear sights had to be moved way off center to aligin with the front sight ,not good. This could be fixed by twisting the barrel right or left to align the front sight.
The first .44 Mags were the 4th Mdl. Hand Ejectors made in 1956, hand made in the shop. These are fine weapons. The later 29s became production guns. The changes took place when the top screw on the side plate was dropped, the screw in front of trigger guard was dropped and the pitch on the ejector rod was changed. Giving changes 1,2,3. After that the changes went wild.
I have a 4th Mdl. Hand Ejector made in July of 1956, it just turned 50 and still shoots like a dream. The old 29s up thru 29-2 are outstanding handguns. I have killed Elk, deer, pigs. grouse rabbits etc. with a 4" 29-2. And laid by my sleeping bag at night made feel safe.