I'm not a fan of short .44's in general...by short, I mean less than 4". I have a pair of 3" .357 Smith M-60's that do nicely, but kick like a mule with full house loads...I can only imagine a .44 of either persuasion, Spl or Mag. Were it me, and I truly liked/loved the DA/SA trigger on the gun, I'd call Smith and see about a re-barrel....but see the below for length comments...8-3/8" is just too much of a good thing in my estimation.
In a heavy caliber revolver like the 629, I'd much prefer at least a 4" bbl. My current 629 sports a 5", full-lugged; a tube that I really like...but understand that's the absolute limit for belt carry...unless your mounted on a good cayuse. And even 5" pushes the gun up into my short ribs to some extent, with an OWB & when seated in a modern 4 wheel conveyance.
Beyond 4-5", I have to resort to a cross-chest or shoulder rig for comfort. And it does make better sense when carrying as back up for the rifle. Even with a pack board on, you still have access to the gun if need be....bear country comes to mind: e.g. when packing out quarters. For a range gun, if you can stand the muzzle heavy weight & balance, the longer, (6 or 8-3/8" barrels) do make sense... But in my use, here in KY, I always carry at the 4 o'clock position, OWB...were I young enough to again tramp the Colorado high country for elk, it'd be a cross chest tanker set up for sure.
Lastly, those long tubed revolvers, especially those with the full length lug...(my 5" has one & weighs 46 oz. unloaded!) ... sure increase the overall weight of the gun. Steady for really heavy recoiling loads for sure...but at a price. My 4-1/4" bbl'd, M-69 Smith, BTW, a .44 Magnum, 5-shot, weighs in at 38 oz... but will kick the heck out of your thumb web with full house loads. As a carry piece, I much prefer it, but....well you get the idea....
YMMv, Rod