S&W 629 comparison Q

Not open for further replies.


Dec 24, 2002
How does the S&W 629 w/ 6" barrel compare to the 629 w/ 5" full lug. The 6" barrel model is something like 0.7 ounces heavier, not significant, but how do these two compare regarding balance and muzzle rise with moderate loads?
6 of one, half-dozen of the other. It's more of an aesthetics/style thing than a practical matter.

Personally, I'd rather not have a full lug, and I much prefer the 4" N-frames, but if you like full lugs, the 5" is quite nice.

With "mild" loads (lets say under 1,200 fps, under 300 gr.) you aren't going to need any help from extra heavy barrels or extra length up front.
I think a 5" N frame is the perfect combination of balance and sight radius. I have a 629 Classic with the 5" full underlug frame and it is probably one of the best balanced guns I own. It feels like an extension of my arm and points very naturally.

I don't think you'll notice much if any difference in perceived recoil between the two, though.

Thanks for the responses. I can take or leave the full lug and the esthetics of both are fine; it's about how well it shoots and points. I have an older S&W 29-2 that shoots well (it will group at 100 yds if you can), but I had my hands on a new 5” full lug 629; it balanced and seemed to point very naturally for me. I haven’t been able to shoot it.

Unlike many who do like the 4” big bore revolvers, I’m okay with my 4” Mod 19 and 686, but in .44 Mag I prefer a longer barrel and more weight. Even in .357, my 6” Mod 19 shoots better than the 4” -- sight radius, weight etc. For carry, a shorter barrel has its advantages, but for that I have a Glock G-19 ;)
Not open for further replies.