Thinking about getting one. It is a 629-6. Now my favorite load is 300 gr XTP with 20 gr of H110.

Can this gun survive a steady diet of this load? I already have a 5.5" Ruger redhawk but I always liked the Smith better.


Thanks

Even though S&W has had multiple fixes over the years to toughen up the 629, it would not be my first choice for a steady diet of 300 gr loads.

A friend had a pair of redhawks worked over by Magnaport, not cheap but their action jobs are butter smooth. Might be a better option as you'd be hard pressed to wear out a redhawk with such loads.

If you like the smith, buy the smith and just try to wear it out. They will fix it for free, and even if they don't, you will have to shoot it a ton to wear it out, and it is pretty simple for a smith to tighten up.

Thanks gentlemen

This^^^^^^^^^^^

It will last a long time, and as someone else said, Smith will fix it. However, eventually you will probably have to have it tightened up a bit. I have loosened up a 629 back in the day when all I shot were full power loads. But I'm probably talking 10 to 12 thousand rounds, maybe more. I have never loosened a Redhawk. Just my thoughts.......
Having said all that, I can't imagine you WANTING to shoot enough of those heavy bullet loads that would hurt the gun. They for sure thump on both ends.

For many years I heard the same stuff, Ruger is built tougher. But I never once seen anyone do any testing to put truth to the rumor.

That's why I love cast bullets for revolvers. You don't need to beat yourself up with balls to the walls loads to get good results on anything you shoot at.

I haven't been around heavily used 29/629 Smiths in a while, but in my youth my father and I shot handgun metallic silhouette. Rugers held up better in that duty.

Yep. For the heaviest loads I'll stick with my Redhawk. I don't put too many rounds of those max loads through any on my S&W 29's.

How ironic as I shot silhouettes back in the later part of the 1970's as well. My revolver of choice was a Ruger Super Blackhawk in 44 mag and I do remember two other shooters who had M29's they ended up shooting loose. Both ended up buying Rugers as a result.
But that was then and this is now. I am not arguing the fact a Ruger might be the heavier built revolver. But the S&W has progressed through the years as well. It would be interesting to see some actual test data to support facts that most shooters think is true.

Bingo. I load no faster than 1100 fps and bullets a bit heavy for cartridge in the 45 Colt and below and a bit light for cartridges in the greater than 45 Colt gang, either one of the various flatbased SWC or one of the LBT designs.

If you shoot a Smith to the point of disrepair, I would suggest hanging it on the wall and just buying another. It will likely be a great reminder of past adventures, as it will take a substantial amount of shooting to get to that point.

I don't shoot a lot of real heavy loads through my Smith .44s, and have Rugers just for that purpose, but with that said, if I want to hunt large animals with one of my Smith .44s, I don't worry about running reasonably heavy loads through the gun.

Given that it is unlikely a 629-6 will ever be collectable, shooting one loose is no great loss to the firearms world. The wear caused by large doses of heavy recoil generally can be repaired.

I bought a new 629 the day I turned 21. For just shy of 10 years, I ran nothing but full power loads thru it. It finally got what I think was enough stretch in the frame to where to get the cylinder to unlatch, you really had to force it. I did send it off to Smith and it came back working good as new. I ended up trading it off for a Super Redhawk.

I do know for a fact, that the 3 years I was at Ft Campbell, I ran more than 3k rounds thru it. Dont know how many before that point.

It was still an accurate shooting gun when I got rid of it, and the trigger was buttery smooth.

There is no question as to which is stouter, just which is a club, heavy and beyond the needs of most pistolero.

The Ruger is a solid frame and is thicker in all areas that matter.

It may not be as strong as the Ruger. I hasn't got anything left to prove. But one cannot deny it has nice lines.

The Redhawk may be a little stronger in the long run, but I will take the Smith 629 any day over it. Keith 250 gr with Unique and you will play hell wearing out the 629. I have a four and six inch 629 sold all my Redhawks.

MUCH stronger, not a little.

This should make it clear how much stronger......



I have a couple of Model 29s still, and while they are great revolvers, they were never meant to contain the likes of a .44 Magnum. Keep loads on the light side and they will serve well for a long time. If you like stepping on the gas more than just occasionally, get a Redhawk.

There is no "may be a little stronger" the RedHawks is a LOT stronger. I have re chambered 2 RedHawks to 454, try that in a S&W and let me know how it goes.

As Dan Chambelin posted the m-29 has nice lines. No question.

For a .44Spl. And for the record, a 240gr at 1200fps is not a .44Mag load. It is a heavy, 26,000psi .44Spl load. The .44Mag will sling a bullet 115gr heavier, 150fps faster.

There is no doubt that the Redhawk is significantly stronger. Brian Pearce provides us with 50,000psi data that the Redhawk/Super Redhawk thrives on but would take an N-frame apart. Same for the .45Colt version, whereas the S&W should be kept at 21-22,000psi, or less than HALF the pressure.

However, that does not mean N-frames are useless. Which is why I have four of them but my lone Ruger DA is a .480. The N-frame is a beautifully designed and proportioned sixgun that is a joy to own and to shoot with appropriate loads. It's just not as strong as the big Rugers. With loads no hotter than Keith's 1200fps .44Spl load, they will last a very long time.

For a 44 mag the Smith is barely strong enough and the Ruger is more than strong enough. It doesn't matter what ones emotional attachment is to a Smith or how much one disdains Ruger, that is the fact of the matter. And for the price difference between them you can pay for a trigger job on the ruger

my mom bought me a 629 for my 18th birthday. I loaded the thing to the nuts for years. I am 40 now. I don't hot rod it near as much as before, but suffice it to say it has been around the block a time or two. I own a 329 and a SRH and I do not feel at all handicapped with a smith. I loaded 24grs of 296 under a 240 for an easy 16 pounds of powder before I settled down.

I don't know how many rounds it takes to shoot one loose.....but it will be expensive to get there.

I loaded 23 grains of 296 behind a 327 grain bullet in the RedHawks for years, try that in the S&W and lets us know how that works out. Hint don't do it the Smith won't take it.

629s UBER ALLES!!!

Luckily I have no reason to do that.

That sounds like a good load...for the Marlin carbine.

And how did that eject shells?.....with a drift?

I've owned the pistol for the recoil junkies, a 19oz 45lc+p rated 450ti snubbie. Anymore a reasonable stout load of 296 in the smith allows me to hit apples at 75 paces with good regularity.

I load my 629 4" @ 1200 fps with a hard cast 255 gr. I really have no desire to shoot 300 gr bullets. I don't think I will ever buy Redhawks they are heavy and ugly. I don't find women or handguns attractive when they are like that.
Will a hard cast 255 gr bullet bounce off any flesh and bone in North America?
whelennut

very true

Marlins 1 in 38 twist isn't good with heavy long bullets.

Cases fell out of the RedHawk.

lol

Forrest Gump's mother said it right: "Pretty is as pretty does". Over the years I have come to liking Redhawks pretty well. Don't get me wrong, I like Smiths too. But if I'm gonna really get after it I'll take the Redhawk. Just one guy's opinion.

That load killed moose rather well.

I don't doubt it, but I have no need for it because my God was bright enough to invent rifles.

Handguns for me should be handy. Once I'm lugging around 5 pound scoped handgun in enough leather to take 2 cows to make, I should just as well have a rifle.

A RedHawk isn't that large. I loaded the ammo and the shooter was packing moose meat that his hunting partner had killed therefore was only packing the pistol as bear protection when his opportunity came.

Makes a lot of sense in this case.

Good Lord, a 5½" Redhawk .44 weighs a whopping 2oz more than a 6" model 29. Even a 7½" Ruger SRH .480 only weighs 5oz more. Perception is everything.

My pal bought a 5.5 in. Redhawk .44.. If he sells I get first chance.. I like my Smiths, but that is a nice pistol.. I seldom shoot heavy loads so that is not an issue..

It's great that 29/629 fans are happy with 44 so loads, but the op specifically asked about heavy loads. Again there is a stark difference in strength between the two guns.

Exactly. When the 44 mag first came out Winchester had a 240 grain load they advertised at 1650 fps and chrono'ed about 1600 fps from real world revolvers. Remington followed suit according to Brian Pearce. A M-29/629 will not stand up to those loads by a RedHawk. Will without a doubt.

I like a bit more beef on the cylinder between the chambers.

Just reduce the caliber a bit.

Nothing wrong with a .41

The S&W is Carrie Underwood.

The Ruger is Janis Joplin.

Both have great music, but.....

Not a good comparison. Janis Joplin died young, so that doesn't really work. The Smith more or less looks like Carrie Underwood, with the longevity or mortality of Janis Joplin.

Stay with light loads if you want your smith to live. With heavy loads Ruger is simply a better gun for this. Love smiths and Ruger. Smith may have better lines and triggers along with forged frames but the redhawk is stronger, a lot stronger imo, has a better lock up and was made for this type shooting. Never had problems with my 629s till I went over about 260 grains, then not so good. Stay with what it was designed for and most likely you'll never have any problems. If u wanna go heavy get a x frame, Ruger or freedom. How bout smith equals a f150 and Ruger equals dodge cummins 3500 for a better comparison.

Well done!

Heavy billets are not good in the S&W. They can take pressures and 24 gr of 296 with a 240 and 22 gr of 2400 with the 429421 can be eaten all day. Whit and I found top is 265 for the S&W for weight. Over that and they are subject to parts inertia damage from recoil. The gun is strong and it is a design issue. If you want 300 gr+ get a Ruger.

Shooting this level of load with 240-250s will in my experience loosen a Smith in a few thousand rounds, a Redhawk or Super Redhawk in double or triple that. I have yet to shoot loose a Super Blackhawk and have shot 10s of thousands of max loads through them.

With that said, I imagine a Blackhawk will blow up at a lower pressure than a Redhawk. Nevertheless, I think Blackhawks stand up to .44 mag pressures better long term.

Bummer, I wanted to get a mold cut that would drop slugs at 266 grains for one of my Smiths.

Thank you guys. So what is a good cast load for elk without breaking the wrist?

to answer the question, just about anything in reality, i really don't think you need to have a super heavy bullet at light speed velocities. Not according to pearce anyway, who has written about shooting clear through a elk with a .44special.
I know in my case i shot a cow elk a few years ago with a 210grain gold dot in .41magnum out of a six inch smith.
Which i posted before. It hit her so hard at the base of the skull it bulged her eyes out, and smoke coming out of her nose.
instant lights out.
I would have no qualms about any hard cast 250grain whatever in a .41, .44, or 45colt.
that bisley colt saa in .38wcf i just had worked on has an inscription on the inside of the grip, "this gun killed a grizzley sierra madre mountains mexico, two shots 1910. and a typical 38wcf load was 180grains at about 950fps.

Oh man Ron, that is cool.

people underestimate these ol guns all the time, until you fool with them. That colt hadn't been shot since the 50's, until bob james took it apart tightened a screw, and tweaked a spring. And since i had just reloaded some ammo, had to fire it one more time.
I ain't that good, but to pull it and fire it at some coke cans out at about 25yards, i hit i think five out of six. Maybe four out of six. There is a reason those colt/clone s.a.a.'s are still popular.

I have a from memory first year production, maybe second year colt in 44.40 with a spare 44special cylinder. I bought some 44.40 brass to load some black powder rounds, have never got around to doing it. According to the records i could find, it was sent to the calvary in nevada, and the head of the colt collectors club in az told me it was probably an indian gun, cause part of the barrel had been chopped. They didn't like those long barrels. I really should get busy and load a few rounds for it just to give it one more go.
I am not really getting off topic here, my point is all those calibers kilt all kinds of things from people on down, without hyper velocities or huge bullets.

I'm so [bleep], I can't shoot a M29 with anything but lightweight Keith bullets and Keith bullets suck, so I guess I'll just squirrel hunt with it.

just about the cats meow. i have loaded now cast bullets from 170grain up to 300grain in a .41magnum. And i think i am going to use mostly in the future a 230grain as cast at about 1000fps for most everything. I am growing more and more to dislike the blast/and recoil of the full house magnum loads, all of them.
i was talking to a poster on here yesterday about this, say a 45.70 in a contender. Yeah, it does me a lot of good when that gun bucks up so much that after firing it's somewhere over my head. Better make that first shot count at something moving at you.

I really like the 44-40. Venturino took one to Africa with him. I don't recall what game he took with it, but I think he shot some stuff. IIRC, it was loaded to about 1200 fps...probably 210 grain Sierra JHP. I have some similarly loaded. Venturino's gun was a scarce New Frontier. He felt that the heavier topstrap on the gun made it capable of hotter loads than a standard Colt SAA. I had the same model for several years. I was totally insane to get rid of it.

One of my current 44-40's...

i don't know what i like more, the revolver or the pigsticker.
You probably should send both of them to az.

Thanks.

I tell ya what. I'd hate to see him send substandard stuff to AZ, so he outta send it to VA first, and I can see if they are up to your standards.....(grin)

That it a nice combo!

Thanks.

I shot my old 629 for years and years with the 300 gr Sierra [yes Sierra] jacketed flat point soft point just shy of 1200 fps, my revolver, dont remember the numbers, but it was stainless with rubber Hogues, had a smooth cylinder, and a 6" barrel, it was a double tough and accurate bullet, NEVER got to recover one on ANY deer or pig I poked.

I purposely shot a buck from a tree stand high on the left hip [iirc 18 yards], bullet ranged across the body through the liver and lungs and exited low right shoulder, he crumpled at the shot.

I WANTED A RECOVERED BULLET DAMMITT! no deal.

Back on topic, and sorry for the ramble, my revolver was still tight and in very good serviceable condition when I handed it off to a Bud for a nice fistful of cabbage, still miss that revolver sometimes, it was nice.

Your revolver should have stayed tight since your 1100+ velocity is not high enough to over stress a S&W M-29/629.

10-4 JWP, that and the EFFECTIVENESS of that bullet was some easy cool hunting power.

Exactly.

John what is your favorite cast load in the 44 mag....if you do not mind. I have plenty of H110 and LILGUN.

I do not cast my own so can you also recommend a cast bullet that can be bought. (Lasercast beartooth cast performance Xtreme bullets etc,)


Thanks

I have used Cast Performance, and Rim Rock and they were both good. I have used H-110/296 since the mid eighties.

With a 240 hard cadet 23 to 24 grains H-110/296

With a 300 hard cast 18 to 19 grains H-110/296

thank you JOHN! Now are gas checks required at these speeds?

As long as the bullets are hard enough and not undersized the are not required in my experience. I have seldom used them even at higher velocities and no longer use them at all.

I've got a S&W 629-3 (4" bbl) and a S&W Model 69 (5 shot on L frame). I generally uses moderate loads for shooting/plinking and stout loads for walking in the woods. I've never had any issues.

I owned 5 29's over the years and shot the lights out of them. I had to shoot a lot of factory loads back in 56 and 57 to get brass. They were so hot you can't come close with hand loads. If you damage a S&W with normal weight bullets, you are doing something wrong. My favorite load was the 429421 with 22 gr of 2400 and when 296 came out I moved to it.
I never shot mouse loads. Not what I wanted a .44 mag for.
You do not need gas checks in them unless you shoot softer lead. The check is a skid stop only. Stop skid with hardness.
Most clean and shoot dry guns that wear. Shoot fast double action that beats the parts. Cylinder stop and notches in the cylinder. Then complain about the gun "shot loose." Jerry has the whole S&W factory behind him, we don't.
I know the gun and what you should not use and have nothing bad to say about them.
Ruger's are stronger and my old SBH is at 80,000 heavy loads with no wear you can measure. Proper lube. No fanning the gun.

I haven't had the luck with S&W 629s mentioned here. I had two 629 early models which begin rotating backwards. I didn't overload them either, using 240 grain cast SWC and 8 grains of Unique. I shot 50 rounds a day for two years with each and sold the guns after problems developed. The first went to MagNaPort and got chopped to 5 inches and the second 4 inch stayed stock. I have read of endurance packages that have solved these problems. I have a six inch 629-1 and a four inch Mountain Gun 629-4 so my love affair with S&W 44 Magnums isn't over. My new factory engraved anniversary model 29-10 6.5" blued 29 is fun to shoot but I want it in one piece for years into the future. I'm pretty well settled with 8.5 grains of Unique and 240 grain cast SWCs unless I'm hunting. Any endurance issues with these models that anyone knows about?

Cylinders going backwards happened on some, the cylinder stop spring is too weak and inertia drops the stop. Torque from twist will spin the cylinder backwards. Easy fix is a better spring.
One other thing that S&W fixed with the new package, the unlocking pin in the center of the cylinder would peen so the gun got hard to open. Pin was too soft. All the problems have been simple things.