I have a 629 Classic which has a 6 1/2 inch barrel. I purchased this used and it came with a ported barrel which was the original barrel for this revolver. The original owner was having a new sight installed on the original configuration and the guy doing it made a small gouge on the top of the barrel. Pissed him off so he sent it to SW to install a new barrel. He tells me there was nothing wrong with the original barrel.

I am a semi-auto guy. Not much experience with revolvers.

My question is, should I swap out barrels and put the ported barrel back on the gun? I will be carrying this in the mountains when hunting and fishing.

What are your thoughts? Plusses, minuses? Personal experience is appreciated.

The purpose of porting is to reduce muzzle flip, thus allowing you to more easily keep your sights on your target. Probably an unintended consequence of porting is that it reduces perceived recoil, which may be of benefit to those who will be putting a lot of rounds down the barrel of their gun at their local range. The plus, as you put it, is definitely controlability; the minus, if there is one, is in the initial cost (even if that cost is only the cost of swapping out the barrels on your 629). My advice would be to carry the gun as-is, unless you are overly sensitive to recoil, or intend to use your 629 for handgun hunting where rapid recovery of your sights would be advantageous if you needed to "double tap" your quarry.

That is my thought as well. If I were to ever have to use the sidearm against a bear, I damn well would be wanting to recover and shoot again as quickly as possible. If possible.

I have a local smith that has the jig for the 629 to swap these out so I don't think it would be too expensive.

What about highly visible front sights? Any suggestions there?

Again this revolver is carried as a backcountry defensive sidearm in the mountains.

A friend bought a 1981 P&R 6" 629. He had a very competent riflesmith cut the barrel to 5" but didn't like the way it came out. After probably 10 years he finally called Smith to see if they could put it back to original but he also asked if they had any 5" barrels...and they did...a Classic 5" that was left over from a special order...and the barrel was Mag-Na-Ported.

He ended up not liking the full underlug but loved a 629-3 Mountain Revolver I had...so we swapped. That was the nicest shooting Smith .44 Magnum I had ever fired... After my friend died his nephew was looking to buy a .44...I sold him his uncles gun for what we swapped for....






Some people don't like the porting...I find it very pleasant. Have a 60-10 3" .357 Magnum and 657 3" .41 Magnum that are also ported...

Bob

If you think you may use shot capsules at some time it is recommended not to use them in ported revolvers. That's a factor to me.

Sorry, what are shot capsules?

Shot capules allow one to fire charges of shot out of a revolver. Don't know if they work with ported barrels or not. I do know that I'm not impressed with the patterns I get with with my .44 Magnum using them. Not worth much over 10-15 ft. unlike the .22 RFM CCI shot loads or their .45 ACP shot loads.
I'd suggest you try the gun w/o the porting. This idea of a fast second shot in a defensive situation is high over blown in my book. You need to make the first one count. If you don't, the second may well be worse, assuming you even get the opportunity.
If were to change the barrel on that gun, I'd go for a four inch. Much easier to live with on the trail. E

None of my .44s is ported, but I have 3 .500 S&Ws, of which 2 are ported, one is not. I prefer the non-ported gun. I prefer the roll to the straight push, but that is just a personal opinion. Ported guns are also much louder than the non-ported guns.

Generally I say not, but if recoil is a real issue then go for it as long as it's Mag-Na-Port...most others really look bad on such a nice revolver. Used to be that Mag-Na-Port would increase the value of the gun, but that's not the case anymore since most have turned against porting. Recoil wise, it really does work, there is a noticable difference with full magnum loads.

On a revolver such as yours being used in the application you describe, Mag-na-Porting really isn't game-changer one way or the other. Be aware that Mag-na-Porting works best with full powered loads and recoil is indistinguishable with reduced loads for the most part. Porting also makes the report a bit louder. With these factors in mind, I guess only you can decide if a ported barrel would be a plus or a minus.

Addendum: Porting has no place on a handgun used for defensive purposes, so I'd suggest you scrap the ported barrel idea if the gun would likely be used for that purpose.

I have a 7-1/2" Redhawk in .44 mag that is Magna-Ported. It is really nice for the full house loads, and does tame the muzzle jump, although it is LOUD!

Please explain why you feel this way.

For clarification, this sidearm is for carrying in the mountains as a defensive weapon against bears. Not as a personal defensive weapon. I have any of a number of semi-autos I carry for that.

Could you elaborate on why porting has no place on a defensive weapon?

I vote no. It makes the gun louder and blows a shock wave/stuff in your face (esp. if fired from retention). The recoil on a 629 isn't bad enough to need it IMO.

....not trying to be contentious, but if you have to fire from retention and you're able to bring an N-frame into play, noise, blast and shock will be the least of your concerns.

K1500 has already eluded to it ��

Without going into a diatribe of any sort, ported handguns can be detrimental to the well-being of the shooter when fired from close-in retention positions. In controlled environments where the gun can always be extended to arms length, this may not be an issue. But, in a real world application those variables aren't always controllable and firing a ported handgun with the ports pointing towards a part of your body or directed towards your face in a violent retention circumstance could leave you on the short end of the stick.

A secondary issue with ported guns fired in low light is the powder flash directed towards your line of sight. Normally, the muzzle flash is directed somewhat in the direction of the target but most ports direct the flash towards your line of vision.

Both of these shortcomings have proven in a live-fire training environment to be being valid concerns. Neither agency that I worked for allowed them on duty or OD sidearms .... (which isn't totally relevant to the discussion since I wrote the SOP's for both agencies.) :^)

I wouldn't port a .44 Mag.
5" 29s are dandy for backwoods carry.
JMHO

Have fired a few with porting, it does help with recoil and muzzle flip. They are already loud, but the ports seem to be even more so. Don't like them on rifles, but it would not be a game changer to me on a revolver.

This spare barrel has a single port on the top of the barrel, not multiple ports on either side like a magna-port. Was this standard for S&W?

Just speaking for myself - I would not port ANY handgun, period...

The traditional trapezoidal cuts that MNP uses are patent protected so everything else has to look like something else. Is your port the single-cut , oblong shaped port just back from the muzzle end?

If so, I think S&W called it "Power Porting" and it wasn't used on any other models that immediately come to mind .... but I don't keep up with that stuff anymore.

These days, S&W is more about external compensators that in-barrel porting.

There is a single oblong/oval port cut just fore of the front sight. This cut extends into the bottom of the barrel but doesn't go completely through. Just a concave cut.

That sounds like the "Power Porting" that I mentioned in my previous posts.

I vote no.

Simply not needed on a 6.5 inch classic. Recoil even with full power loads is not an issue on that gun. I would not want porting on a mountain carry gun, their loud enough as is.

The porting IMO does not help the resale value either.

Cover the port with blue tape. It'll be fine.

Absolutely not.