Is the Smith & Wesson model 29 too fragile for .44 Mag?

[bullbarrel]

I have one of the older versions, 29-2. It is blued, pinned and recessed, and has a 6" barrel. I don't shoot it hardly at all but it seems to be the gun is not as beefy as a Ruger Redhawk. I don't think the 29-2 will hold up to a steady diet of hot .44 Mag loads, that eventually it will rattle and loosen. But maybe I'm wrong and that the 29 can take as much as the Ruger.

What is your opinion on this?

[laytonj1]

My opinion is shoot your 29 and not worry about it.

Jim

[jhenry]

Well, if you shoot with the frequency of Elmer you may wear it to the point of sending it in to be tweeked by Smith and Wesson. Otherwise you should just shoot and enjoy.

On a related note, if you reload you should be aware that lead puts less wear and tear on the gun than jacketed stuff does.

[PetahW]

I enjoy my 8 3/8" M29-3 for what it is, with it's issue scope rings et all - and use my red-dotted .454 Super RedHawk when I want/need more power.

The Ruger's craftsmanship is absolutely no comparison to the Smith's - in fit and certainly not in finish.

The Smith is a pleasure in and of itself, while the Ruger is but another tool, IMHO.

YMMV, of course.

.

[John Moses]

If you have an older Smith, count your lucky stars. It is a fine revolver, exceptionally well made.

As to the Redhawk, it is good gun and it will take a pounding. Trust me. Redhawks stay awake at night and fantasize about being an older Model 29.

Why? It is analogous to comparing a Holland & Holland shotgun to a Ruger Red label. One is a computer automated manufatured gun, the other a hand fitted gun with outstanding metallurgy.

While some might argue that the Red Label does everything as well as the H&H, the qualitative differences are undeniable.

[mavracer]

hot ie. 240s @1300 it will take forever to wear out.
bone crushing ie 300s @ 1300+ will lead to premature wear on a 29 and you too;).

[CajunBass]

I have always thought that if I was to ever have the opportunity to actually wear out a gun. Almost ANY gun...I wouldn't complain about it.

I'd BRAG about it.

[James K]

I know this will start a big fight, but the Rugers are really no stronger than the S&W's. They are "beefier" in the frame because it requires a greater amount of cast steel to get the same amount of strength as forged steel. Regardless, both are fine guns and the Rugers are definitely heavier and easier to control.

Jim

[dahermit]

I know this will start a big fight, but the Rugers are really no stronger than the S&W's. They are "beefier" in the frame because it requires a greater amount of cast steel to get the same amount of strength as forged steel. Regardless, both are fine guns and the Rugers are definitely heavier and easier to control.

I would love to see scientific evidence for your opinion.
I would assume that you have tested samples of forged steel against samples of the same cast steel (which chrome-moly steel?)for tensile strength. Also, I think that we would all like to hear of your metallurgy credentials. Not wishing to start a big fight, just want to see the evidence.

[44 AMP]

S&W created thge model 29 for the .44 Magnum round, so it isn't too fragile for it. Guns have a reputation of lasting lifetimes, and most do, simply because most owners don't shoot them enough to wear them out in their lifetime. Guns are machines, and all machines will wear out from use, eventually.

Study gun history and you will see that the model 29 was, at one time considered the biggest most massive revolver around. Well suited for the power and pressure of the .44 Magnum round.

Now today, half a century later, we have bigger more massive guns, and the 300gr bullets are popular (with some folks) in .44mag, a situation never envisaged when the model 29 came out. Also, we have a different level of ideas about "how long the gun should last". No matter what level of .44 mag you shoot, you will spend several times the cost of the gun in the cost of ammo before you "wear it out".

Cast steel was, for ages, considered inferior to forged steel, and only in recent years has casting improved to the point where it is suitable for what was once considered the province of forged steel only. Even the best casting methods (and Ruger is one of the best) can have voids (holes) in the steel, which is why cast parts, such as frames are larger than their forged counterparts, to compensate for the limitations of the casting method. Forging is time consuming, and more expensive than casting, and produces stronger steel (for equal thickness) than casting, due to the stresses involved lining up the "grain" of the steel. I'm no metalurgist, and can't explain this technically, but the information is out there, and it is correct.

I would stick with bullets no heavier than 240gr in the model 29. They are what it was built for. If you want to shoot those super heavy bullets and loads constantly, get a different gun, one designed after decades of experience with the model 29, incorporating the knowledge from decades of shooting the .44mag to improve their product. While the model 29 isn't the "King of Revolvers" like it was 50 years ago, it still ranks up there in the nobility, and rightly so.

[Scorch]

I don't think the 29-2 will hold up to a steady diet of hot .44 Mag loads, that eventually it will rattle and loosen.You're right. Send that piece of junk to me right away and you'll sleep better at night. So will I!!:D
S&W created thge model 29 for the .44 Magnum round, so it isn't too fragile for itThe Model 29 is on the same frame as the 1917 in 45ACP, so S&W did not create it especially for the Mod 29. But the metallurgy is very good, and you may never live to see it wear out. As a gunsmith, we would occasionally see them in for repairs, but most of those were for abuse or timing. It's a really sturdy piece of ordnance.
Regardless, both are fine guns and the Rugers are definitely heavier and easier to control.The weight is the reason for the Redhawk. More controllable and less prone to suffering from abuse, but not as fine a piece as the 29. Compare it to a GMC pickup and your Grandpa's Caddy.

[stevieboy]

These threads about Ruger vs. Smith always seem to wind up at the same point with about 1/2 the correspondents in the "Ruger's beefier will handle hotter loads" camp and the other 1/2 in the "Smith's more elegant and better made" camp.

I own only Smiths, not because I disdain Rugers, but because I happen to like Smiths. I've never been able to wear out one of my guns and I've never seen a study by anyone proving that Rugers are intrinsically stronger than Smiths. As to the "more elegant" argument, I can't comment. All I know is that my Smiths are tough, well made guns that seem to be able to handle anything (well, anything commercially made) that I can put into them.

[batmann]

Shoot you 29! I doubt you will wear it out in your lifetime.

[kristop64089]

I have a 29-6 and have absolutley no fear of wearing it out. I have to ask(after shooting 454 casull, and Hot 44 mags) Why do you want to keep shooting hot loads? It hurts, nothing fun about it. Other than the WOW factor which wears off quick.

i

[centershot]

I've owned two 29's, they were both CRAP! Shooting a load of 21.0 gr of 2400 with a cast Keith-style SWC they both rattled like an old gate and went out of time in less than 3000 rounds. I returned each of them to Smith for service, they came back nice and tight and timed perfectly. 2000 rounds later they were loose as an old gate and out of time again. Traded both of those POS on Super Blackhawks. That was 1990, the SBH's are still humming along with no problems and only the Lord knows how many thousands of rounds have been put through them. If you want a .44 Mag, buy a RUGER! If you are content to shoot .44 Specials, you might be happy with a Smith. I am NOT anti-S&W; I have enjoyed several 28's, 36's and 15's over the years and currently still own & shoot a pristine M-67 that I've had for almost thirty years. They build some exquisitely fine revolvers, but their 44 mags suck! Caveat emptor! IMHO.

centershot

[Tamara]

I have a 629-1, and with loads any warmer than 240gr@1300fps, the cylinder will turn backwards under recoil, causing the already-fired case to wind up under the hammer again when I pull the trigger for the next shot.

That's cool with me. If there are critters out there that need something stronger than a 240gr SJHP at better than the speed of sound, I will shoot them with a rifle bullet or shotgun slug like any person who is not an adrenalin junkie would do.

[44 AMP]

3,000 rounds is what 60 boxes of ammo? now at an easy to figure $10 per box that $600, right? What was the cost of a model 29 in 1990?

It is unusual to wear a gun out that early, but a "tune up" every so often sometimes needs to be done. How many times should we pay the price of the gun in ammo costs before it needs work? How many times before it is beyond repair? 3,000 rounds through a hot rifle cartridge and it could be time for a new barrel. Does this mean the rifle is crap? No, it just means you wore it out. Everything wears out if you use it enough.

[John Moses]

oops, wrong thread

[stevieboy]

The post that prompted MY rant was deleted, so I'm deleting mine, too.

[Tamara]

That may be most ridiculous statement I have ever read.

I own a Smith or two, and consider myself at least somewhat qualified to comment on the topic.

As far as fit and finish goes? There is no doubt, a pre-'57 (or better yet, pre-War) Smith is vastly superior in fit, finish, and polish; the cosmetic characteristics that catch the eye.

As far as mechanical tolerances and measurable characteristics like mechanical accuracy or metallurgical strength? It is no contest; an ugly modern 29 dash-whatever-number-they're-on-now is ten times the gun that a beautiful '60 Model 29 no-dash is. It is more accurate, the chamber throats are more consistent, the b/c gap is much more likely to be spot on, and the insides of the lockwork (under the side panel where a lot of people never look) won't look like it was whittled with a flint axe. Seriously, I have a pre-25 that is maybe the prettiest gun I own, but if you pulled off the sideplate and dragged a phonograph needle around in there backwards, it would probably say "I buried Paul..."

This is completely ignoring the better heat treating and metallurgy. A new 29-9 will swallow loads that would leave a Bangor Punta gun a frame-stretched, backwards-cylinder-spinning wreck. Don't believe me? Go get an old 29 and a few boxes of Cor-Bon or Buffalo Bore and try it yourself.

[centershot]

Tamara,
You make a valid point about the pre-war Smiths. I have said in the past, and I still believe, that Smith makes the FINEST revolvers in the world, even the current models. Well, most of them, anyway. With my experiences I wouldn't buy another 29 today. My Super Blackhawks are not as beautiful as a new 29, I never claimed they were. They just hold up a whole lot better than the 29's. I once had a nickel-plated 57 (41 Mag) that was a really nice gun, I wish I had kept it, but I traded it for the first 29. Rats! I only own one S&W today, my M-67-nothing. I wouldn't trade that gun for all the Blackhawks in the world!


centershot

[John Moses]

Tamara,

I was popping back and forth between threads and posting in the wrong on one.

While I am sorry that I "mispoke" I did enjoy your response.

Thanks
John

[B.N.Real]

Yes,I 'll give you $100 for your weak 44 magnum Smith right now.

Just to save you the indignity of owning it when it (never ) fails.:cool:

[Mark Milton]

There are several factors to keep in mind.
First and foremost is what kind of shape is the gun in?
A nice tight gun will hold up better than a loose, sloppy one to the wear and tear forces of recoil.

The other factor is carbon steel usually withstands magnum pounding better than Stainless. I shot my own 629 loose two or three times. Back then, it was an inexpensive rebuild to just retime the thing. Eventualy I started using reduced power rounds like Silvertips and medium velocity loads and had no problems.

The weakness in the old S&W N frames was the crane, yoke frame connection which had to be hand fitted in those days and was basically just annealed.
Back inthe later 80s or early 90s, S&W introduced CNC machines which meant the yokes no longer had to be hand fitted...which meant they could be heat treated to be stronger. That and a few other improvements were made at a time when S&W really was improving their guns. ...Not just making them cheaper like they do now, in the era of two peice barrels, MIM internals and Hillary Holes.

If your gun is in good shape and it's tight, it should be okay for full house ammo. I shoot it in my old 29 all the time. But if you intend shooting nothing but full house ammo, you might wanna either trade her in on a new model or get a Redhawk or Dan Wesson.
personally, I like the classic Smith N frames myself and I figure reduced power loads will do the job on anything I need it done on....

[kristop64089]

There are also differences in the "dash" series. I have a 29-6, which has the "endurance" upgrade, making it "stronger" then a 29-3.

[tipoc]

The S&W .44 Magnum was introduced in 1955. In 57 it became the M29.

The guns were built on the N frame which is basically a 100 year old design originally built to handle the .44 Special. Soon after the 29 was introduced shooters began to complain that after a few hundred rounds of full house 44 mag ammo the guns were shaking loose. But the complaints were relatively few as not that many people shot a lot of .44 Magnum through them.

Elmer Keith shot only about 20 rounds of strong 44 mag a month or so through any one of his guns, he wrote. He shot mostly .44 Spl. When they loosened up, and he knew they had this tendency, he sent them off to S&W for a tune up.

In 1983, with a lot of fanfair, S&W introduced an M29 with a 10 5/8" barrel intended for Silhouette shooting. This is the competitive sport where folks shoot at small steel targets in the shape of game animals at 100 and 200 yards. Ruger single actions and Dan Wesson revolvers ran the roost there and S&W wanted more of that market. Folks shoot a lot in this sport with heavy loads. The M29s began to fail quickly, cylinders jumped the bolts, pins cracked, etc. This was a large embaressment to S&W.

So S&W engineers came up with the "Endurance Package". The cylinder locking bolt was made larger, the depth and width of the of the cutouts on the cylinder for the bolt was increased, the studs in the frame were radiused to prevent cracking, the yoke retention was beefed up, etc. By 1988 the "Endurance package" was made standard on all 29s and 629s coming out of S&W. This began with the 29-4 and the 629-2.

The story of this is told in a number of places. If you have a copy of "The Standard Catalog of S&W" or Taffin's "Big Bore Sixguns" you can read on it.

Now Bill Ruger was aware of S&Ws problem. Remember, this was the guy who when he found out S&W was developing a stretched out .44 Spl. he rebuilt the Ruger Blackhawk to handle the new round and beat S&W to the punch on introducing a gun for the Magnum. So when he wanted to make a da 44, and he knew the 29 was having problems, he built a new da revolver to be stronger than the M29. The cylinder retention system was stronger, the lock up of yoke to crane, stronger. The bolt is stronger. The gun has fewer parts and from the beginning the parts it has were more robust and stronger. It was stronger in the yoke, the frame and the top strap. Unlike the M29 or 629 it was built entirely for the .44 Magnum and the heavy 300 gr. 1500 fps rounds that were becoming popular with silhouette shooters, reloaders and handgun hunters. It was built to be stronger than the Blackhawk. It was introduced in 1980. This was the Redhawk.

You can read more about that in Taffin's book or in Bill Wilson's book on Ruger as well as other places.

So the current 629s are stronger than their forebears but the early guns can still do the job when properly maintained. I wore out 2 29-2s firing 240 gr. loads at 1300-1400 fps. It took a few hundred rounds to do this though. The fix cost some money but S&W knows how and it's cheaper than you might think. And any gun made after 1988 has the "endurance package" built into it.

Rugers are not as elegant (to most), but they are stronger.

tipoc

[HiBC]

I guess I'm getting old.I still love shooting full house thunder loads just like its still fun to shift at 6000 RPM but I also figure I like it when a motor lasts 200,000 miles.Maybe I can get away with loading 27 gr of powder but 24 or 25 are enough.
So,once in a while,the motor CAN take being thrashed,and sometimes,for a hunt or bear,I'd say these folks who know 29s are saying any SAAMI load is OK,but for shooting rocks and cans,1200 fps is as good as 1300 fps.Shift at 4000 rpm.

[Smaug]

My 29 was structurally strong enough, but the screws shot loose all the time. Loctite didn't help much.

I only got off one shot with my Ruger Redhawk before the barrel broke off and few downrange. (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310125) (bad barrel thread lube led to overtorquing --> manufacturing defect)

So maybe I'm just bad luck on 44 Magnums. The Ruger sure felt like it was built stronger.