News: Watch Clint Eastwood's RICHARD JEWELL, now available streaming and on Blu-ray and DVD!


0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Dirty Harry's Pistol  (Read 66032 times)
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32340


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2004, 02:26:33 AM »

Quote
They now are more politically correct by not killing trees with their grips just people.


Now I see the light, D'Amb ... ;)

Here is one more image of Harry's gun ... sorry it's so small. This is when he's taking the punk, Mick, in for questioning.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2004, 02:41:07 AM by KC » Logged
gwb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55



View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2004, 07:32:36 AM »

Welcome to the board ar15!  :)

Clint uses a stainless steel .44 Magnum Revolver in Sudden Impact as well as the stainless steel .44 Magnum AutoMag.  The 629, as the stainless revolver was numbered, only came in 3", 4", and 6" barrel lenghts.  Smith and Wesson also had the 629 "Classic" come out around the same time and this model came in the 5", 6 1/2" and 8 3/8th"  However you can clearly see that Harry doesn't use the "Classic". He uses the plain old 629 which resembles his old trusty 29 more than the "Classic", which if you think about it it should be the other way around.  The "Classic" should resemble the regular model 29 just by its namesake.




6 inch Model 629          6 1/2 inch Model 629 "Classic"



D - Eastwood most certainly did NOT use the model 629.  the 629 was stainless steel, not blued, and Eastwood does not use this at ALL.  The "shinny" is not because it is stainless, but because of the lighting.
Logged
D'Ambrosia
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3838



View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2004, 11:28:49 PM »

I don't think so man...   The stainless in law enforcment was BIG the eary 80's and there is no doubt in my mind that Harry's got the 629.  It was the hottest model since Harry's 29-2 to hit the scene.  You say the lighting but it looks lighter than most other guns in that scene.  The punks automatic that holds Lorreta hostage is stainless as well as well as Jennifer Spencers .38...

Logged
ar15
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2004, 05:16:17 PM »

on the issue of the model 629 in sudden impact.  im sorry to say but it is a blued model 29. i have researched this to the max and he has always used a blued modl 29 with smith and wessons N frame wooden target grips.  grain wise all of there grips had a different grain in the wood.   trying using a dvd player and stop it on the scenes of the gun and you can definitley tell its blued.   and  another answer smith and wessons performance center did a special run of the blued model 29 with the 6 and a half inch barrel but it has aherned grips on them as they dont make the target grips anymore and if you want a 6 and a half inch barrel for $200 dollars smith will install one on you blued model 29. i can understand that the lighting in some films are different and make these guns look like stainless. and ifit was stainless it would stuck out like a sore thumb and you could surely tell the difference.
Logged
ar15
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2004, 05:21:07 PM »

one thing you have to remember that these smith and wesson  44s have probably had a lot of use in films and have a lot of blueing wear and this makes them shiny a lot more then when they were new  check out a used 29 compared to a new one they are a flat finish not shiny.  which would make the one in sudden impact look stainless.  
Logged
BigAl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2004, 02:24:06 AM »

From my personal experiance as a shooter for nearly twenty years, the way I understand the whole Harry's gun debate is this.

1. About three weeks before they started filming they     contacted S & W and requested the factory send out some of their new Model 29 .44 Magnum revolvers.

Due to unforseen demand for this pistol S & W were at that time out of stock and sent M57's instead with the suggestion that they refrain from muzzle shots until a .44 could be provided at a later date.

2. Though Harry's gun was supposed to be a 6 1/2" one, a 8 3/8" model was used in certain scenes ' for dramatic effect'

3. The exact model in .44 was the Model 29-2 6 1/2", this was later replaced by the Model 29-3 6".  Aswell as the shorter barrel another obvious differance was the larger cutout in the left hand grip panel, which was to make the use of speedloaders alot easier.

4. The revolver in Sudden impact is not a stainless 629 just a good old 29, though without watching the film again I couldn't say wether it's a 6" or 6 1/2". Might watch it later.

These facts were obtained from gun mags of the day and from my personal experiance of having owned three of these guns and used several others belonging to friends.

Finally gwb your a better man than me if you can tell the differance in the muzzle size of a .44 and .41 on the screen, as the differance is .019 of an inch and hard to spot in real life.

Oh nearly forgot, the light loads discussion was on the target range in Magnum Force, and he actually said he uses light loads to give him more control. Meaning he carried it loaded with .44 Special rather than Magnum ammo all the time not just for certain tasks.
Logged
carldoc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2



View Profile Email
« Reply #26 on: July 07, 2004, 08:10:07 PM »

I agree...that 29 is blued. Speaking of "light" loads, I have a Mod. 29 and with certain hand loads, I get a ragged one hole group at about 18 yards using a rest. It's probably my most accurate pistol and is used for deer hunting as well. 8)
Logged

"Nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot."
John Omohundro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2004, 02:38:40 PM »

BigAl:

Regarding what you said about Harry using .44 Special loads in his .44 Magnum revolver, I respectfully disagree, for the following reason:

Whenever a muzzle-on view  of the revolver is shown in the films, the bullets shown in the revolver's cylinder (dummy rounds, I'm sure  :)) are flat-nosed lead[/i] bullets (commonly called "Keith-type" bullets, after the late Elmer Keith, whose suggestion to Smith & Wesson and Remington back in 1955 led to the development of the .44 Magnum revolver and cartridge), and the standard factory load for the .44 Smith & Wesson Special uses a 246-grain (15.9-gram)  round-nosed lead bullet, at 755 Feet Per Second, with a muzzle energy of 310 Foot-Pounds, making it roughly one and one-half times as powerful as a .38 Special 158-grain load.

Since it's also unlikely that Harry would use handloaded
ammunition (even in the 1970's, a police officer using a non-standard sidearm had to use ammunition approved by his commander if he wished to remain employed, because of the risk of lawsuits), I suspect that he was using a reduced-power factory load--that is, a cartridge loaded by a commercial manufacturer, but one that was slightly less powerful than regular .44 Magnum ammunition (even a reduced-power .44 Magnum load would pack more of a wallop than the .38 Special revolvers that most police departments were issuing then, and some reduced-power .44 Magnum loads were equal or superior to a full-power .357 Magnum (the police-standard 158-grain (10.2-gram)  lead bullet was launched at 1235 Feet (376 Meters) Per Second, with a muzzle energy of 535 Foot-Pounds).

Remington Arms's ammunition division loaded a reduced-power .44 Magnum round several years ago, but it's no longer offered. IIRC, it threw a 240-grain (that's 15.5 grams, for those of you who are fans of the Metric system  ;)) cast lead bullet at about 1000 Feet Per Second (305 Meters Per Second), which yielded  533 Foot-Pounds of muzzle energy--roughly two and one-half times the muzzle energy of the standard .38 Smith & Wesson Special police duty load in use at the time (158-grain (10.2 gram) bullet at 755 Feet Per Second (230 Meters Per Second),  yielding 200 Foot-Pounds of muzzle energy), and only slightly less powerful than the standard .357 Magnum police duty load in use at the time (see above).

Another problem with that idea is that the .44 Magnum load that I just mentioned didn't come out until about 1980 or so--well after the 1971 release of  DIRTY HARRY[/i].

The Seventh Edition of CARTRIDGES OF THE WORLD, published in 1993 (I have a copy, and it's the source of all the ballistics information quoted above), lists a reduced-power .44 Magnum load in its entry for that cartridge (with the ballistics that I mentioned above), but does not identify the manufacturer.

Sorry if I rambled (I tend to do that), but I hope this helps. Also, please accept my sincere apology if I insulted you--unfortunately, I tend to bruise other people's egos when I'm trying to make a point.  :)
Logged
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32340


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2004, 05:18:06 PM »

John, I've said it before and I'll say it again ... you're amazing. Thanks for all of that information and don't worry about rambling!  8)
Logged
John Omohundro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2004, 08:21:25 PM »

KC:

Flattery will get you everywhere.

 ;)

Actually, I'm just well-read, and have good sources of information.

--John
Logged
BigAl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2004, 12:42:51 PM »

John,
        watch Magnum Force.

The scene where Harry goes down to the range to practice he clearly states that he uses light loads which give him more control.

All your technical details on loads was quite interesting (I favoured 21.5 grains of Vihtavouri N110 over a 245 grain LSWC with a CCI Large Pistol Primer, kicked a bit in my 3" Horten 629 like!) but don't forget this was a film and all your load info though correct wouldn't of been of any interest to the writers and directors. Let's face it where lucky they got the caliber and capacity right.
Logged
QuiGonFishing
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2004, 10:13:25 AM »

Hey Everyone, I'm new. Wanted to say "Hi". Thought you might like to see these pics of a genuine S&W 29-6.5. This is a pre-1968 model which was produced prior to the "N" frame designation (although it is almost  the exact same gun as the later versions), so this is the best look we might get at as close to an exact match of the "Dirty Harry" 1970-1971 production movie piece. Enjoy...






In this last shot, you can see how camera angles work to dramaticize the look of the weapon. This is the same old 1968 6.5" 29, but if I didn't know any better, I'd swear it was the 8 3/8" model. You can almost feel Andy Robinson's leg about to be blown away..!


Logged
Tommygun
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



View Profile Email
« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2005, 09:16:00 AM »

Great string, fellas! Good to know I'm not the only "29" fan around. Lots of shooters don't seem to be so interested in the 29 these days, what with some of the big Rugers and Tauruses and Smith's own 500 eclipsing the .44 mag in terms of "shock and awe." (I even saw a BFR wheelgun chambered for .45-70 at a recent gun show.) Still, none of them quite have the style and panache of Harry's original .44, especially for those of us who saw "Dirty Harry" on the bigscreen as teenagers. Aside from "JAWS," few other films have had such a powerful impact on our popular culture or imprinted themselves so firmly in our collective psyches. Eastwood's droll, underplayed performance and precise but casual gunplay made the film an icon for moviegoers and shooters alike. The gun itself was a character; if there were an Oscar category for best supporting performance by firearm, it would've gone to Harry's model 29. It's no longer the world's most powerful handgun, but it's certainly the most famous.

In terms of style, the classic model 29 still beats the other big-bore revolvers hands-down. Aesthetically it's a beautiful piece of machinery. There's an elegent simplicity about it, a quiet projection of power that doesn't need a ventilated rib or a big, clunky barrel to tell you it means business. I always got the feeling the other fellas were trying a little too hard. They were trying to make their guns look impressive, whereas the model 29 didn't have to "try." It just was.

Thanks for those great photos, QuiGonFishing. Gotta love those Goncalo Alves grips! I also liked what DAmbrosia said about the 629 "classic" moniker. Seems so me the "classic" S&W .44 ought to be the one Eastwood made famous, especially since "Dirty Harry" made Smith & Wesson a virtual household name.

As others have noted, the gun was very popular in the seventies. But for some reason Smith & Wesson stopped making the classic "Dirty Harry" model 29 with the blued 6.5" barrel, ramp front sight, appreviated underbarrel cylinder-stem lug and Goncal Alves grips. As the gun was so popular, I'm not sure why they did this. They came out with the 629 and other variations, some in stainless (with the abbreviated underbarrel lug), most with patridge or target front sites, and almost all with the pachmyr/hogue ergonomic rubber grips. But none with the same design or configuration as the original model 29.

Smith recently came out with a new model 29 6.5" bbl in blued finish, however it features black checkered grips and an odd barrel design with a tapered lug. Not nearly as attractive as the original. (re: Smith & Wesson's official website.)

For years I've been looking for an original 1970s-style model 29, and I finally found one at the local "Shoot Straight" gun shop. I was astounded. I looked closely at the barrel and it said "Model 29." Yet it didn't have the tapered underbarrel lug like the new 29s. It had the abbreviated lug, 6.5" barrel, ramp front site, and was identical in every way to Harry's original hand cannon. "Is this a used gun?", I asked the guy. "Nope!" he said. "Brand new, straight from the factory, never been fired."

I was confused. "But I thought Smith stopped making the 29 in this style. This is a Dirty Harry gun."

He explained that with the staggering popularity of the new .500 magnum, Smith & Wesson has begun quietly reiussing the original, classic 1970s version of the model 29--the gun that started it all--on a limited basis. Naturally, I immediately bought the gun.

The only difference was that the gun had hogue grips. Nobody does Goncalo Alves anymore. But at the gun show this past weekend I found a guy who specializes in unusual and hard-to-find pistol grips, and he had a caseful of gorgeous, brand-new checkered wood grips! I bought his best set of Goncalo Alves "N" frame grips (complete with the S&W logo) for $80 and swapped them off the 29 with a jewelers screwdriver, and now I have an honest-to-God "Dirty Harry" style model 29 that looks just like QuiGonFishing's and the one John Milius showed in the DVD interview.

I know the Goncalo Alves grips aren't as "ergonomic" as Hogue/pachmyr, but they sure fill your hand, and they make for some downright comfortable shooting--even using Win. 300 gr. magnums--compared with the recoil of the 3" lead slugs I regularly put through my Mossberg 12 .ga pump at the gun range.

I do have a question, though, which I'm hoping maybe BigAL or QuiGonFishing will be able to answer since they've both owned classic 29s: what's the best product to use to maintain those beautiful checkered zebrawood grips? Linseed oil? What do you suggest?

Thanks so much,

= Jack =
     

 


     
« Last Edit: March 30, 2005, 09:30:29 AM by Tommygun » Logged
BigAl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2005, 03:25:24 PM »

Thanks to the UK's idiot government and media I didn't own one long enough to have to do anything to maintain the grips. As their factory varnished they shouldn't really need any looking after anyway. If they do the  Linseed Oil should be Fine.

Any chance of some pictures of you new gun you lucky sod?
Logged
gwb, pt deux
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161



View Profile Email
« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2005, 04:26:39 PM »

...Smith recently came out with a new model 29 6.5" bbl in blued finish, however it features black checkered grips and an odd barrel design with a tapered lug. Not nearly as attractive as the original. (re: Smith & Wesson's official website.)

For years I've been looking for an original 1970s-style model 29, and I finally found one at the local "Shoot Straight" gun shop. I was astounded. I looked closely at the barrel and it said "Model 29." Yet it didn't have the tapered underbarrel lug like the new 29s. It had the abbreviated lug, 6.5" barrel, ramp front site, and was identical in every way to Harry's original hand cannon. "Is this a used gun?", I asked the guy. "Nope!" he said. "Brand new, straight from the factory, never been fired."

I was confused. "But I thought Smith stopped making the 29 in this style. This is a Dirty Harry gun."

He explained that with the staggering popularity of the new .500 magnum, Smith & Wesson has begun quietly reiussing the original, classic 1970s version of the model 29--the gun that started it all--on a limited basis. Naturally, I immediately bought the gun.

The only difference was that the gun had hogue grips. Nobody does Goncalo Alves anymore. ...     


Jack -

Smith & Wesson came out with a new 6.5" because they were in the middle of making the 150th anniversary issue.  In a marketing effort, they put out the 6.5" "new" guns, without the 150th anniversary engraving, to work on publicity and in an effort to put the word out.  Only a limited number of these were made - I had one.  The grip, however, was not hogue but wodden and made for this effort.

Is this the gun you were talking about:
http://www.firearms.smith-wesson.com/store/index.php3?cat=294735&item=1281556&sw_activeTab=3

This is the 150th anniversary model - the limited issues were this gun was without the engraving, but with the same grips - this was before the .500 magnum gun:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976409276.htm


I bought one of those... this was a replica of the original.
Logged
Tommygun
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



View Profile Email
« Reply #35 on: March 30, 2005, 08:04:16 PM »

Yeah, that's the exact same gun, except without the engraving and with pachmyr grips (which I replaced with the Goncalo Alves.) I recently bought a decent digital camera, so I'll take some snapshots and upload some photos of the gun in case anybody wants to take a look. Looks virtually identical to QuiGonFishing's (and Harry's). It's a beautiful gun, can't believe I found it. I guess I was in the right place at the right time.

Have to say, though, those blonde wood stocks and that gold engraving is spectacular. Not something I'd want to shoot so much as hang on the wall. What a beauty! (I have a feeling it must've cost about three or four times what mine did.)

= Jack =

« Last Edit: March 30, 2005, 08:10:27 PM by KC » Logged
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32340


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #36 on: March 30, 2005, 08:14:25 PM »

Tommygun, I wonder if you inadvertently changed the thread title in your last post? At any rate, I edited your post to change it back to "Dirty Harry's Pistol."

As someone who has only admired these guns onscreen, I must say I really enjoyed reading your posts.
Logged
Tommygun
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



View Profile Email
« Reply #37 on: March 30, 2005, 08:30:44 PM »

Damnit, Big Al, sorry to hear about the government problem. It'd kill me to have to give up my 29 after having found just the right one after all these years. My heartfelt sympathies. It's completely unfair, but don't get me started on that jag. I feel very strongly about gun-owners' rights, and am an insufferable windbag when it comes to that particular issue.

Any chance of the law being changed in the UK?

Kindest  wishes,

= Jack =

Logged
Tommygun
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



View Profile Email
« Reply #38 on: March 30, 2005, 08:41:27 PM »

Thanks, KC, for your kind patience. (I'm a little new at this.)

Great website, and a great forum!

= Jack =
Logged
Lilly
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2801


"If she looks back..."


View Profile Email
« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2005, 09:10:04 PM »

Hi Tommygun. :)  Good to have you aboard.

Any chance of the law being changed in the UK?

 ;D

No chance at all.  All handguns are completely banned.  If anything it'll get stricter.  They are talking about restricting air guns in the future.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2005, 09:23:02 PM by Lilly » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
 




C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T