View Single Post
 
Old 10-10-2009, 01:45 PM
DCWilson's Avatar
DCWilson DCWilson is offline
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,993
Likes: 4,998
Liked 7,681 Times in 2,618 Posts
Default

Sonny,

That's the kind of question I like: packed with information.

I also have a 696 ND and have never thought about shooting anything other than commercial ammo in it. I have a 629 for more threatening situations, or situations in which more amusement follows from more noise and more wrist abuse.

It never occurred to me to worry about bending the top strap or blowing out a cylinder wall in the 696; I always understood the Achilles heel of this model was the forcing cone. I was surprised by some of your measurements, so I hauled out my gun and a micrometer. The thickness of the forcing cone at the breech end of the barrel on my gun is .0650-.07, a number that may be slightly exaggerated because I had to approach the measurement at an angle. That is just slightly smaller than the cylinder wall measurement at the front of each chamber: I miked my walls at .07-.071.

So on the numbers, it seems to me the forcing cone remains the point of concern. At its thinnest, it is just slightly thinner than the cylinder walls. I guess I would conclude that a higher-pressure load that does not damage the cylinder might still be enough to crack the forcing cone.

I have a 649 but have not yet measured the critical dimensions to see how a small "safe" .357 would compare to a .44 special. I imagine I would get similar measurements to what you report.
__________________
David Wilson
Reply With Quote