Even the first time I read that article by Brian Pearce, my eyebrows raised when he said that the 696 could handle the 25,000psi loads, but part of that article, which I've not read being quoted here yet, is that S&W tested the 696 and S&W knows that it can handle at least 25,000psi loads (and clearly implied that it could handle a little higher). He then added a little later in the article that the Freedom Arms 97 could handle a fourth category, well over the 25,000psi, but the 696 was conspicuously (in my opinion) not included in that statement. By implication, I got the impression that while the 696 could easily handle 25k, you wouldn't want to go very far beyond that. Now, where that point is, I do NOT know, but I'm guessing somewhere above 25k and below 30k.

Also unmentioned thus far, is that S&W will use different heat treatments for different models. This was a major factor in why the early 29s had no trouble containing the pressure of early 44 Magnum loads, while similar loads in a 1950 Target (which was a 44 Spl. N-Frame made concurrently as the earliest Model 29s) could not. Something similar could be happening here, which is a major factor why you can't just throw calipers on the thickness of steel, and say you've got a valid comparison.

Myself, there are some 25k-level loads that I think are all I need in a field-gun load, and I wouldn't mind shooting them once in awhile in a 696, but primarily I'd shoot light loads most of the time. This is recommended by Pearce if you read the whole article (and something else I don't see quoted here in this thread so far). I would look at the 696 like how Bill Jordan suggested we use the Model 19: Shoot specials most of the time, and just use the hot loads (in the Mod.19, 357 Mags, but in the 696, we'd be talking the 25k-level handloads) only occassionally. In other words - avoid a constant / steady diet of the heavy loads in the light guns. They can handle them, but should only be subjected to them on occassion.