S&W model 696 .44 spl

semperfi71 said:
Nice .45. ..... But...it is a bit of a "strange concept". I think it is too large to carry in normal concealed circumstances, except for maybe offensive linemen in the NFL. It might work if a normal to bigger sized person goes about with a coat or jacket on. ..... On people targets it should do well. But if you're in agreement with my thoughts, you won't be carrying it in concealment as much as carrying it walking around the woods. Therefore, if I was going hiking in my territory I might carry it and I might not.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't much agree. I've carried mine concealed ever since I bought it new (I'm fairly large, 6'3" & 220, but certainly not the size of an NFL lineman.) I carry mine year round and rarely under a jacket. In the summer it conceals easily under a cotton t-shirt. I only carry it IWB in either a Sparks VM2 or a Concealco. Otherwise it prints pretty bad. The weight doesn't bother me either although I have to admit I sometimes carry my 396NG in the same holsters. I don't carry it in the woods at all. There, I either have an N frame (round or square), a .22, or my favorite, a 4" Ruger Redhawk in .45 Colt. (I got lucky - it came with a trigger smooth as butter.)

The right grips and holsters make all the difference in CCW.
 
I like the n-frames, but my hands are small plus with stubby fingers. So my grip on them is hard to maintain. I have never seen or handled a 696.
 
IkenI,

At 6' 3" and 220 lbs you could be an NFL tight end or quarterback!!

I do understand your point. I agree that if one has the body type and the right gear he/she can conceal a M696 pretty well. I have heard here of a few posters who CCW with N-Frames and short barrels!

But I suspect most folks might go for something not quite so large in CCW.

I really like my M696, but I don't carry concealed. If I did I would probably carry a S&W .38 Special hammerless J-Frame.
 
semperfi71 said:
I really like my M696, but I don't carry concealed. If I did I would probably carry a S&W .38 Special hammerless J-Frame.
Click to expand...

As an old retired CIC/Fed that's my NY reload. I think it was Teddy that said walk softly, carry a big stick, and a pistol, or two. Maybe wasn't him...
 
I have one of the *very, very rare* (to use a potential Gunbroker description) 686-2 models with the IL. It is a great revolver even if it does have the lock.

I carried mine often as a woods walking and outdoors gun where it was just the right combination of power, weight and ease of carry. My standard woods load is a Speer 240 lswc at 1000fps. It is superbly accurate. The most dangerous critter, besides meth heads, I'm likely to encounter around here is a black bear and, although on the light side, it should work. The gun is a lot stronger than many give it credit for being. Pearce indicated in Handloader #236 that factory torture tests demonstrated the 696 easily endured pressures well beyond his published Level 3 loads at 25kpsi. If I need more than my standard load I can easily drive a Speer 200gr Gold Dot to around 1150fps at less than 22kpsi. With it's gaping deep hollow point cavity that would be a devastating SD load.


Even though there have been some concerns expressed about the thin forcing cone, I haven't seen any problems, but it is my belief that the barrel face is slightly thicker on the -2 models, at least by visual comparison of my gun to 2 of the earlier models. Maybe it is a different contour. Whether that it is significant or not could only be determined by actual measurements and I didn't have the means to do so at the time.

As much as I like my 696, I find myself carrying a Ruger Lipseys 44SP more often now. I don't know if it is that much lighter, and load levels are similar, but I just like the SA. No doubt about it, there is a certain cachet to the 696 that has driven prices to really high levels lately. Not that the IL model is going to ever be one of the more desireable. Eventhough it is the rarest! ;^)
 
Last edited:
I use a mild handload with the 245 gr. LSWC and Trail Boss powder in both my 696 and older Model 1950 Target. Surprisingly I can shoot the 696 about as accurately as the larger N-framed gun at 50 ft.
 
VAdoublegunner,

I too have a Ruger New Vaquero Lipsey's .44 Special in the stainless "Sheriff's" model.

What a great gun!! I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet but with a 240 grain lead slug at about 900 fps it's got to be a great all around sixgun.

The balance and "feel" is superb, as well as the action.

I too was comparing it with my M696 the other day and realized that the Ruger will win over as the "woods" gun versus the M696.
 
I suggest a six ounce heavier answer - with another round capacity, an inch more barrel, larger hammer & trigger, BIG fc, and real Keith load capability - a 4" 629!

IMG_3509.jpg


I bought my 696-1 new eight years ago - after watching the price tag ($439) fade for a year. I bought it - and added a new closeout-priced 296 for $349, less than half it's MSRP, plus s/t (5% then). It was to be a CCW. The 696 was to be - and remains to be - pure fun. It's especially fun with my wimpy 240gr LSWC over 3.5 gr Titegroup in a .44 Russian case - makes 692 fps - all day shooter - and makes major power factor! Ahrends square conversion grips are fine - for normal loads. The 'real' .44 Special, the one labelled '629' & '.44 Magnum, is fine with the Ahrends retro targets... plus, they look good! When I need serious .44 Specials, the 4" 629 is the grab. They are always in production... it's been a while since S&W plopped out a 624!

The 296 is a bit larger than my 642, which, in a Mika pocket holster fits all of my britches front pockets. The 296 in it's Mika holster fits ~3 of 4 of my pants front pockets.

IMG_0596.jpg


I keep the AirWeight Ti stoked with the Speer 200gr Gold Dots loaded in new Starline brass by GA Arms - a better value at the same (or less) price as the Blazers. It's a woods carry, too - with a 240gr LSWC first, despite the 200gr Max caution due to bullet creep. Bit of a hand slapper.

Stainz
 
semperfi71,
If you don't have it already definately buy, borrow, beg or steal a copy of Handloader #260, June 2009, for Pearce's article on loading the 44SP in the new Blackhawk. Great info there. I have tested several of the loads and they are right on the money.

It really is a handy field gun. You've picked a good load for it. My favorite pet load is the Speer240 lswc, 8.0gr WSF and a WLP primer for about 1050fps (it does not seem particularly primer brand sensitive). Shooting offhand it will tear out the black center of a B8 target at 50 yards. What more can you ask for from a plinking/general purpose load? Yep, it is a gun that gets carried often. I may have to look for a SS one, both of mine are blued.
 
VAdoublegunner said:
As much as I like my 696, I find myself carrying a Ruger Lipseys 44SP more often now. I don't know if it is that much lighter, and load levels are similar, but I just like the SA.
Click to expand...

semperfi71 said:
I too have a Ruger New Vaquero Lipsey's .44 Special in the stainless "Sheriff's" model.

What a great gun!! I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet but with a 240 grain lead slug at about 900 fps it's got to be a great all around sixgun.

The balance and "feel" is superb, as well as the action.
Click to expand...

Me too! but I haven't carried it yet. The only holster I have for it is a nylon one with a safety strap that I have attached to the inside of my kayak. I've only shot it a little but it does feel great!. In the kayak it has a couple of snake shot backed up by GDHP.

Stainz said:
I suggest a six ounce heavier answer - with another round capacity, an inch more barrel, larger hammer & trigger, BIG fc, and real Keith load capability - a 4" 629!

The 296 is a bit larger than my 642, which, in a Mika pocket holster fits all of my britches front pockets. The 296 in it's Mika holster fits ~3 of 4 of my pants front pockets...... Bit of a hand slapper.
Stainz
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with an N frame. I carried a 629 Mtn Gun for many years when I lived in Colorado. I have since moved on to .45 ACP in my N frames. They are a favorite.

Now that 296 I didn't like! It wouldn't fit in any pants pocket I had and it hurt my old arthritic hands worse than my little pocket rocket with .357 midloads. Got rid of it quick! Didn't care much for the cylinder either. I do have a NG (with stainless cylinder) that I carry and shoot lots. It doesn't hurt me near as bad as that 296 did.

As you can see.....I like .44 Specials.
 
Looks to me like there are only three words missing here..."opinion," "my" and "in." Not necessarily in that order, of course.

RdrBill said:
CT.
I consider myself more of a shooter than collector. From that perspective.
I had one and sold it within a month. I have a serious dislike for the gun.
It is a poorly thought out engineering disaster.
It has one positive quality and that is, it shoots the .44 Special. Plus 1
It has a thin walled L frame barrel bored out to .44 caliber. Minus 1
It has a reduced capacity L Frame cylinder bored out to .44 caliber. Minus 2
It has a round butt K frame grip on it. Minus 2
It has an over inflated price on it. Minus 1
If you add up the plus and the minus count, it is not a good gun for a shooter.
When that gun came out , stores could not sell them to shooters. They quit making them because no one was buying them. They were a marketing Dud. Now that they are scarce, Collectors have started a price war over them, but only for their collectors value.
As a shooting gun, it is funny. It starts out with a big hole in the muzzle and as you move to the rear the gun keeps getting smaller. You end up with grips that are more appropriate on a 38 snubbie.
It is factory Bubbatized Frankengun.
You can buy a 4 inch 624 for 60-75% of the price of 696. A 624 is N frame from the front to the rear. Wonderful engineering.
There are many folks that like them. That is good. I am one of a few that does not. This is AMERICA, I get a choice.
I consider the 696 to be a good ladies purse gun, if it is not loaded with hot ammo.
Bill@Yuma
Click to expand...
 
To All,

Yep, the Ruger NV .44 Special (Lipsey) in either 4 5/8 or 3 1/2 inch barrel I think is going to be another "collectible" very soon. Either blue or stainless. Unless Ruger decides to make them a regular item.

Check out Altamont Grips.

I put a pair of their Super Rosewood Fluer-di-Lis (spelling, I ain't French) grips on it. They're nifty looking and functional.

I have three Ruger Old Model Vaqueros in 4 5/8 (stainless), 5 1/2 (stainless), and 7 1/2 (blue). I load them with the Hornady 240 CL-SIL bullet (FMJ) to about 1,000 fps. I wanted a powerful load that would penetrate deep without the full recoil of a .44 magnum. They'll do it.

BUT. With the New Vaquero .44 Special one can easily load the same load (it might buck a little in the 3 1/2 inch barrel) and have a more "portable" gun.
 
"But...it is a bit of a "strange concept". I think it is too large to carry in normal concealed circumstances, except for maybe offensive linemen in the NFL. It might work if a normal to bigger sized person goes about with a coat or jacket on. Or carries it in a purse, with little room for anything else."

I have to disagree with that statement. With a quality holster, belt, the correct outergarmet and a larger waist size in the pants that 696 will dissapear and be quite comfortable to carry with a Inside the Waistband holster. Been legally packing a full size 1911 since 93 IWB and also pack a 3" 657 .41 mag OWB, and a few other S&W's and never has anyone ever noticed them. I'm 5' 7"'s and 167 lbs BTW.

My only complaint with the 696 is it's missing one hole, but makes up for that as its a potent round that shoots very well in a small package. Like many other Smiths I wish I would have bought a prelock when they first came out and prices were down on them. A 3" 686 is the better gun for SD but only when using magnums for the extra power and can be had for less money.

With that said I still want one!
 
Some like a big V8 car and others a small diesel. Some like the big N-frame, for me the L-frame is already on the large side compared to my hands. I have had a N-frame, to big for me.
What disadvantages are for the one are the things to like for the other.

I have a 696 and I love it. Of course a 686 has advantages but......I have a 686 too.
 
RdrBill said:
Sir.
I prefer a gun with a handle on it that is proportional to my hand size,
Click to expand...

Me too....

But I have medium-sized hands, so the K/L size grips are more proportional to my hands.
I even have a hard time getting my hands around the factory Hogues on my 686.
 
i think i would have by anyones judgement a pretty aedequate collection of smith pistols, among others. In fact i just picked up another 57.
having said that the 696 is probably at the top of the list in terms of being fun to shoot, accurate, and it isn't a wimp round pushing with a handload a 250grain bullet or so at 1000fps.
I do understand the five round limitation which could be an issue in some situations, but if so one more ain't gonna do it.
I am a pretty big guy at 6ft2 and i aint gonna give the weight. Love the 696 and wouldn't give it up. I sometimes carry it loaded with golddots.
I haven't felt undergunned with it other than the exception of being in parts of the arizona desert these days which calls for hi cap magazines and the same with a rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Korth .44 frame grip compared to L/N frame?
Replies
1
Views
232
VictorLouis
VictorLouis
Vtgw938
Farrant K Frame Round Butt, Boot Style
Replies
0
Views
308
Vtgw938
Vtgw938
S
Altamont Coke Bottle K Frame Round Butt Conversion Grips
Replies
12
Views
1K
jer830
J
R
Model 69 with 686 marked frame
Replies
7
Views
634
steelslaver
steelslaver
M
K /L frame grips
Replies
2
Views
564
Green Frog
G

Latest posts

Back
Top