Why wouldn't these forcing-cone concerns also apply to the other L-frame .44s, the 296 and both varieties of the 396? Even with two-part barrels the forcing cone ought to be the same dimensions. I've never heard of split forcing cones in these models.

Mike the thinnest part of the forcing cone. Then mike the thickness of the cylinder wall to the outside of the cylinder. Looks about the same to me. How come I never hear about split chambers from hot loads? I suspect this whole conophobia thing is more a social concern than a consistently repeatable problem.

I don't doubt that extremely hot loads can wreck a gun, and accidental double charges can turn it into shrapnel. But commercial .44 loads should all be safe in an x96, including the warm ones. I have a 696 and a 296 and shoot any commercial loads I want in them, except that I am cautious about the 200-grain bullet limit on the 296. No problems yet. Nor do I expect them.

__________________
David Wilson