The 696 is NOT a wimp.

I don't think so. Equal pressure on identical thicknesses of forcing cones would result in increased stress on the smaller diameter cone...since we are now discussing an equal force distributed over a smaller area..But let's proceed....what happens if you now double the pressure on the smaller-diameter cone?...
Sonny..

We are not discussing "equal force distributed over a smaller area." We are discussing pressure. Pressure is force per area. If the pressure is constant, and the area is doubled, the force is doubled.
 
We are discussing pressure. Pressure is force per area. If the pressure is constant, and the area is doubled, the force is doubled.

No...I don't think so. Yes, Pressure (symbol: P) is the force per unit area applied in a direction perpendicular to the surface of an object. You don't double a force; force is like pushing on something with your arm muscles; it's constant.

P = force/unit area Assume some Force = 10. Assume some Area = 1.0
so that P = 10(force)/1(area) = 10. The pressure is obviously 10.

Now double the area, to 2.0 The force is still 10, area = 2 and P = 10/2 = 5.

So double the area and the force is halved, not doubled.

Look at this example. Take a 10 pound bag of sugar (force) and let it rest on one hand. Pretty heavy! Now support that weight with both hands. Seems easier to hold. You doubled the area and halved the pressure.
Sonny
 
Last edited:
No...I don't think so. Yes, Pressure (symbol: P) is the force per unit area applied in a direction perpendicular to the surface of an object. You don't double a force; force is like pushing on something with your arm muscles; it's constant.

P = force/unit area Assume some Force = 10. Assume some Area = 1.0
so that P = 10(force)/1(area) = 10. The pressure is obviously 10.

Now double the area, to 2.0 The force is still 10, area = 2 and P = 10/2 = 5.

So double the area and the force is halved, not doubled.

Look at this example. Take a 10 pound bag of sugar (force) and let it rest on one hand. Pretty heavy! Now support that weight with both hands. Seems easier to hold. You doubled the area and halved the pressure.
Sonny


"You don't double a force; force is like pushing on something with your arm muscles; it's constant."

Think about using those arm muscles to push on an air pump attached to a truck tire, which is holding up one quarter of the truck. Is the force constant? Can you push with 1000 pounds or so of force? Or can you provide enough force to pressurize a small vessel (the pump) to a pressure that will cause air to flow into a big vessel (the tire), where it will press against a larger surface, exerting more force, and hold up the truck?

Think about the 30 or 40 pounds per square inch of pressure in the tire. It's distributed against many square inches to hold the truck up. Each square inch has the 30 or 40 pounds of force pressing against it. With constant pressure, more area = more force.
 
Just for the enlightenment of all, I abused some Starrett i.d. miles so I could get a more accurate measurement of the 640-1 and the 696 forcing cones. The 640-1, at end of cone, is 0.041", +/- 0.002". The 696 is 0.044", +/- 0.002". So both the .357 Mag and the .44 Special are nearly identical in forcing cone thickness, yet the .357 Mag SAAMI pressure is twice that of the 696. I find that very interesting.
The point of no return. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
G'nite, Gracie.
Sonny
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE
G'nite, Gracie.
Sonny[/QUOTE]


Who cares what the SAAMI pressure is! So what that the forcing cone is the same size. Your looking at this the wrong way.

The 44 slug is .072 bigger with a 42gn heavier slug. That means the forcing cone is weaker on the L frame.
Measure the psi over the circumference of the forcing cone (pie x diameter is circumference). On top of this, you have to measure how "proud" the forcing cone is between each caliber. Remember, peak psi is in the cylinder not at the barrel.

The formulas are in the machinist handbook. ;)
 
Interesting thread - let me throw another thought into it.

Taurus Tracker .44 magnum. Mine is about the same size as an L-Frame S&W so how does it compare dimensionaly, and what makes it rate up to the .44 magnum pressures ? Is it metal thinkness, or metal type and tempering, that allows this Taurus to be a magnum gun.
 
(Bold print by Sonny)

Who cares what the SAAMI pressure is!
As an anonymous but universally-respected firearms reviewer and frequent author on guns puts it..."Pressure is what makes them crack."

The formulas are in the machinist handbook.
Of course. I was one of those. Pertinent formulae may also be found in Halliday and Resnick's Principles of Physics. I was one of those too.

That means the forcing cone is weaker on the L frame.
And the tea fairy will save us all one fine day. Amen.

My friends, I am truly tired of this and need my coffee. The second wave is now on the beach. Note that we are all stalwart fellows and will stick to our ...guns. Please continue to convince others at this point.
I must find other threads to cling to...
Sonny
 
Hello Sonny,
thisw is Wisentfrom Germany and I'm a prowd owner of a 696. As I posted earlier I use it for self defense and hunting (finisher for red deer and boars). I'm n o t into handloading and use only the Remington round nose bullet. I'd say I have about one thousand rounds fired and absolutely n o problems, except some loose screws.
I fixed them with loc tite and I've installed Nill combats three years ago. For m e it's just a perfect gun, light enough to be carried for hours and hours in the hunting area but heavy enough to stand serious ammo. you are totally RIGHT!
The 696 is no wimp at all.
And one more advantage:
My second gun (in Germany you are allowed to own only two handguns as a hunter) is a 686 "Security Secial" with a three inch barrel too.
Two guns - each with the same grip, same barrel length, nearly the same balance and weight and the same sights.
I f I will have to shoot in SD, there is no "technical" problem - I#m used to both of my guns and because they are not too large and not too heavy they will be with me - and nor at home in the gun vault.
I'm joking with my friends from time to time and let them guess what handgun I'm carrying when we are out for a hunt - Mr . Smith (the .357) or Mr. Wesson (the .44) - anyway they are my trusty and best friends.
Best respects to all of you, walking along with our "two best friends"!
Wisent
 
I hafta spout off. Everybody questions the forcing cone. So the 696, at ~15,500 cup, appears to have greater margins of safety (thicker steel) than a .357 which is SAAMI @ 35,000 cup. And Smiths made after about 1990 contained frame-inherent engineering changes to combat battering by heavy pressures and many rounds.

Comments are invited.

Sonny

Oh yes, at 15,500 your 696 does have a greater safety margin then the .357 mag. However, the problem with the 696 shows up when you try to hot rod it. Try to load that 696 to equal the power of the .357 mag and you'll see why the forcing cone is the weak link.

You may not be out of place shooting the Skeeter load of 7.5 gr of Unique and a 250 gr bullet out of your 696. And that is a very respectable load in a .44 Spl. You may be able to shoot this load and never see any damage to your 696. I certainly would not go beyond this load with an L frame.

I'll leave you with some words of wisdom from my Sierra loading manual.

"One should realize and accept the fact that the .44 Special is not a short-cased .44 Magnum and it should not be treated as such".
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, at 15,500 your 696 does have a greater safety margin then the .357 mag. Try to load that 696 to equal the power of the .357 mag and you'll see why the forcing cone is the weak link.

The first info I will give is a note to me from GLB, a Nebraska corn-fed fella, arguably, the finest S&W gunsmith in the land:
"Cracked forcing cones are very rare except with S&W Mod 19 or 66 K-frame 357 Mags where a chunk of the lower barrel was machined out to accommodate the yoke." He also stated that most forcing cone damage is a result of poor cylinder-to-bore alignment, that hotter loads will, of course, accelerate any damage, and finally, that the barrel and forcing cone are supported by the frame, which lends considerable strength.

That being said and digested, we see that cracked forcing cones are NOT nearly as common as bacon and eggs. Okay?

Secondly, anyone who seriously considers loading up a 15.500 SAAMI gun to equal the pressures of a 35,000 SAAMI gun probably ranks right up there with jumping without a 'chute. 'Geez...

Thank you all, but perhaps we could end this thread now. Please???
Sonny
 
OK, I'm in a grumpy mood ;) but I'm going to slide in beside you and join the choir here even if it's only the two of us.

Why do people insist on doing things that the manufacturer did not intend when it designed and manufactured the thing? We have another thread here suggesting that all N frames are created equal. 'Tain't so. If you want an N-frame magnum, buy one.

Oh yes, at 15,500 your 696 does have a greater safety margin then the .357 mag. However, the problem with the 696 shows up when you try to hot rod it. Try to load that 696 to equal the power of the .357 mag and you'll see why the forcing cone is the weak link.

You may not be out of place shooting the Skeeter load of 7.5 gr of Unique and a 250 gr bullet out of your 696. And that is a very respectable load in a .44 Spl. You may be able to shoot this load and never see any damage to your 696. I certainly would not go beyond this load with an L frame.

I'll leave you with some words of wisdom from my Sierra loading manual.

"One should realize and accept the fact that the .44 Special is not a short-cased .44 Magnum and it should not be treated as such".
 
The first info I will give is a note to me from GLB, a Nebraska corn-fed fella, arguably, the finest S&W gunsmith in the land:
"Cracked forcing cones are very rare except with S&W Mod 19 or 66 K-frame 357 Mags where a chunk of the lower barrel was machined out to accommodate the yoke." He also stated that most forcing cone damage is a result of poor cylinder-to-bore alignment, that hotter loads will, of course, accelerate any damage, and finally, that the barrel and forcing cone are supported by the frame, which lends considerable strength.

Sonny

How would the frame strengthen the forcing cone? The area of the forcing cone in which cracks normally appear doesn't seem to be close enough to the frame to benefit from its support.
 
OK, I'm considering putting my 696-1 on my carry list (to replace my model 19 snubbie) so I can take it up to the woods in CA. Black bears and mountain lines are the dangers where I plan on carrying it (NO blacks or grizzlies!).

I do not reload, but plan on sighting in and carrying hard cast Buffalo Bore heavy loads in this (for skull penetration in case of rare SHTF scenario). No steady diets of these and will load with standard pressure for 2-legged protection.

Can anyone tell me first hand if these are safe? They do SAY so on Buffalo Bore website, and it sounds like a few of you use them too. Do you feel addequately protected with this set up or would you rather pack a N-frame 29 (which is much heavier and harder to conceal) or stick with the 19 snubbie (also loaded with heavy hard cast loads)?

Load in question:
Heavy .44 Special Pistol & Handgun Ammunition
 
I would not be afraid to use these just as Buffalo Bore prescribes.

Man, they sure are pricey. Almost $80.00 per box.

I reload .44's for about $2.00 a box (I use my own cast bullets). If I ever needed to "review" why I cast bullets and reload, this would sure re-inforce my decision of nearly sixty years ago.

FWIW
Dale53
 
This topic has been bantered about on other threads on many different occasions. Can anyone answer this question for me? Why hot rod a 44 special round? Keith did so because there was nothing else. Along the same regard, why hot rod a 38 special? Both of these calibers have very viable options for high performance.

Now, to the topic at hand. If I shoot 44 special rounds, with any bullet, at designed pressures, I submit my model 696 will last indefinately. When I want hotter, I will use any of my 29/629's and never have to concern myself with the strength of the forcing cone on the 'L' frame.

The 696 is not a target gun or a hunting gun....it is a relatively compact 44 caliber designed for those of us who desire a big bore, self-defense weapon and prefer the extra weight of an all steel handgun. I am certain that was the reasoning of Smith and Wesson management when they decided to put it in production.

Again, if you stoke it with the ammunition it was designed for, it is a quality, unique, fast handling, comfortable, accurate handgun.....as good as anything Smith has ever produced.
 
Back
Top