I recently purchased a 696 no dash at my neighborhood range/gunstore. Noticed just how thin the forcing cone is and was just wondering what some of you thought regarding reliability. I handload and am going to stick with a moderate loading, say 6.8 gr of Unique under a 240 gr swagged Flat-nosed lead bullet.

I recently purchased a 696 no dash at my neighborhood range/gunstore. Noticed just how thin the forcing cone is and was just wondering what some of you thought regarding reliability. I handload and am going to stick with a moderate loading, say 6.8 gr of Unique under a 240 gr swagged Flat-nosed lead bullet.

As long as you stick to factory ammo or equivelent handloads you won't have any problems with a 696.

Bill

__________________
Bill

If you don't try to make a 44 magnum out of a 44 special, it will be fine.

They tend to like 200 grain bullets. Georgia arms Gold Dots made one ragged hole at 15 yards with mine as well as 200 grain RNFP cast bullets.

__________________
AL
Pax Per Potens

+1

__________________
Formerly know as Lucky Derby

+5

Not sure where this kind of nonsense came from. First, as I interpret the issue, the OPs question shouldn't be about reliability, its a question of strength. The 696 is as reliable as any K or L frame gun, which is best stated as "very reliable." If it breaks, then it becomes a question of lack of strength.

Maybe the questions on forcing cones got its birth with the a very few of the M66/M19s that for some reason seemed to crack when used with the 125gr hot loadings in 357. Note that none of that was seen with that same bullet weight out of .38 +Ps. The conventional wisdom was that the cracks were caused by the very high velcocity and the impacts into the forcing cone.

Those fears shouldn't even be an issue with a 44 Special, a round known for its lumbering but huge bullets. Also, the metal used has changed several times over the years. Someone here posted a graph a while back showing the strengths of steel alloys used in revolvers, and how its doubled every 10 years for the last 100.

Now if the OP here had posted that he bought a gun with a ring or dark circle in the barrel, I'd have been more interested...kind of. So here's the deal. Take your new pride and joy and clean the barrel. Then either use a bore light or a sheet of white paper in the cylinder cut, and look down the barrel. See the dark ring about 3/4" in from the forcing cone? Right where the barrel emerges from the frame? Yes, thats a barrel ring. Normally associated with a bulged barrel and also often suggested not to buy a gun with that feature.

Its caused by the thin barrel at that point, and the interference fit between the barrel thread and the threads in the frame. Nearly all 696s have that (all that I've ever seen.) It doesn't cause any accuracy problems that I'm aware of.

Yes, rush to your safe and see if yours has it too!

__________________
Dick Burg

Thank's y'all

I bought a new 696 and 296 on the same day, nearly six years ago. That 696 was a common range-bag occupant, much to the chagrin of my 629MG - and a couple of 24's. I tried to wear the 696 out - with mainly 240gr LSWC/LRNFP in .44 Special - and Russian - cases. I run from 3.5gr in a Russian case to a max of 4.8 gr of Titegroup in Special cases, yielding 692-800+fps from it's 3" tube. The 200gr GA Arms, or CCI Blazers (Same Speer #4427 bullet), make 836-840 fps from the 3" tube. After 1,200+ of the Blazers in my 296, I had one split it's Al case in my 296 - and only use the GA Arms rounds now. They are cheaper - if you buy a couple hundred at a time (Shipping - and I'm 100 mi away!)- than the Blazers locally ('Academy Sports') - and you gain Starline brass, too.

I replaced my 696's UM's rounded Combats with the squared versions first - better. Then, Ahrends square conversion finger-grooved cocobolo stocks... looked better, shot better. Finally, a non-fg version of the Ahrends - best! Anyway you grip it, it is fun. My only accuracy problem was when I bought a mis-sized box of 240gr LSWCs - they mic-ed .427" (.44-40) rather than the box's marked .430", else it is unreal how accurate that little beast is. Lighter Wolff springs made it super light and wear-in made it smooth. Fun little gun, although mine will never see any Keith-level rounds... I have a 4" 629, weighing a whopping six ounces more, for that.

Dick, made me look - again - still no ring in mine's barrel! Thousands upon thousands of rounds downrange - and mine is still fine. It'll go before my 4" 629, however. YMMV.

Stainz

PS My .44s:

The ring didn't occur from shooting, it happened when they torqued the barrel into the frame. It a factory standard feature. No extra charge.

But it also calls into question the wisdom of not buying a gun with a ring. It certainly doesn't alter accuracy in the 696 or any other gun I've seen it in. Its just ugly.

__________________
Dick Burg

My favorite S&W. Definitely feed it 200 gr. bullets at 800 to 900 FPS and you'll never have any problems. CCI Gold Dots are a good choice for carry use. Mine is usually fed 200 gr. cast SWC or whatever cowboy bullets I can scrounge for practice. All of your friends will try to buy it once they shoot it.

Mine came from the factory with the barrel ring option at no extra charge! Been there on my no dash since new (early 98'). And I agree, it's almost scary how well that medium frame .44 Special shoots. I think so highly of it, that it became my things that go bump in the night bedside gun. Once the night sights went on.

OK, now look for and buy a 396, the one produced prior to the lock. Your 696 will then have a lightweight competitor. Whats not to like?

__________________
Dick Burg

I really didn't expect my barrel to tighten as I shoot my 696 - and produce the barrel ring. I checked - again - because I can't believe mine isn't so adorned, as so many others seem to be. It seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

An odd thing occured today... my 696 went to the range - with a box or two of my homebrew .44 Russians - and came home clean! My recent purchases, the 4" 617 and 4" 627 Pro, went along, too. The 627 didn't get any dirtier - but the freshly cleaned 617 became nastified big time!

Seriously, it was a blast shooting .22s from a S&W K-frame - that newness is still there. I tried several ammo's - and it wore it's new Ahrends cocobolo Retro Targets, delivered unfinished Monday and already sporting three coats of oil finish and a wax coat. Yeah, I like those grips... bet the 696 will look nice in them. They feel great with the no-recoil 617 - help balance that full lug.

On the way home, the 696 looked sad... but still clean. I had just cleaned it last night, having shot the snot out of it Monday. It really loves those 240gr LSWC - mic-ed between .429" & .430" - they are either Meister or, if more recent, Oregon Trails Laser Cast. New guns come and go, but my 'first' S&W 625MG in .45 Colt and this 696 have been perenial favorites and common range-bag occupants. The MG so much so that I bought another one as a shooter. The way 696 prices went, I couln't afford that extrvagance for it. Besides, I have the 4" 629. No forcing cone worries with it, an extra round, an extra inch of barrel, too. Still, something about that 696!

Stainz

PS My 296 has a much more permanent home... pocket protector extraordinaire!

I liked the first 696 no dash so much that I bought 3 more. I gave one to my son and now there are 3. If memory serves, and sometimes it doesn't, 3 had the ring and one didn't. Anyway, they all shoot the same, great! Now I have to get one of those 396 no locks rburg talks about.

Thanks for y'alls input and advice. I appreciate it very much. The 696 will be my woods walking, trail gun and there is nothing in NC that a 200 - 240 gr SWC over a moderate 44 special load will not take care of, if I do my part. I have a M44 Taurus 4 inch that I use as a "load development" gun so I will not be beating the 696 up. Now I need to get another. Yep, I'm greedy and believe that "one is none, two is one", as Clint would say

Ugh! Youse guys are killin' me. What price is a 696 (pre-lock/pre-MIM, I'm guessing the "no-dash" model) going for these days?

I doubt I'll ever find one at a reasonable price, but you never know....

If you want to "woods walk", you're gonna need the "lightweight" 396 version also . You won't even know it's there....

__________________
GO NAVY!

MMA10mm. I paid $468 tax included. I understand that this is a pretty good price.

Munster, I do like the look of that 296. What would one set ya back these days?

Munsterf18
What brand/model holster is that in your picture? Looking for exactly that for my 696
Tom

We're not getting an answer here.....

If you look, it seems like its just a holster for a 686 that has been pressed into duty on a different L frame gun. If you notice, its been made for a full underlug barrel. Go to a gunshop, or look at the offerings from Galco or DeSantis. It has that look about it.

If you plan on using it for a 396, be wary of that stupid and difficult to replace front sight. If the barrel extends past the opening, some of them will cause it to hang up, making the gun difficult to nearly impossible to remove when needed. Best way to decide that is to test it at a store, not guess.

__________________
Dick Burg

I carry 696(no-) in the same smith holster that I bought along with my 3" 624 back in the 80's.
It fits just fine.

__________________
S&W Accumulator