Quote:
Originally Posted by skipnsb
Is there any advantage to a 696 over a 69 in the short barrel length?
I can appreciate some lighter weight but I can't find the 696 weights.
Did the early 696 have the lock and mim parts?
I plan to shoot stout .44 specials in a woods gun.
.44 mag ability is a plus.
|
I see no advantage to a 696 over a 69 (2-3/4" bbl.), actually the disadvantage(s) that it's restricted to 44 Spcl. & has a thin forcing cone (pic below) that can be damaged if abused.
A 2007 review I have says the 696 weight 36oz. My 69 2-3/4" weights 34.1oz with the factory grips. Basically the same weight.
The 696-ND versions featured case-hardened hammer & trigger, hammer-mounted firing pin, and no internal lock. The 696-1 went to a frame-mounted firing pin and Metal Injection Molded (MIM) hammer and trigger. The 696-2 added the internal lock.
If you want to shoot stout 44 Specials or 44 Magnums then the 69 is your choice.
I have a 396NG (2-1/2" bbl., 24oz.) & the 69 2-3/4". If I could only have one it'd have to be the 69 (but I can't imagine not having the 396NG). The 396/696 will handle moderate (+P) loads & some occasional hotter but the real hot loads are best reserved for the purpose made 69.
If lightweight & moderate power are factor get a 396. If lightweight & magnum power are a factor get a 329NG (27oz.)
Buy a 696 for collectiblity. Buy a 69 for practicality.
Oh, a M69 will be the cheaper option all the way around.
.
S&W 44 snubnose: M396NG-M69-M329NG
(-01c)
.
396NG 44 Spcl - bbl. extension
(-05a)
.
69 Combat Magnum - bbl. extension
(-02b)
.
69 Combat Magnum - range trip
(-01b)
.