Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present
o

Notices

S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present All NON-PINNED Barrels, the L-Frames, and the New Era Revolvers


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-20-2017, 08:17 PM
skipnsb skipnsb is offline
Member
69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696  
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 136
Likes: 66
Liked 112 Times in 52 Posts
Default 69 v 696

I plan to shoot stout .44 specials in a woods gun.
Is there any advantage to a 696 over a 69 in the short barrel length?
Ignore collector value or grip style.
I can appreciate some lighter weight but I can't find the 696 weights. I can't imagine the 696 to be significantly lighter.

I can appreciate building the gun for the cartridge for its own sake. But how much weight is saved?

Did the early 696 have the lock and mim parts?

.44 mag ability is a plus. Thanks for any rational thoughts. Skip
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-20-2017, 09:41 PM
Gripgrabber's Avatar
Gripgrabber Gripgrabber is offline
US Veteran
69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Brooksville, FL
Posts: 727
Likes: 4,447
Liked 991 Times in 372 Posts
Default

Hello, I to wanted the 696 but have no luck in my search, so I got a new 69, 2 3/4", its back to SW for a ring in the bore but I really like it, I have a 629-4 3", but wanted a L frame. You might want to check out the 44 spl bulldog, at only 19oz., got one last dec. not a smith but a dream to carry! Btw it shot my first snake today using shot capsule.
SEMPER PARATUS
__________________
NRA Life Member
CPO
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #3  
Old 06-21-2017, 01:17 AM
BLUEDOT37's Avatar
BLUEDOT37 BLUEDOT37 is offline
Member
69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: N.E. OKLA.
Posts: 6,460
Likes: 5,857
Liked 9,262 Times in 3,478 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipnsb View Post
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)

.
__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Last edited by BLUEDOT37; 09-22-2017 at 03:17 AM. Reason: .re-add lost PB pics
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-21-2017, 09:57 AM
Paul105 Paul105 is offline
Member
69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696  
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 579
Liked 1,835 Times in 602 Posts
Default

Plus 1 on BLUEDOT37's post.

I've had both (696 and M69) -- still have the M69.

Have right at 400 rnds thru my 2 3/4" M69. My gun is extremely accurate with loads that it likes.

FWIW,

Paul
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 06-21-2017, 10:03 PM
bronco45's Avatar
bronco45 bronco45 is offline
Member
69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696 69 v 696  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moscow, Idaho USA
Posts: 2,656
Likes: 9,620
Liked 1,696 Times in 679 Posts
Default

I love my 69 4.25" I used to have a 696. The 69 is much stronger, and better all around packer.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)