A 44 magnum L frame!?!? In a 2.5" barrel????

My dream has come true! Is it good to go as far as durability goes or will 44 magnum kill it?

Its good to go. If it wasn't capable of 44 magnum ballistics and pressure it wouldn't be offered as such. Keep pressure within standards and your fine. May kick a bit however.

66s with hot loads and 624s were the first things that came to mind.

And please tell me that God aweful black cylinder release and screw would be an easy fix.

It is:

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

Wow that looks SO MUCH better!

What's the finish on it? Would polishing it to a brushed/mirror'ish finish be doable or would it damage it? My 686 was cake to do that.

I have a couple of M69 4 1/4 inchers and one 2 3/4". The the 4 1/4" guns have seen 2,800 and 5,800 respectively. The 2,800 rounder went back to S&W at 2,300 apprx for binding -- the fixed the crane/yoke (all on their dime) and all has been good since.

The 2 3/4" gun has a little over 400 rnds thru it with without a problem. Here's my recent experience with the newly introduced 2 ¾” S&W M69 (5 shot L Frame .44 Magnum).

Single action trigger broke at a bit over 4 lbs on my RCBS trigger scale. Throats are between .429 & .430 (.429 plug gage go, .430 no go). Didn’t measure bbl/cyl gap because I could find my feeler gages. Gun weighs 35 oz with Hogue 500 grips.

Shot a fairly wide range of ammo ranging from 200 Saeco full wadcutters to 325gr WLNGCs and 22.0gr of H110. Don’t remember the 200gr WC load, but performance on paper was terrible. The best groups at both 25 and 50 yds were shot with a MBW 260gr WFNGC, 23.0gr H100, Fed Mag Primer and new Top Brass. This load shot a bit over 2” at 50 yds. Thought this was a fluke so to verify I shot 5 more with similar results.

The little gun is an absolute delight to shoot with both .44 special equivalent and full mag loads. The lighter loads are obviously more fun for extended shooting sessions.

I have both 4 ¼” and the new 2.75” M69s. My impression is that the 2.75” gun shoots “softer” recoil wise than the 4 ¼” version. I’ve chronographed both with the same loads and the short barrel runs about 100 fps slower than it’s longer brother – this moderates recoil. Of course, you get a bit of muzzle flash with H110 loads. Both of mine are equipped with the S&W 500 X Frame Hogue grips.

Here are some chronograph results:

Chronoed these from the 2.75” M69. Three rounds at 5 Long paces from muzzle and 68 deg F. Larger sample could change the results a bit. Largest ES was 42 fps.

260 WFNGC w/23.0gr H110 avg 1,125 fps
240 Zero JSP with 23.5gr H110 avg 1,126 fps
240gr Fed Factory avg 1,125 fps
265gr CSWCGC (Lyman Thompson) with 17.5gr A2400 (Deep Seat) 1,119 fps avg
325gr WLNGC (BTB) with 22.0gr H110 avg 1,104 fps

For comparison purposes these were shot a while back from my 4 ¼” M69: Same temp, distance from the muzzle.

260 WFNGC w/23.0gr H110 avg 1,224 fps
240 Zero JSP with 23.5gr H110 avg 1,230 fps
240gr Fed Factory avg 1,220 fps
265gr CSWCGC (Lyman Thompson) with 17.5gr A2400 (deep seat) 1,140 fps avg
325gr WLNGC (BTB) with 22.0gr H110 avg 1,182

Here's one of the 50 yd targets



Crummy pic with a couple of holsters made for my 396.



FWIW,

Paul

I have had zero issues with either.

Yep, It's Good To Go!

I'm happy with mine.

I've shot over 500 rounds thru it so far; about half 240gr plated & half 240gr JHP.

Just bought (1000) Zero 240gr JSP & resized them to .430", per Paul105 's tip, so I can pound on it some more.

.

Lee Push-Thru .429" Sizer & Zero 240gr JSP bullets (reduces diameter from .4312" to .4302")


.

(with Badger grips)


.
.



.
.



.
.

( It compliments my other snubnose compact 44s well. )
.


.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Groo here
I have seen that the heaver the bullet , the less difference the barrel length makes.
With the SSK 320 cast bullet , 100% loading of AA1680 [ like WW680]
had a difference between a 4 3/4 to a 7 1/2 in barrel of 50 fps...

BLUEDOT37's pictures are excellent.

Agree with Groo1 comment regarding loss of velocity and heavy for caliber bullets. Individual guns will cause some variance, but for the most part, heavy bullets lose less velocity as barrel length decreases.

Not meant as a criticism, but I have a different outlook on the durability issue. With S&Ws lifetime, no cost to owner, warranty, I hope I'm able to shoot enough to wear one of these guns out. Very few will shoot enough .44 Mag level ammo thru these M69s to wear one out (especially the 2 3/4 incher.

For me, the M69 2 3/4" is GTG.

One last picture -- 2 3/4" M69, 265gr SWCGC, 23.5gr H110, offhand at 25 yards.



Certainly can't do that on demand, but this little gun is fun and easy to shoot, at least for me.

FWIW,

Paul

The one I had came with the best out of the box trigger I ever owned.
At 15 yards shot ragged holes.
I could not get over the "look". The Glock of revolvers to me in appearance.

Just picked up a M69 2 3/4 incher, put Houge bantam rubbers on it, and shot 180 and 200 jhp mid range loads through it. The only real concern is the rear sight, which is the shortest height available and bad sight pic for my old eyes. It is cranked most of the way up for the lighter bullet loads, but have a higher white outline version on the way.

Really like the smooth cut barrel, chambers and forcing cone. And everything is concentric. Like all lighter big bore pistols, it is not easy to make it into a target pistol.

Not really planning on using full bore 44 mags through, more like a forever plus p 44 special. Will be getting a iwb holster to cc it.

Which brings me to the question of cleaning the cylinder. Does anyone remove the extractor rod to separate the yoke from the cylinder to clean it?

Thanks

I suspect that's because that powder is so slow. It'd take a much longer barrel to burn it completely so there's not much difference between those barrel lengths. (AA load manual V6.0 doesn't even list data for that powder in a 44 Magnum)

.
Ditto !!

.
On this model you turn the knob end of the extractor rod (CW) to separate it from the extractor to slip off the yoke -vs- the traditional ones that don't need separating to remove the cylinder from the yoke.

Since on this style the yoke can slide quit a bit before it hits the knob you probably won't need to separate the two, routinely, to clean the yoke barrel of powder residue; I haven't.

.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

I have owned a 4" M69 for a while now and love it. No issues yet. Favorite gun in my relatively small collection.

And as for the black parts, I personally like it. I wish I could get a black cylinder. I might get mine Blued at some point. But I do like the brushed chrome. I have an AR with a SS Bead Blasted barrel that has a similar appearance and it looks awesome inside the black forend.

On this model you only remove the knob on the end of the extractor rod to slide the cylinder off the yoke vs. the traditional ones where you actually unscrew the extractor rod to separate them.

Since on this style the cylinder can slide quit a bit before it hits the knob (where the other style doesn't move at all) you probably won't need to separate the two, routinely, to clean the yoke barrel of powder residue; I haven't.

.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, it be appreciated

I always liked the contrast of the black cylinder release, screws, and sights also.

__________________
John 3:16 .

Update-Got the .160 w/o rear site, widened out the notch to the edge of outline and installed it. Huge difference in old eyes being able to aim the pistol, and only 1 click up for the mid range 180/200 jhps.

Even with tilting head down and progressive lenses, the light in between the front post and rear sight enables lining up the fuzzy edges.

As much as I have wanted to like my two month "old", 2.75" bbl. model 69...I never warmed up to it, and once I bought a 329PD the 69 hasn't come out of the safe. I offered it to a friend yesterday who was in the market for a snubby .44 magnum. I'm not saying there was anything wrong with it..it's just that some guns don't instill a sense of comfort for me,and I move them along.

What about 240gr bullets, what's their POI & sight adjustment like?

.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Generally speaking the poi difference between the loads mentioned and high velocity 240 grainers is substantial. Without further modification, am very doubtful the .160 rear site and standard front sight could be sighted in at 25 yads with 240 grainers. It barely makes it for the 180 grainers, which get 1250 fps from 4 inchers.

Am rarely shooting full bore 240 grainers, but when I do they are from a larger n-frame with much longer/heavier barrel.

However the standard sights on the 2.75 in M69 are very tough for my old eyes to use. The rear sight opening needs to be wider for thois short barrel imo.

Groo here
I wonder what the C&S fixed sight would be like on this gun????

It'd be like a Night Guard. Don't know how well it'd work with the short front sight though.

I'm just the opposite. I put adjustable rear sights, & ramped front sights, on most of my NGs.

.

357NG - adjustable sights & Pac grips (-01b)


.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

I have a 4.25" on the way and am wondering the same thing.

Also, does anyone have part numbers for a stainless thumbpiece and screws? I'm not a huge fan of the "panda" look.

According to Smith and Wesson you are not supposed to separate the yoke from the cylinder because they were hand fitted together.

???

.

A buddy of mine has a S&W model 69. He has had an ongoing problem with the cylinder locking up after 25-30 rounds. It isn't due to unburned powder under the extractor star. He also has a recent 686 that has given him headaches. I have been convinced to stay away from post lock S&W revolvers.

Could you please describe the procedure with any tricks/warnings? It would be sincerely appreciated!

Put a couple fired cases in the chambers to help the ratchet tips out, then use a vice with leather pads, a drill press chuck (NO POWER) to grip the tip of rod without messing up the knurling, then simply unscrew it turning the cylinder opposite of how you would turn a nut to loosen it as the rod is LEFT HAND THREAD. Assemble same way firmly tight. No need to go all out gorilla on it.

BTW once you remove the frame screw by the yoke, using a proper screw driver, the yoke and cylinder will slide out if cylinder is fully open. Then the cylinder and rod assembly will slide off the yoke. There is seldom any good reason to go farther than that. Do not use a normal screw drive you need a "hollow ground" gunsmith screw driver as the tips are cut in such a way that the 2 sides of the blade are parallel not tapered like a mechanics screw driver

Appreciate the help, but don't believe the cylinder simply slides off the yoke on this newer design.

sure it does. Battery hand drill chuck is your friend.

On a M69 the yoke will not slide out of the cylinder, until the center pin (don't know correct term) is removed. This is different from the regular arrangement i thought Steelslaver was indicating. And the center pin is much thinner. Found your earlier post, and found out it is reverse threaded. Will try the drill chuck (carefully) as you and Steelslaver indicated. Also appreciated a picture of the parts. Would have thought someone would have made a longer clamp type arrangement for the center pin so the force was more widely distributed to protect the pin from amateurs like myself.

I corrected my earlier post which for some reason I had changed prior & made it incorrect. Sorry.

.
.

The yoke will not slide off the extractor rod (because of its knob) until you separate the extractor rod from the extractor & then you can remove the cylinder from the assembly. (The center pin is inside the extractor's shaft.)

Wrap something around the knob to protect it & a common pair of slip-lock pliers is probably all that's needed to turn it CW to loosen the rod from the extractor.

I wouldn't use the thin part of the extractor rod to turn it. The knob is of larger diameter than the rest of the rod.

.



.
.
.

A new yoke would need to be checked for a proper fit before final installation with a cylinder but "separating" the parts, taking them apart & putting the same parts back together, won't hurt anything.

.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

And i forgot had already asked the question, and what the name of the extractor rod was. My joints aren't the only things decaying.

The M69 is my favorite. I have both barrel lengths. Just recently got the 2.75 inch one. I had a problem with the 4.25 inch one. Action didn't fell right when I cocked the gun. I never (very seldom) shoot single action so I don't know how long it had been like this. The only reason I did it this time was because I was testing the trigger pull. Anyway, I took it to my gunsmith and he found the mainspring strain screw had become loose. Fast forward a few years and I get the 2.75 incher. Shot it several times and then, on one trip to the range I had several FTF's. Originally I was blaming the ammo but decided to check the strain screw when I got home. Sure enough, loose as can be. A couple minutes and some blue loctite and it's been fine since. I have never had this happen to any of my other revolvers.

For the black screws and release latch, I used a red scotchbrite pad to remove the black coating. Take the screws and latch off and rub them on the pad.

Paul, did you get any leading with the cast bullets? I know a few people that are having really good accuracy with 69's and I'm sorely tempted since 696's are very pricey nowdays but I will shoot cast exclusively IF...they will digest my 11 Brinell hard bullets @44 spl velocities.

I haven't had any problems with leading. A lot of the cast I've shot have had gas checks. Most of the balance were commercial coated 240gr CSWCBB - I have one 2.75" that has over a thousand rnds of the coated deep seated over 17.5gr A2400 and haven't cleaned the barrel in that time (these chrono 1,100 fps or a bit more in the 2.75".

I've read others who have had leading problems, so, as they say, your mileage may vary.

Paul

Powder coating is a savior when cylinder throats match the barrel groove or even if they are .001 smaller but after that the mileage REALLY starts to vary. Something is working properly because the 69's I've seen are tack drivers. Thanks for all the info.