|
|
05-30-2018, 02:09 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 375
Likes: 618
Liked 425 Times in 204 Posts
|
|
Model 69
I had both models-4.2 & 2 3/4 in. in my hand today.I had not had both together before and I noticed the short bbl. had the ball detent and the long bbl. did not! I never noticed this before and I thought both models had the ball detent? Why would one have it and the other not? The salesman did not know and I am just guessing the strength and recoil would be the same? What am I missing? Thanks.
|
05-30-2018, 04:37 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Central Montana
Posts: 13,693
Likes: 12,841
Liked 39,387 Times in 10,025 Posts
|
|
The 4 1/4 model should have a ball detent, just quite different. The 4 1/4 model came out quite a bit before the 2 3/4 and didn't have the same type ball detent The ball detent in my early 69 has spring/ball in the yoke going forward into a notch in the ejector shroud. Newer model has "lump" with spring/ball on the frame mating into the yoke.
|
05-30-2018, 05:48 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 375
Likes: 618
Liked 425 Times in 204 Posts
|
|
Thanks,is one stronger or just a different way of installation? Do you know why they changed?
|
05-30-2018, 07:11 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Central Montana
Posts: 13,693
Likes: 12,841
Liked 39,387 Times in 10,025 Posts
|
|
I think some of it was due the the fact a of of people didn't get that the early design the ball wasn't supposed to bottom in the center of the notch in shroud. It was designed to be constantly pressing yoke inward. Then it was probably easier to machine it the newer method. Either is actual better in ways than the older lock at end of rod method in my opinion. Locking way out on the end of a rod that turns and need an amount of clearances in ordered to turn smoothly with little resistance, vs just locking up the yoke itself like the newer systems. The front lock only needs a little bit to over come any force caused by the hand rotating the cylinder in the direction that the cylinder opens and most of that force is taken up by the lock up of center pin in the recoil shield anyway. Lots of competition PPC guns back in the day used heavy aftermarket barrels with no front lock and did well in serious competition.
The model 69 went away from the conventional lock because using the conventional front lock only allowed a very thin forcing cone area on the L frame 44 calibers.
Here is forcing cones on my 696 (right) and early 69 (left). You can see the 69 cone area is considerably thicker
Last edited by steelslaver; 05-31-2018 at 09:10 AM.
|
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
|
|
05-30-2018, 07:53 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 375
Likes: 618
Liked 425 Times in 204 Posts
|
|
Thank you for the great information. If I am correct in my thinking,the 2 3/4 ball detent is a stronger system than the front lock? I think the 69 is a well developed revolver,especially in the short barrel.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
05-30-2018, 07:57 PM
|
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: The Badger State
Posts: 6,548
Likes: 3,410
Liked 6,481 Times in 3,065 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by junglefighter
I had both models-4.2 & 2 3/4 ...
|
Do they both have a two-piece barrel, and is it the same type of two-piece barrel? (There was more than one design).
__________________
~ S&W aficionado in training ~
|
05-30-2018, 08:07 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 375
Likes: 618
Liked 425 Times in 204 Posts
|
|
They both have 2 piece barrels.I am unable to tell you about different barrels,as this question is beyond my knowledge.
|
05-31-2018, 01:25 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moscow, Idaho USA
Posts: 2,656
Likes: 9,623
Liked 1,696 Times in 679 Posts
|
|
The barrel set up is the same, only the length is changed !
|
05-31-2018, 06:19 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Central Montana
Posts: 13,693
Likes: 12,841
Liked 39,387 Times in 10,025 Posts
|
|
I think either of them is has a very good lock up that is an improvement over the system used by conventional S&W of years gone by (except the great triple lock system). But, non of the systems lack for strength as very little is needed. The real strength improvement is that either of the ball detent lock up systems allow for a larger barrel shank and therefore thicker edge of the forcing cone. This was not necessary on 357 L frames because of their smaller bores, or necessary on N frames because of their larger frames. The new model 19s use a similar system to lock up which is an improvement over the old model 19s, The old model 19s had a spot on the bottom barrel extension (shank) so the front nose of cylinder could clear. This spot caused a thin spot that sometimes cracked.
The older front lug lock on the end of the ejector rod was plenty strong and works wonderfully, but, needed a perfectly straight ejector rod and length adjustment to function at its best, due to the fact the ejector rod turns on it locking lug as the cylinder rotates. Any slack or bend in the ejector rod mechanism meant possible yoke movement or binding as the cylinder turned. Also a ejector rod coming loose on these models would cause them to fail to release the cylinder and even bind up the cylinder rotation. If the rod is a little long a bit of binding and possible failure to open, a little short and inferior lock up. A slightly bent or loosened rod on the newer system would not effect rotation or opening of cylinder, but of course would still not be ideal. Plus, that older type lock up is farther from the actual yoke and the yoke is what needs to be held in alignment. Mechanically, the closer to the point of movement the better a good securing mechanism will work.
In short the strength improvement isn't strength of the lock up at all. The strength improvement comes in allowing a bigger barrel extension which makes for a thicker forcing cone. IMHO, for the reasons mentioned above, there is also a slight mechanical advantage in the lock up location and the fact none of the locking parts rotate.
Millions upon millions of the older style lock up revolvers have never failed because of the strength of that lock up method. Any failures where from bend, loose or poorly adjusted rods, or rarely a spring failure. A spring failure in the new style lock ups would cause problems also.
Last edited by steelslaver; 05-31-2018 at 06:30 AM.
|
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
|
|
08-24-2018, 03:50 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 375
Likes: 618
Liked 425 Times in 204 Posts
|
|
As there is only an 1 1/4 in. difference in bbl. length,IMHO both will CCW without any problem,which lock up do the experts recommend? I will carry 44SPL. as my everyday carry,but I want the 44Mag. as a woods load and will be shooting both.I just cannot decide on which lock up is better.Thanks.
|
08-24-2018, 05:02 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 350
Likes: 20
Liked 481 Times in 142 Posts
|
|
I would go with the shorter barrel for CCW use. I will carry my 4 inch 69 in a field holster.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
08-24-2018, 05:08 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 550
Liked 1,427 Times in 666 Posts
|
|
I had a 629-5 where galling on the end of the extractor rod prevented the cylinder latch from moving forward. I couldn't unlatch the cylinder. Gunsmith had to fix it.
I've owned both barrel lengths.
The short barrel front lockup is really firm on my gun. I believe though either design is sufficient for the purpose.
Be aware that the 2.75 weighs only 34 oz. It gets jumpy as the power gets into the magnum range. But it is a very accurate gun if you can manage it.
|
08-25-2018, 12:32 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: N.E. OKLA.
Posts: 6,484
Likes: 5,882
Liked 9,327 Times in 3,495 Posts
|
|
Everybody's different but I find the M69 snubby is surprising easy to shoot with recoil (muzzle flip) less than my N-frames (grip line is supposedly closer to the bore line since it's a L-frame.)
I like it's ball detent better than the earlier style. It's a strong gun that shoots very well.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
__________________
Waiting for the break of day
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
08-25-2018, 12:47 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 375
Likes: 618
Liked 425 Times in 204 Posts
|
|
Thanks.This is what I was waiting to see and read.I am not able to fire either one and I am relying on this forum for advice.Either one would not be a mistake to purchase,I just cannot decide which one and I am able to only buy one.
|
08-25-2018, 10:14 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 585
Liked 1,841 Times in 604 Posts
|
|
Some of the following has been covered above.
Two different ball detents on both the M69 and the M66-8.
Four inch guns have the ball on the front of the crane that fits in a V notch in the base of the ejector rod shroud. This is was the original ball detent lockup system that came out on the 4” M69s (and later the 4” 66-8s). Lots of wining, hand ringing, and angst about the ball not being centered in the V notch when the cyl was closed. I have yet to see anything on the various internet forums relating to failure of that lock up system introduced in late 2013 or early 2014. I like the ball dentent lock up better than the traditional – don’t have to worry about ejector rod creep, bent ejector rods, peening of center pin, etc.
Here’s a pic of the ball and v notch
Ball on the front of the crane
When the 2 ¾” versions were introduced (both M69 and M66-8), the ball/detent was changed and the ball is on the frame and locks up in a detent in the cyl end of the crane.
Detent on back of crane/yoke
Ball on frame
The later (2 ¾” gun version) is a cleaner look and just appears more solid. Never heard of any problem with either. It is a mechanical device, so it’s certainly subject to failure at some point.
I haven’t found any intrinsic accuracy difference due to barrel length. Obviously, you will lose some velocity and sight radius with the shorter barrel. I’ve been shooting the shorter barreled guns almost exclusively for the last four months or so and really like them. Loaded up some test loads with the Missouri Bullet 300gr coated Hammer, deep seated at 1.598” OAL over 20.0gr of W296, and CCI 350s. The load only shot about 4” at 25 yds, so I shot the balance (30 rnds) double action at the plate rack and a target from 7 to 12 yards. Shot as fast as I could reacquire the front sight on the bottom point of the diamond at 7 yds and just a bit more deliberate at 12 yds -- Jerry Miculek I AIN’T but it was fun and instructive. Just a bit of fouling, but no real leading after 34 rnds of the MB HiTec coated bullets. 7 yds
12 yds
Here are some chrono results for both barrel lengths.
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
310gr FNGCDC (Lee dual crimp grove) with 20.0gr H110, Crimped in top crimp gr 1,100 fps
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
310gr FNGCDC (Lee dual crimp grove) with 20.0gr H110, Crimped in top crimp gr 1,140 fps
325gr WLNGC (BTB) with 22.0gr H110 avg 1,182
I know recoil is personal and I'm not a recoil junky. I'm 72 and have mildly arthritic hands and wrists, thin easily abraded skin and various other age related maladies (not complaining, just establishing a point of refererence). Been shooting my second 2 ¾” gun w/ factory grips for a little over a month and have 800 plus rnds down the pipe. The majority of those have been 240 JFPs over 24.0gr WW296. I shoot 30 to 50 rounds several times a week and always wish I had brought more ammo. Not thumping my chest, just saying that the m69 platform handles recoil amazingly well.
As much as I like/use the 2 ¾” gun, if I could only have one, it would be the 4 ¼”.
FWIW,
Paul
Last edited by Paul105; 08-25-2018 at 10:19 AM.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
08-25-2018, 10:14 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 610
Likes: 79
Liked 493 Times in 210 Posts
|
|
Got to the range today and put 60 rd through the new to me 69. 30 of very mild HSM 44 spl, 20 of moderate LAX 44 mag, and only 10 of "full power" Herter's 44 mag. When I say full power, I don't mean they're bear loads, just normal range 44 mag as opposed to a light load. Even at that, the Herter's puts some smack on you with this gun. Not too bad though, certainly not painful. I think the LAX is a very good range load for this gun, at 240 gr and just over 1000 fps. Too bad I've only got 40 rd left of it. No negatives to report about the gun. Decent DA trigger, great SA trigger. Had easy ejection and very strong primer strikes. Best I did was this 10 yd group. (1 1/16") Slow SA with the 44 spls. Shot a little high right. I see the sight was quite a ways right, so I suppose the previous owner was compensating for shooting low left. Pretty happy with the gun so far.
Last edited by shakyshoot; 08-25-2018 at 10:16 PM.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
08-26-2018, 10:46 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 585
Liked 1,841 Times in 604 Posts
|
|
Picture of 50 yd groups shot with 2 3/4" gun rested over my range bag. The two groups were shot on different days. I think the short sight radius, red ramp and old eyes contributed to vertical stringing.
.
Here are a couple of targets shot with my original 4 1/4" gun during load development.
.
Checking POI of various bullet weight/loads. 25 yards rested -- same sight picture (center of middle) diamond for all shots. Only shot two rounds of each load to minimize target clutter and reduce recoil induced fatigue.
And last but not least, the 300gr Missouri Bullet 300gr Hammer
.
These guns will shoot with both barrel lengths.
FWIW,
Paul
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
08-26-2018, 12:48 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 550
Liked 1,427 Times in 666 Posts
|
|
You da' man, Paul. <Respect>
A 200 gr. bullet with 17 gr of AA 7 is as far as I care to go with a 2.75. With the above load offhand I can put 3 rounds into 3 1/2" at 25 yds. After three the hands get the shakes from the shock of recoil and the group opens up.
|
08-26-2018, 04:12 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Southern FL, East side.
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 2,330
Liked 3,028 Times in 1,260 Posts
|
|
I agree with Paul about the little gun handling recoil amazingly well. However, I haven't launched anything over 240GR. Of course I haven't launched anything under 240 either.
I do have a box of Keith style bullets I cast many years ago (Lyman mould 255GR I think) but they haven't been lubed or sized. Should I use my Harbor Freight powder coat kit on them and then run them through the Lyman Lube Sizer without a lube stick? I've never powder coated bullets. I think I have both white and black powder.
Wow, I just hunted them down. I probably have at least a thousand of them. With the lube I used to use I liked the Lee mould better as it had more grease grooves and less leading. The Lyman only has one wide groove.
|
08-26-2018, 07:07 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 350
Likes: 20
Liked 481 Times in 142 Posts
|
|
Nice shooting with those 69's !
Hope to have mine back again soon and get more shooting in.
I did have a chance to fire some of those MB Hammer bullets before I shipped it off the 2nd time.
|
08-26-2018, 07:28 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 560
Likes: 110
Liked 527 Times in 249 Posts
|
|
Yea they will shoot. 25 or 50 yard rested groups will show true potential. You can shoot at 10 or 12 yards but a lot of loads will really open open up at 25 or more. I like try to get 2 inches or less at 25 yards for six shots (5 with a 69). Hard to do consistently but I have found a few loads with my 4 inch 69 that will do it.
Last edited by dogdoc; 08-26-2018 at 08:21 PM.
|
08-26-2018, 08:45 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 375
Likes: 618
Liked 425 Times in 204 Posts
|
|
I no longer reload,but these facts and group sizes are interesting.Thanks again for all the feedback.I think the M69 is a well thought out and performing revolver.I am reading no problems from either the returned from S&W or just new and fired.It does look like the 4.2 in. bbl. is the way I will go.Again,thanks for all the information.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|