I took interest when the 69 came out in 2014, have shot and packed .44 mag for decades.
I packed a Magnaported Model 629 and a 629 Mountain Gun for many years, along with a 5 1/2" Redhawk and a custom Ruger Bisley.
The last few years, away from Grizzly country and no longer hunting big game, I have mostly shot mild .45 Colt loads and .357 Magnum.

I bought the 69 from a guy that had fired 2 rounds of factory 300 grain JSP and gave up on it. He said he was going to buy a 686 with the money he got from selling the 69.
It sure helps to be a reloader when you own a big bore sixgun and he wasn't.

Only things I disliked upon initial inspection was the crown (not much of a crown at all and burrs in the rifling) and some roughness & tool marks on the top strap near the breech end of barrel. It's inside the frame, not noticeable when the cylinder is closed. I cleaned up the muzzle with my Brownell's kit and put more of a recessed crown on it.

I wanted to break in the sharp rifling with jacketed loads first.
I've shot 300 rounds of 240 grain XTPs loaded with 8 grains of Universal.
There is some roughness in the forcing cone and throats, so I might get some leading with plain based lead until I clean those up.

I now have 3 boxes of the excellent Cast Performance 260 grain WFNGC. And yesterday got some 270 grain Speer Gold Dot JSPs. I loaded up both with HS-6 and am going out today to test different powder charges for accuracy.

I will probably never use H110/296 or 2400, as I have a 4.2" barrel. Those powders are much better suited for those that have long barrels and are desiring full power loads.
Something with a burn rate like Unique/Universal suits me for practice loads, and then step up to a bit slower burning powder like HS-6 for the mid power loads.

If I was planning on more full power load use, I'd get the Hogue X grips.
The factory grips on the 69 are comfortable but the rubber is not soft up at the web of your hand. Plus it's a tiny bit of a reach for my finger to get to the trigger.
For now, I have some Hogue round butt grips that have the exposed backstrap, so finger reach is good.

I just ordered some Hogue Walnut Burl grips. I want to eventually get some Ahrends but there is a wait. Hogues (that are in stock anyway) arrive at my house in a couple of days.
I'll do some work on them, remove finger grooves and round the bottom some, then they'll be like I like them.

One thing I've noticed about the 69 compared to the N frame .44s is recoil is different. I don't get slammed in the web of my hand as bad with the 69, must be the lower bore axis thing.
And when I'm shooting double action (95% of the time) I am more aware of the cylinder rotating around than when using a 6, 7 or 8 shot cylinder. I guess it's because with each stroke of the hammer, the cylinder has to rotate farther to bring up the next chamber.

I've been using a Bianchi holster from an L frame, works fine, but I just got a nice DeSantis pancake holster from E-Bay that I like better.
Glad I finally got around to getting a Model 69
Here's my 69 with my other Smiths. Now I need a 4 inch 66 to fit right in between the 63 and 69!

__________________
U. S. Army Veteran

My favorite DA revolver platform. Currently shooting the 2.75" version. I've used the 260gr WFNGC over a charge of H110 - very accurate and decent velocity from both bbl lengths.

My current "go to" loads use the common 240gr SWC BB with HyTech coating offered by various commercial casters. One is 5.0 gr of WST and the other is 17.5gr of A2400 - both deep seated and crimped over the front drive band in .44 mag cases. Neither of these loads lead. I did shoot a bunch (don't know actual number) of Zero 240gr JSPs before settling on the above.

Shown with a set of worn out hastily modified Hogue Tamers with finger grooves removed and butt rounded. If patient, a much better job can be achieved on the grips.



Hope you enjoy your M69 as much as I've enjoyed mine.

Paul

I read all the back threads about the M69 back to 2014, those threads, especially yours Paul, helped me decide to purchase this revolver.
I see that your 2.75" has a blackened ejector rod, must be a more recent change by S&W.
Had to put a lighter return spring on mine. SA is now 3 1/2# and DA is an even 9#.

__________________
U. S. Army Veteran

Saw this thread and just had to go shoot mine a few times. I sure enjoy my Model 69

S&W definitely hit a home run when the came out with the re-engineered M69.

.



.
.



.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

By re-engineered, do mean making the L frame a 44 Magnum or have there been changes since it was introduced?

Thank you.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

I got out and tried the ammo I had loaded.
There were two loads that were promising, and a couple others that had potential, but for a flyer that could have been my fault.
Yes, I know that the groups hit high, I moved the rear sight down 4 clicks to the bottom, impact is much closer now.
If I need more, I'll have to get a lower sight leaf.

The 260 WFNGC with Universal shot the best at 9.0 grains. A bit stiffer than the 8.0 grs. I use for the practice loads, but still a pleasant load.
3 shots were right together.

The Speer 270 grain Gold Dot didn't do well with my starting load of 11.5 grains, the group was 4 1/4". With 11.8 grs though, it was good.

All the targets I shot today were fired SA at 25 yards using an MTM pistol rest.

I went to a new shooting place I found, a gravel pit with Forest Service signs encouraging people to use the area for target practice but to keep it clean.
Nice place to shoot 50 yards or under, but I'll have to remember to go earlier next time.
The sun was over the target more than I liked and my front sight was really glaring. Couldn't safely shoot in another direction either.
The loads, and the M69 are probably capable of even better accuracy under better lighting conditions.

I would say the recoil with the 260 or 270 grain bullets and 11.8 grains of HS-6 was enough that it's about at my limit.
But I can't believe how different the recoil of this is compared to an N frame.
It lifts off the rest, dang high, but it doesn't come back against the web of my hand like I remember my 629s doing.
Granted these aren't full throttle loads, but I have no need to go higher just to see when my hand starts hurting.
Any of these bullets at 1000 to 1100 will go right through any big creature.

Today instead of the factory grips I used the Hogue rubber grips that follow the round butt's backstrap ( true RB grip not a round to square conversion). They are comfortable, just have that ugly as sin rubber look.
The DeSantis holster works well back behind the hip at 8 o'clock (or 4 o'clock for you right handers) and the 69 carries very comfortable in it.
And I lucked out, with this holster the 4 1/4" barrel doesn't stick out 1/4" !

__________________
U. S. Army Veteran

I like it and the results.
You guys with the 2.75 inch versions please do not post anymore pictures of your revolvers I am broke. LOL

The short barrel has a different version of the ball and detent front lock up, than the long barrel. Otherwise there hasn't been an engineering change since introduction.
I really like my 2.75".

__________________
To cannon, all men are equal

Thank you.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

I bought a 69 and a 66 when they came out in 2014. The 69 has the best trigger I've ever had on a revolver, almost like they tuned it as a surprise for the buyer. The 66 trigger is much harder and less smooth than the 69. The grips are factory on both and feel comfortable enough but the 69 still rubs the skin off my thumb just about at 50 rounds.

Question, does anyone have a similar experience as I do with the 69 trigger?

If you reread all the old 69 threads you probably read mine. I've had a brother to yours since 2015 and it has become my favorite 44. I agree with a different recoil impulse with the L frame.
I was underwhelmed when Smith announced the 69 but once I handled it I fell in love with it. My 69 is my most accurate 44 and I have several including a nice old pre 29.

It's also a nice size to pack out in the woods. I like your DeSantis.

Just a note. The early 69s in 4" had a "short" front sight. I ordered the next size up and solved the bottoming out problem with the 69. My 69 when I first got it shot high, the taller front sight solved the problem,.

I sent my M69 into the Performance Center for the full action tuneup. It came back an even better revolver than when it left.

My two favorite loads are the Garrett Defender and the Remington Mid-range 240gr lead flat nose. Both are mild recoil and have good records on
game.

__________________
Captain Dave Funk

When I turned 60...I gave up on Smith ever making a L frame 44 mag, so I bought a 629 with a 3 inch barrel. Love the gun.

But then ....they made the 69....2 3/4 inch.....

I bought a 69 for my 65th birthday...

I called Milt Sparks for over a year to get a VM 2...{he had to have a dummy gun made for the form}

I've been loading the Speer 200 gr short barrel JHP to 1000 fps. gives me what I like. Love the 69...

My trigger pull was very smooth but heavier in DA than I liked hence the spring change. Not as smooth as the older 686's I've had, but they had a lot more rounds thru them than the 69 has. It will continue getting better with use.

I appreciate being a reloader with cartridges like the .44 Mag.

Those of us that reload can find that sweet spot where we are at that threshold of comfort vs. controllability as far as recoil.

As far as accuracy, I saw what the difference of a mere .3 of a grain of HS-6 did, my groups with the heavier charge were less than half that of the lighter charge.

And in the economy department, if you were forward thinking enough to stock up on a bunch of factory ammo, you got it for $35 a box, maybe even less. Now it is $70 a box many places.
I would not get the pleasure of shooting much if I had to pay those prices. Glad I can hand load.

__________________
U. S. Army Veteran

.

Both, but what I mainly had in my mind when I said re-engineered was mostly in reference to the changes S&W made to allow the 44 Special L-frame M696 to make the change to 44 Magnum in the M69 in 2014.

Increasing the frame diameter where the barrel screws into the frame (frame threads), & barrel shank, as well as re-engineering of the yoke to place enough supporting steel around the barrel threads was paramount to chamber it for the .44 Magnum.

And as shocker said, the 4-1/4 M69 got an early version of the spring-loaded ball bearing lock on the crane.

When S&W came out with the 2-1/2" M69 they revised that to the newer version spring-loaded ball bearing lock.

.

4-1/4" bbl M69



.
.

2-1/2" bbl spring-loaded ball bearing lock



.
.

The stronger barrel breach of the M69 -vs- M696 family



.
.



.
.

At the range it wears a set of Diamond Pro's



.
.

It's got relatives it lives with



.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Update, I got a companion piece for the M69, a Marlin 1894P made back in 2001.
The "P" model has a 16 1/8" ported barrel, nice checkered wood like the Cowboy models have, and a recoil pad and sling swivels.
It sure is handy, and kicks less than any other .44 Mag carbine you'll find.
Granted, the heaviest load I shot was the one with 12.0 grains of HS-6 behind a Speer 270 grain Gold Dot JSP, but it felt like shooting a .38 Special lever. The porting helps mostly with muzzle rise, but first impression is that this carbine is very easy on your shoulder.

I slapped a Burris Fastfire on it until the Skinner Express peep gets here.
The carbine shot 50 yard groups with my revolver loads in the 1 1/2" range, no doubt will do better with loads worked up expressly for it.
The Marlins have a very slow twist, too slow at 1-38". It seems it is more accurate with loads that are more full tilt.
Mandatory mediocre pictures:

__________________
U. S. Army Veteran

I wish I would have known it was the front sight that was causing the problem before I sent it back to the factory for shooting high. I really just wanted them to send me a shorter blade but they wouldn't do that. They replaced the rear sight with one that has a shorter blade and also shipped the original rear sight assembly back to me.

The shorter blade solves the problem of the gun shooting high but the shallow sight makes it harder to get a good sight picture. Since I have the original rear sight I might try getting a new front sight that is taller and put the original rear sight back on.

Lots of options from Dawson Precision -- got several on mine - really like the 1/10" versions. Gun Sights - Smith & Wesson - Dawson Front Sights - Dawson Precision, Inc.

Also, a sight height calculator to figure the front sight you need. Sight Calculator

Paul

Heading off now to search for a 69...

Where did you order your front sight from? Thanks

What's your opinion on Mag-na-port on the 2.75?

See post #20 above for some options. Link highlighed in yellow.

Paul

Would help a bit with muzzle flip if you are shooting full house 44 magnums. Probably not worth it if using 44 specials or low end 44s.

I personally don't find the recoil of the 2.75" as harsh as the 4 1/4". My theory is that the lower velocity of the shorter barrel offsets the lighter weight and shorter barrel. Of course, your mileage may vary.

FWIW,

Paul