696 worries... real or no problem?

[PetersCustomLeather]

I love the idea of a 44 special in this size of gun. I was all set to hunt one down and then.... I saw a picture of one with the cylinder flopped down and Oh My...... the forcing cone looks paper thin!

Now, I would not be loading up hot rounds really... It would be nice if i could load 1000FPS 255gr lead though.....

I'm wondering if that's risky in these or maybe that thin FC is nothing to worry about. What do you all think/know about these? Is there any worries with that thin area? Am I worried about nothing?

Thanks.

 

[Dave T]

Now, I would not be loading up hot rounds really... It would be nice if i could load 1000FPS 255gr lead though.....

I'm almost afraid to ask what you consider a "hot" 44 Special?

Dave

 

[Dale53]

The best way I know how to answer this question is to state that if I run into one for a reasonable price I will buy it. I WILL use it, too!!

I have a number of .44 Specials and my most used load for them is the old Skeeter Load (7.5 grs of Unique behind a good 250 gr Keith). This will give you 950+ depending on which revolver it is shot in. I consider that an excellent field or self defense load.

Dale53

 

[PetersCustomLeather]

The best way I know how to answer this question is to state that if I run into one for a reasonable price I will buy it. I WILL use it, too!!

I have a number of .44 Specials and my most used load for them is the old Skeeter Load (7.5 grs of Unique behind a good 250 gr Keith). This will give you 950+ depending on which revolver it is shot in. I consider that an excellent field or self defense load.

Dale53

That's the load I use for my Ruger flattop and would be more than happy running that in a carry gun.

Ok... maybe I need to try and find one of these some place!

Thanks!

 

[Nick B]

I ordered one when they first came out . One look at the FC was enough for me to trade it off . I shoot alot and just didn't feel comfortable with that thin cone .

 

[badbob38]

I have 2 S&W 696 stainless in 44spl,and I have pushed 260 and 310 gr swc out of them. Both are mighty fine guns,with that 310 you better load hot so it will make out the other end, I have 6 S&W and they all are 44spl. they will do everything I need them to do. If Elmer would have left them alone they be top dog.I like to take both 696s and load them with 250 Black Hills (Keith) shoot them both at once and watch everyone on the line with eyes watering,cough the new ones that dont know me has brown marks donntyouknow. Ive been shooting here since 1972. Mommy burn the house down Ill built you another.

 

[Joed49]

I just posted this on another thread earlier but once again.

The 696 is a nice gun. Stick with standard .44 Spl loads and it will last you forever, try to mimic Elmer Keith and you can kiss it goodbye.

The problem is the forcing cone is thin. There's a reason S&W quit making these.

When the 696 came out I looked at them but went for the 686+ instead.

I don't own a 696 and probably never will at the prices they are going for. I do however own a Taurus 445 which is about the same size. It also has a thin forcing cone. It was made to shoot .44 Spl at standard velocity and that's all I shoot in it.

I have a few N frame .44 Spls, I have no regrets about shooting hotter loads in any of these but they are just built better.

 

[Jeroenw114]

Lately I have seen more discussions about the 696. Very interesting since I recently bought one.

The conclusion looking at all discussions is: the 696 is a great gun and fun to shoot. It's not meant for hot loads and the major reason is the forcing cone. The frame and cylinder is more delicate too of course.
For some the hot loads problem is a reason not to want this gun.
For others the fact that this is a smaller L-frame is reason to want this gun.

If you like a not to heavy gun, only a 3" barrel but accurate with lighter loaded 44's this is a gun for you. Otherwise choose a N-frame.

Just my opinion.
I shot only about 60 rounds trough my (before that) unfired 696 no dash but I was very disappointed that I only loaded 60 rounds! What a FUN gun to shoot.

Choose wise....

 

[VAdoublegunner]

Take a look at the other thread on the 696 for some good info. Yes, the forcing cone is thin compared to a Ruger 44 Special Blackhawk or Vaquero, or a S&W Model 24/624. But it will be able to handle 250gr cast or swaged bullets at 1000fps if that's what you want to feed it. If you can, take a look at Brian Pearce's article that mentions it in Handloader #236. You can reach that with his 'category 2' level loads at 22kpsi.

If there is an issue with the forcing cone, it must be very rare or else those few who have had the problem aren't posting much about it because they tried to turn it into a 44 Mag and are embarrassed to admit it. I see more speculation than actual issues. There are many more substantiated reports of K-frames Magnums being damaged with standard 357 Mag loads but that doesn't seem to stop people for going nuts about them!

 

[jefats]

The 696 is a great gun. Seems if there was a forcing cone issue you'd see more of these models up for sale.

Used as intended you won't have any problems.

 

[BUFF]

I have never seen a broken one, a photo of a broken one, or a first-hand account of someone who has broken one.

I would guess, absent information from someone authoritative at S&W, that they were discontinued because of slow sales, not fragility.

 

[ADP3]

The 696 has the thinnest forcing cone that I have seen on ANY revolver other than the 296. It is also fairly long. S&W was trying to shoehorn the .44 Special into a mid-frame revolver to make it more compact. They accomplished this but the thin forcing cone is the trade off. Every time a bullet is swaged through the forcing cone as it is fired the cone is hammered. The thin cone will be affected more by the pressure and gas more than a stouter one and it will crack sooner. Ask old shooters about their Model 19/66 experience with forcing cones compared to the Model 27/28 shooters. If you want to keep it around for a long, long time load it with swaged lead bullets (Speer, Hornady) and keep velocities at 800 fps or under. If you don't care about an abbreviated life span, load it up to what some are recommending here. If you want to shoot warm or hot .44s look at a Model 24/29 or a Ruger.

Best Regards,
ADP3

 

[DCWilson]

Why wouldn't these forcing-cone concerns also apply to the other L-frame .44s, the 296 and both varieties of the 396? Even with two-part barrels the forcing cone ought to be the same dimensions. I've never heard of split forcing cones in these models.

Mike the thinnest part of the forcing cone. Then mike the thickness of the cylinder wall to the outside of the cylinder. Looks about the same to me. How come I never hear about split chambers from hot loads? I suspect this whole conophobia thing is more a social concern than a consistently repeatable problem.

I don't doubt that extremely hot loads can wreck a gun, and accidental double charges can turn it into shrapnel. But commercial .44 loads should all be safe in an x96, including the warm ones. I have a 696 and a 296 and shoot any commercial loads I want in them, except that I am cautious about the 200-grain bullet limit on the 296. No problems yet. Nor do I expect them.

 

[rburg]

Why wouldn't these forcing-cone concerns also apply to the other L-frame .44s, the 296 and both varieties of the 396?

Clearly you haven't shot any hot loads in a 296 or 396! With those guns, its not the gun having a short life span that worries you, its your hand and wrist being in a cast! Just like the J frame 357s, you can push a small and light 44 too far. They cease to be fun to shoot after the first or second cylinder full. The Ti guns might just be too light for a lot of shooting. They handle the same as the 696 because they're identical except for the weight.

You can shoot mild target loads for a while, but even those become wearisome over time. The same loads you can shoot the 696 all day will become unpleasant with the 396. I have 2 of them, and wouldn't even consider selling either. But for a full day of shooting, I prefer a full size N frame. Its a matter of matching your shooting and the gun. Even with mild loads, a 629 has its advantages. And at the end of the day you look forward to another. Not with dread.

 

[RidgwayCO]

I'm a serious proponent of the .44 Special. I own (and have owned) several revolvers and lever guns in the caliber, and try to read everything available about it. I'm not an expert by any means, but merely a well-read amateur.

IMHO, the finest article ever written on reloading the .44 Special was written by Brian Pearce and published in the Aug-Sep 2005 edition of Handloader magazine (#236 as mentioned previously by VAdoublegunner). Pearce divides his loads into three Categories (15,500 psi, 22,000 psi, and 25,000 psi), with a possible fourth category of 36,000psi for the Freedom Arms Model 1997 revolver. I've chronographed several of the loads he lists in the article, and have found the listed velocities to be very close to the velocities I obtained in my guns.

The S&W M696 received special mention in the article, as Pearce relates that "The factory conducted some rather strenuous torture tests wherein the Model 696 easily endured pressures well beyond anything we will present here." To me, that states rather clearly that the M696 is easily capable of pressures up to 25,000 psi. Would I want to be hanging on to one when a 25,000 psi load was touched off? Not in this lifetime. But that is a completely different topic from whether the gun can handle it.

A 240-255gr lead SWC bullet of .430" diameter at 900-950 fps will do 98% of what I want done with a handgun. The M696 will handle this load easily. And so will my 18oz M396 Airlite Ti with its 3-3/8" barrel. The Airlite will recoil more, and I'll probably restrict the number of shots to 50 rounds (or less) per range visit, but that's a limit on me, not the gun.

I might feel differently about all this if I'd ever SEEN a picture of a damaged forcing cone on a M696, or even READ about someone's forcing cone cracking under strenuous use. But I haven't, and I won't believe it until I do. To simply look at the forcing cone and declare it "too thin" is ludicrous. Ever seen the wing of a T-38 supersonic trainer? Just looking at it, it's hard to believe that skinny/stubby little thing can support the weight of the aircraft and crew at supersonic speeds, but it does (and has for decades).


Note: Handloader #236 is still available from the publisher for $10. The web address is:

Wolfe Publishing Company

 

[tdan]

I'm in ridgeway's camp. I have yet to see a pic of a 696 with a split forcing cone. I've had mine for a long time.......CBN-xxxx.......a lower serial number than is noted in SCSW #3. I purchased this gun new and got it because I handload and was well aware of the potential of the 44Special in a compact platform. I've shot plenty of Hornady 180gr.XTP's that clock just over 1100 fps. in my gun. This is a load that pushes 500 ft/lbs. in energy. I can also tell you that this gun has tight cylinder throats..........429 in my example, which is typical of latter S&W .44cal. revolvers. When just plinking with this gun, I have found that lead bullets sized at .429 shoot just as accurately as bullets sized at .430. If you are concerned with forcing cone weakness, just shoot .429 bullets at typical 44Special velocities. Smith stopped making the L-frame 44Special due to LACK OF SALES! Not to mention, the only self-defense load that was commercially available was the Hornady Custom 180gr. followed latter by the CCI 200gr. GD..........Translation: not much public enthusiasm for the 44Special in a carry gun. Check the time frame when these were introduced.........the age of high capacity wondernines and 40's.........both of which were being continually downsized into more compact platforms. When my forcing cone splits, I will be right here with the pics!

 

[PetersCustomLeather]

I REALLY love the look of this gun! I too really enjoy the 44 Special and load for my Ruger Flattop. I load 7.5 gr of Unique to push a 255 grain SWC. That load just shoots super in my gun and I would be more than happy using it for SD in one of these Smiths. It sounds like it should be fine to use a steady diet of that load.

 

[alaskavett]

My 696 has been all over Alaska as it packs very well. Yes it has been fired with some heavy loads but it is fine. It makes one hell of a hole and is easy to control. Great gun but one has to remember it is not a .44 mag nor was it intended to be one. Kyle

 

[Pappy John]

Never had any problems with mine, but I didn't hot rod the loads either. 240 grs @ 800 fps was enough for anything I wanted it to do.

I owned it for several years, but when it's value got up to the level of the set of Michelins that my truck needed a couple years ago, I decided that I'd let someone else enjoy it.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

I ordered mine when they were first announced. Prior to that I was shooting (the other 3" ss .44 spl). A Rossi. The Rossi came several years before the 696. Its essentially the same size gun. 5 shot, 3" bbl. etc.. Point is I have and still shoot both. All they get is a 250 gr. cast swc pushed by 7.5 grs. of unique. I believe they will outlast me.
Now as to Charter's 44's I wouldn't have one if they were free.