New Model 69

M69

Ok, one of the complaints about the 696 was its inability to handle "hotter" loads. I wonder what has happened with the 69 to fix that?

This is what I'm wondering too. What did they do to correct the barrel extension/forcing cone weakness of the 696/396?

I think (hope) other barrel length's will come later. At first glance you don't see much different between my 357NG or 329NG & the 396NG, until you compare the top frame straps & yoke thickness. The L frame is a handy size, not too big & not too small. I hope it sells well for them.

.

396NG barrel extension
M396NGbarrelextension_zps4be7334f.jpg
 
This is what I'm wondering too. What did they do to correct the barrel extension/forcing cone weakness of the 696/396?

I think (hope) other barrel length's will come later. At first glance you don't see much different between my 357NG or 329NG & the 396NG, until you compare the top frame straps & yoke thickness. The L frame is a handy size, not too big & not too small. I hope it sells well for them.

.

396NG barrel extension
M396NGbarrelextension_zps4be7334f.jpg

While I have not looked at the piece on Smith's site I would expect that the cylinder is longer hence barrel extension shorter and I would not be surprised if they went the two piece barrel route to help manage this as well.
 
While I have not looked at the piece on Smith's site I would expect that the cylinder is longer hence barrel extension shorter and I would not be surprised if they went the two piece barrel route to help manage this as well.

Yes, The sales literature states it has the two piece barrel. I would think the engineers would have addressed this issue in depth during development. With all the controversy over the 696, whether real or internet hype, I think it is still a very valid question.
 
Ok 2 new s&w in a row really have my interest. Was looking for a 696, this might be better with the option of 44 mag loads on occasion. Is s&w finally paying attention to something other than plastic?
 
Just put my name in line for one at my LGS. Hopefully we will start seeing these sooner rather than later. Not too soon though so I have time to get my funds together. Getting three S&Ws this year. 69, 66 and 500.
 
Had the thought this morning that a .41 Magnum would be even better! More metal at the forcing cone and a wee bit less earthshaking with factory loads. (Not that I shoot many of those.)

The fixed sight idea mentioned above isn't bad either, or maybe fixed night sight.

The slightly shorter distance between trigger and backstrap is one reason I like this new package. It's way easier for me to shoot double action accurately.

ETA: Need to fire up the lead pot and commence casting! Very likely this Model 69 is going to be a hungry little beastie.
 
Last edited:
Been stewing on this blasted gun all day. Why the 4.25" barrel? I believe Canada has the longer barrel requirement. (may be wrong) Is this a one size fits all to suffice their barrel regulations. Lets hear from our members up North.
 
I don't see the solution and the problem overlapping at all. 2 piece barrel? Meh. I'll keep my 629-4MG.

Obviously, I seem to be in the minority on this, and so S&W may have a winner on their hands.
 
Is something wrong with the K frames? It seems the excitement stems from this being in a an L frame? What am I missing?
 
Is something wrong with the K frames? It seems the excitement stems from this being in a an L frame? What am I missing?

Well, this IS the first big bore Magnum L frame. .44 Magnum in a more compact package is appealing to a lot of folks. The L frame also shares the same grip size as the K frame. Many shooters find the N frame grip to be too large for them.
 
Back
Top