model 696 or the new model 69?

[681ismyfavorite]

through culling my herd I have the money to buy a 696, one of my holy grail guns. they are hard to come by, and this has me leaning towards the new 69.

I do not like the built in lock so no need to harp on that. I like the 5 shot L frame, preferred a shorter bbl than 4" though. even considered a 629 snub (with lock).

I understand the versatility benefits of a magnum over a special, ammo supply isn't a concern for me with specials... have some co-workers that reload more than I can shoot.

what are your experiences with the new model 69? if you could have only one, and you did not have a .44 at all, which would you get, the 696 or 69? I know the 696 is a $900~ gun vs. the 69 being a little less.... but if you had the money for either or.

 

[quinn]

I own a 696. It is awesome! Had a 3" 629, too. Haven't tried the 69. Happy hunting.

 

[MJFlores]

You can get a new 629 for $800 is you look around. I can't see a 69 living a long life with magnum loads...and they're not all that much smaller than a 629 in my hands anyway.

 

[wolverine]

Morning 681ismyfavorite;

Difficult to say--

I have the new 69 & it is the perfect size for woods carry or moderate range work.

Has a pretty good kick with full bore loads so I had to put a 500 grip on it to allow heavy loads in numbers (10-20 rounds aren't too awful bad with stock grips though).

If the gun was up to the old S&W quality standards I would be a happy camper but like a lot of new entry guns all is not roses.

Great size, good hand fit & balance quality simply sucks.

No way to sugar coat it , in today's S&W mantra if it remotely looks like gun they ship it regardless of defects & let customer service sort it out with the customer.

My 69 was the best of 3 that I looked at & it is no jewel, barrel crown looked like it was cut with a dull axe with big pieces of flashing left on barrel end, cylinder end shake so tight I could hardly turn the cylinder & it was already wearing the recoil shield from binding, barrel extension to cylinder gap huge, frame wowies in ejection rod area, gun shoots WAY high so had to go down one rear blade height & still marginal so really needs a .126" to be in the ball park (I hate shallow notch depth .126 sights though).

I would rate it livable for a $350.00-$400.00 gun but WAY below expectations for what an $800.00+ gun should come out of the factory like.

But it does shoot good, just high.

 

[CH4]

I would choose the 696 over the 69 for the same reasons previously mentioned. However, I have a LH 3" 629, which isn't much larger than the 696 and I can shoot 6 specials or magnums instead of 5.

 

[one eye joe]

If the gun was up to the old S&W quality standards I would be a happy camper but like a lot of new entry guns all is not roses.

Great size, good hand fit & balance quality simply sucks.

No way to sugar coat it , in today's S&W mantra if it remotely looks like gun they ship it regardless of defects & let customer service sort it out with the customer.

[/QUOTE]

THIS IS SUCH A SAD COMMENTARY ON THE STATE OF AFFAIRS @ S&W. THEY MUST BE AWARE OF THE SHODDY PRODUCTS THEY ARE SHIPPING, BY THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AND RETURNS. THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT I CAN COME TO IS THAT THEY JUST DO NOT CARE ABOUT US, THEIR LOYAL CUSTOMERS………...

 

[Voyager28]

Well, respectfully, I totally disagree with the above assessment of the M-69. I have one that is my constant woods carry gun. I have shot it a LOT and it is just as tight today as it was the day I took it our of the box. It has absolutely no end shake and lock up is as solid as a vault.

I shoot both .44 Magnums as well as Specials, both VERY accurately out to 25 yards which is the limits of my eyes/ability. Had to go up 2-3 clicks when I first shot it but it has remained spot on since then.

Like someone else above, I put a 500 Monogrip on mine which makes the recoil with full magnums very manageable. It's still a .44 Magnum and it still kicks but noticeably less so with the 500 grip.

When in the woods I carry it in a Jordan style holster and with its size/shape/weight it sits there almost un-noticeable. It's just an excellent field carry gun

When I first got it, I was not a big fan of the bead blast finish and had every intention of polishing it out. However, after carrying it in the woods numerous times, I find the bead blast to be almost impervious to any and all conditions. So, it is today as it was when I first bought it.

I can't speak to the fit and finish of each and every gun S&W produces these days, but, mine was perfect out of the box and has had zero issues since I've owned it. It most certainly is not the most beautiful S&W I own but it is certainly one of the toughest and will be on my hip for as long as God grants me the ability to go there.

Bob

 

[Paul105]

My experience with the M69 is the same as Voyager28s except my guns shoot high with .44 Mag ammo and the rear sight bottomed out.

I have two 69s. I've shot 1,400 rnds (90% mag level loads) thru one and 4,700 rnds (1,500 mag level) thru the other. Both guns are tight and have no end shake.

I also have a 696 and a 396. If I had to choose, I'd keep the M69(s).

I will agree that S&Ws QA/QC is problematic.

FWIW,

Paul

 

[681ismyfavorite]

that Ruger backpacker looks pretty good too.

 

[S&WForty]

Another happy M69 owner checking in. Its finish is what put me over the edge to get it. I think it looks darn cool. Form beats function sometimes, but for me, the 69 excels in both form and function.

 

[Snapping Twig]

Depends on what you want to do with it.

Range and all around carry

OR

range and hunting.

Magnum to hunt - end of story.

All around carry and range with the added benefit of old school fit and finish, the answer is clear - 696.

696 ND is original, 696-1 introduced MIM, 696-2 introduced the lock.

I have N frames for magnum and a 696 (and N frames) for 44Spl.

Can't even see a 69 here in California, at least not yet, due to the "approved" list.

 

[629shooter]

Since the 696 is one of your "grail guns," you might want to find one. Just so that itch is scratched.

 

[Biggfoot44]

For *me* , my experience in owning a 2.75in .44 convinced me I prefer a 4in bbl.

But it seems *you* would really prefer to have M696.

 

[hsguy]

Since you indicated the 696 is a "grail" gun that would be the one I would be looking for. A bit hard to find but still can be found. The 69 being a current production gun will be around for some time. My philosophy has always been to seek out the harder to find gun, it won't get easier as time passes to locate one.

 

[SLT223]

I would do the new model 69. Much thicker forcing cone than the paper thin 696's.

I would REALLLLLY love to see a 3" 69. Not sure how this isn't an obvious variation of this gun. Kind of annoying it hasn't been made yet.

 

[681ismyfavorite]

the thin forcing cone for the 696 is not a concern for me as I use hand loads of 240gr. SWC on top of 5.3gr. of Unique, all else is factory stuff, mostly to get some brass, but also for defense just in case.

I'm watching a few on GB right now.... wish they had a buy it now price.

 

[Stirling]

I'd be more inclined to go with the older gun. That said, why not look at a 4" 624 or 629 Mountain Gun? Even a 3" 629 would be an option.

 

[shocker]

My 69 is fine in fit and function. The trigger has a little bit of creep but that is the only thing I can criticize and I am fussy about SA trigger.

A Colt rep is reported as saying a new Python would have to sell for $3000, even using up to date machining methods. I appreciate Smith making a very good gun at a price I'm willing to pay.

I paid 730 less sales tax if I recall correctly.

 

[Abflyboy]

I just got my 69 and so far I am very happy with it. Very slight timing issue on super slow DA trigger pull but that's the only issue I have.

 

[Will in Montana]

I do love my .44 Specials.

I own several S&W .44 Specials--the earliest is a Triple Lock with a 3-digit serial number--and I always snatch up any new ones Smith brings out. I have the 296 (the "pocket gun" that's too big for a pocket), the 396 (an excellent "packing gun" for the field), and the 696, and I love them all. Still, out here in the wilds of western Montana, I find myself carrying my 329 (4") more often than not (and I, too, added the 500 factory grip). I bought one of the first Model 69s I saw, and I've been very pleased with it, so far. It's advertised as having a 4.2" barrel, but it still fits in the old Safariland duty holsters (both right and left hand) I have for the 4" Model 66 (and I was glad to see that one return to production, too). I shoot a 300-grain hard cast bullet handload in my 329, but I only run that bullet at 1,000 feet per second. It's not one I'd want to spend a day on the range with, but it's pleasant enough for regular practice. I've shot the same load in the Model 69, and the ten ounces of extra weight make it a fine "working load," which will still pass through a 2-year-old buffalo cow, from side to side (breaking any rib it might encounter). If I had to choose only one of the models being considered (perish the thought!), I'd take the Model 69. The advantage of sight radius cannot be ignored, either.
Good luck and good shooting.