The 696 is NOT a wimp.

I hafta spout off. Everybody questions the forcing cone. Lots of folks write in and say: "If ya want a maggie, buy a maggie."

Hey folks, on this forum, just about everyone has, or had, a 29, or .454, a .500, a .460. So let's agree on that, perhaps. We all have one.

So I compared my no-dash 696 to my 640-1 .357 Mag. Both guns made the same year. Compared it to a few other guns also.

Forcing Cone: 696 is same measured thickness as 640-1. But, the 696 has a larger forcing cone o.d. due to its larger caliber. The 696 runs at about half the pressure of a .357, and the pressure is spread out over 20% greater circumference steel in the forcing cone. Means a lot less pressure per unit area...or...built-in safety. By my calcs, the .44 Special SAAMI round exerts 37% as much pressure per unit area on the same-thickness forcing cone as does the 640-1 SAAMI round.
Makes my .357 forcing cone sound kinda wimpy but it handles full-power loads just fine.

Steel between adjacent chambers: 696 is 25% greater thickness than 640-1, the same as Ruger old-model flattop .357 Mag and... 36% greater than my 29-4. Sometimes it helps to have a 5-shot cylinder.

Steel thickness from chamber to cylinder outer wall: 696 is 10% greater than 640-1, but only 72% as thick as my 29-4 (40,000 cup).

Top strap thickness: 696 is 14% greater than the 640-1, and nearly the same as the bull-strong Ruger .357 old model flattop topstrap.

So the 696, at ~15,500 cup, appears to have greater margins of safety (thicker steel) than a .357 which is SAAMI @ 35,000 cup. And Smiths made after about 1990 contained frame-inherent engineering changes to combat battering by heavy pressures and many rounds.

Tim Sundles of Buffalo Bore markets 255gr ammo, 984 fps through a model 396, for ANY .44 Special other than the Charter Arms Bulldog.
Brian Pearce and Lane Pearce have magazine articles out which praise the new Lipsey's Ruger .44 Special flattop. One article claims that the new Ruger can safely handle loads up to ~25,000 psi. It doesn't specify strength-level opinions on the 696.
I have letters and emails out to various folks, and the factory, to get some opinions and comments on the strength of this poor maligned 696. When I hear back, you will also.

And, oh yeah, I think that Elmer Keith played with, and published, 1200 fps .44 Special loads in his Colt SAA, along the Salmon river, quite a few years ago.

I don't have access to the new Lipsey's Ruger so I can't compare its cylinder steel, thicknesses and topstrap and engineering to the 696. (Anybody have this data? I sure would like it.)

And I won't guess and say that the 696 is the equal, in strength, of the Ruger. But...I bet it comes pretty durned close. I do know that my loads: Unique 7.5gr, 240 gr hard-cast, chrono'd 914-945 fps, avg: 938 fps, exhibited mild recoil, easy extraction, no pressure signs on primers.

My 3rd Edition of the Standard Catalog of S&W, by Supica and Nahas, page 273, states that this model was introduced in December of 1996. The first 5-shot Smith L-frame revolver chambered in .44 Special. Fluted cylinder stout enough to handle +P rated ammo, nominal length of 1.63". 3" barrel. Fitted with Uncle Mike's Combat grips; shipped in blue plastic case.
Hope this helps. Note that the quoted "stout enough to handle +P rated ammo" includes an assumption that the forcing cone must also be suitable for +P.

Standard Disclaimer: Readers of this post or beginners in reloading should stick to .44 Special, SAAMI-pressure loads; i.e. commercially-available mild(cowboy) or standard-pressure .44 Special loads or those loads which are found, for instance, in known websites such as hodgdon.com, alliant.com, and only those loads known to be of pressures acceptable and safe in your individual gun. Do not use any of my information to develop loads which might be considered high-pressure and/or dangerous in your handgun. If you are in doubt, just pick up a good book and become educated in reloading and seek help from an informed and experienced reloader.

Comments are invited.

Sonny

Sonny; As a 696 owner, I would be very much interested in what you come up with on this....please keep us posted!!! I will be following along!

I have posted this before.

A bear guide friend of mine in Alaska loads his 696 with 300+grain bullets to near 44 mag velocities, and he has had no problems.

If I had one I would load it with my Keith 240gr cast Linotype bullets with 2400, working up slowly till what I thought was a Max load for the "little" gun.

A working Max load not a MAX, HOPE I DON'T BREAK SOMETHING LOAD.

If I could get my bullet to 1100 or maybe 1200 that would be enough, for me.

Brian Pearce wrote an article (Aug 2005 Hanloader Magazine) on .44 Special handloads.

He listed loads for 15,000 psi, 22,000 psi and 25,000 psi. The latter (25,000psi) category included 250 Keith w/17.0gr A2400 at 1,189 fps and 307gr Keith w/15.5gr H110 at 1,056 fps both from a 4 1/4" Freedom Arms Model 97.

Guns he considered OK for use in the 25,000 psi category included both the S&W 696 and S&W 396.

I've shot 250gr Keith from Leadhead's (actually weight 260gr) at a chronoed 1,030 fps from the 18oz, 3" S&W 396 and they are BRUTAL.

FWIW,

Paul

I use a 1000 FPS 255 SWCGC half the time in mine. Nothing to report, other than they'll create a cloverleaf @ 50 feet. And I prefer to have the OEM U/M goodyears on it while range shooting, rather than the Hideouts it wears for carry.

NE450No2 said:

I have posted this before.

A bear guide friend of mine in Alaska loads his 696 with 300+grain bullets to near 44 mag velocities, and he has had no problems.

If I had one I would load it with my Keith 240gr cast Linotype bullets with 2400, working up slowly till what I thought was a Max load for the "little" gun.

A working Max load not a MAX, HOPE I DON'T BREAK SOMETHING LOAD.

If I could get my bullet to 1100 or maybe 1200 that would be enough, for me.

Click to expand...

I am hoping, based on my physical measurements and chrono work so far, that 1100 fps, 240 cast, will be workable without high pressure. The 696 is +P rated by the factory. However, based on the rather light weight of this gun, 35.5 oz, and not wanting to batter it unnecessarily, I am not likely to push for 1200 fps. (Elk are nicely doable @ 1100 fps, 240gr cast.)
I am working with about five different powders, 240 gr hard-cast, new cases (Starline, Hornady), WLP primers, and should have some data in the next few weeks. Gotta balance this with Christmas and family, ya know.

Sonny

Yes, the Pearce Handloader article that Paul105 references does note that the 696 is clearly capable of 25kpsi loads. I have used the loads he mentioned. While I have no problems with shooting loads at that level in mine, I generally shoot 240gr lead bullets round 1000fps, believing that they may be kinder and gentler on the forcing cone than 200gr jacketed ones designed for the 44 Mag driven fast, and will serve quite well if needed. The Speer 200gr Gold Dot designed for the 44 Special is one jacketed bullet that I choose for some stiff handloads however. It's jacket is thinner. Plus, that yawning hollowpoint gives it a very intimidating "flying chalice" look!

My 696 is a -2 model, and while I do not own an earlier model to make measurements, in viewing ND models side by side, the amount of metal around the cone seems a bit thicker in mine. Perhaps it is cut to a lesser angle. No matter, the gun is very accurate. And I don't really mind that little tit on the left side at all.

However, as much as I like my 696-2, I am far more inclined to carry one of my new 4 5/8" Rugey Lipsey's 44 Specials right now. I imagine they will take a steady diet of hot loads better in the long run and I just like the way they carry and shoot. My woodswalking load is a 240gr Speer cast at 1050fps, very accurate and pleasant to shoot. I also load a Hornady 240 HP/XTP to 1140fps with WW-296 (5% reduced load instead of the listed H110 one) based on Pearce's April 2009 Handloader article.

I am one of those who will preserve their 696 by feeding it normal SAAMI specification .44 S&W Special and .44 Russian loads. Mine, a -1, was bought new nearly seven years ago - and is just fun to plink with. It's enclosed hammer AirLite Ti sibling, a 296, is my CC & HD weapon, stoked with those Speer 200gr Gold Dots.

I just wonder what S&W would suggest one limit the 696 to, pressure-wise?

Oddly, for just four more ounces over the 696's weight, you could be carrying a 629 Mountain Gun. Another two ounces, and you could have a standard 4" 629. You'd gain an additional chamber in the cylinder, another inch of barrel, and, in the production 629's case, a larger hammer and trigger. The chambers would be reamed deeper for .44 Magnums, and everything heat treated for the higher pressure. I can't imagine that the heat treating on the 696 components would be the same as those of a 629.

I just don't like the idea of knowingly exceeding the nominal ratings of any firearm. To suggest so on a forum where many readers don't have the background to make a safe decision borders on being irresponsible. Please indicate that your suggested loads are above any SAAMI maximum pressure specification for the .44 S&W Special caliber and that folks are cautioned to try them at their own peril.

Of course, do as you want. I certainly have no objection to your loads - in your guns.

Stainz

Stainz

I agree with your comments about the 44 Mag Mountain Gun.

That is what the wife and I carry when in the field.

I have also carried a 4" 44 Mag, starting in 1976 as a duty/off duty and field gun.

I have also shot a couple of the Scandium framed 44 Mags, and they are Brutal with full power loads, controlable with top end factory 44 Specials.

My 325 NG on 45 ACP is very controlable.

The steel framed 44 Specials are more compact, and that is important to some, for dailyConcealed carry, and those guns can do double duty in the field with warmish loads, if that is the gun you choose.

IMHO the key is, find a load that is powerful enough, that you can control, and that does not damage the gun in limited use.

Common sense is the key here.

As to the lightweight 5 shot 44 Special, I think the 200gr defense loads are the best choice for it.

"The 696 runs at about half the pressure of a .357, and the pressure is spread out over 20% greater circumference steel in the forcing cone. Means a lot less pressure per unit area...or...built-in safety. By my calcs, the .44 Special SAAMI round exerts 37% as much pressure per unit area on the same-thickness forcing cone as does the 640-1 SAAMI round."

Pressure is force per area. Giving the pressure a larger diameter forcing cone to push against actually increases the wall stress, probably about in proportion to the diameter increase. If you maintain the same pressure and forcing cone wall thickness the larger diameter forcing cone has greater stress.

Question:

Is the 696 as "strong" as a new made 24/624???

If not why not???

The M696 is a five-shot .44 Special "L" frame.

The M624/M629 are 6 shot "N" frames.

The larger frame size allows a larger diameter, thicker, stronger barrel breech stub ("forcing cone"). The thicker barrel stub and frame junction make for more rigidity. The heavier frame means heavier gun weight in proportion to the cartridge recoil level. Reduced recoil means longer wear life on the "delicate" parts of the S&W design: gas ring, crane arbor support, ratchet, etc whose dimensions regulate cylinder endshake. Small, highly stressed parts are also worked less: cylinder stop, locking bolt, cylinder release pin, etc.

The larger frame has other advantages as well: thicker standing breech and recoil shield, greater crane support for cylinder endshake, and one last factor that is not often mentioned: the larger diameter cylinder has greater "hoop strength". Explained in simple, non-metallurgical terms, greater hoop strength is achieved when the larger cylinder is capable of greater "springiness" to resist exceeding the elastic limit of the base material.

The previous poster's comment about the larger diameter, lower pressure cartridge actually causing MORE stress on the forcing cone than the smaller diameter, greater pressure cartridge are correct. Look at it this way: which action is more likely to cause long-term wear on an anvil surface: smacking it sharply with a small ball peen hammer, or smacking it sharply with a larger, heavier, ball peen hammer?

The late, great, P.O. Ackley conducted many interesting experiments in his career. One of the memorable ones was the progressive turning down of a service .30-06 rifle barrel until it's final dimensions were 0.080" thickness over the chamber and 0.020" thickness over the muzzle. That barrel held up to the firing of over 40,000 psi of service ammunition. What he demonstrated was the tremendous strength of modern guns and materials. While I am not suggesting that the M396 and M696 guns are impractical lightweights, it does suggest that pushing the .44 Special cartridge to it's elastic limits on those platforms may not be a good idea.

In my 696 and 396 I run strictly Buffalo Bore heavy 44 Special loads, for my 296 I stay with what it says on the barrel, but still hot stuff from Buffalo Bore. When I am wimping around on the range or in the woods I use cowboy ammo, 750 fps for a 225 gr FN slug, low and slow.
I have had no problems whatsoever and that BB ammo puts out some ooomph. Actually I do not feel under armed with the cowboy ammo, a couple of those ought to get anyone's attention for a substantial time. I have also used a variety of various factory ammo that has come my way one way or another, and I really like the 44, for just about any use-even big animal defense if the right BB ammo is loaded-although for a Brown Bear (MISTER BEAR) or big Griz I would like something larger, but I would shoot the 44 rather than climb a tree.
The 44 Special has the ability to launch a really hard penetrating slug, or a fast expander, depending on what you need. I look on it as a slightly undersize 45 Colt in that regard.

For a comparison as to the relative size of my 696-1 and current production 4" 629 (SKU #163603), look below:



If you are intent on carrying either, you'll need a belt or shoulder holster rig - they are heavy, 35.5 & 41.5 oz, and too large for a pocket. My 629 sports Ahrends cocobolo 'Retro Targets', perfect for .44 Russians, Specials, and my wimpy Magnums. For real Magnums, I have a set of the .500 Magnum Hogues that come stock on .460/.500 Magnum revolvers - great aid to recoil management as it pads that backstrap.

Am I implying that the 696 has no use? Not at all. It's just simple - if you know you will be 'in harm's way', why not have a bit more oomph? For social endeavors, the 696 is fine... except for me - I like my 296. It will fit in a pocket holster in 2/3 of my pants front pockets. It's like an over fed 642. It even goes woods bumming with me, where legal - very 'sheeple friendly' carried that way. YMMV.

Stainz

NE450No2 said:

Question:

Is the 696 as "strong" as a new made 24/624???

If not why not???

Click to expand...

The answer I got from a phone call with Smith Customer Service is YES. By your "new made" stipulation, Smith is talking about their new Classic Series of revolvers, model 24, 6 1/2" bbl, which has been in production during approximately the last two years. Now, this was a very nice lady that I talked to, and I didn't try to sandbag her so I will NOT hold her to this answer. I think that John Traveler's post on other advantages of a larger frame size are applicable here. See link:
Product: Model 24 - S&W Classics - 6 1/2" - Blue or Nickel

According to Smith, both the 696 and the Classic Series model 24 should have incorporated the latest improvements in frame design and heat treating which really began in the early 1990's. Of course, these are NOT magnum calibers and you must be conservative; if in doubt, stay with commercial ammunition under the caliber's SAAMI limit.

I, personally, do not know the answer to your question and have no desire to guess. I don't even know how strong the 696 is, and I am just beginning to try to figure this little honey out.
My Smith catalog by Supica and Nahas, 3rd edition, says the 696 is rated for +P; that's my only information.
This is no game for beginners, unless you have an experienced pro sitting by your side. Reloading above SAAMI levels can blow up your gun and your various body parts. Reloading can be a risky business.
Stay safe,
Sonny

Sonny, I wouldn't test the limits on the L frame. Even Elmer Keith popped the top strap on his N frame 44.

I'm sure the 696 will shoot and handle full power 44 spl loads, but are you willing to lose an eye to prove it? That forcing cone looks mighty weak next to the N frame, heck the entire gun is 30% smaller....

From 1 reloader to another and a 50 cal shooter at that, Just be smart and shoot safe. 500MN

A couple of years ago there was a poster deciding on pushing a famous 255 grain lead load through his 696. He was warned, but did it anyway. Later he reported a split forcing cone.

zeke said:

A couple of years ago there was a poster deciding on pushing a famous 255 grain lead load through his 696. He was warned, but did it anyway. Later he reported a split forcing cone.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt your post one bit. However, IMHO, I don't have a problem with the 255 gr bullet; it's the powder, powder-charge and resulting velocity which will make the difference. I've put about 50 round thru mine so far; all 240 and 253 grain hard-cast.
The highest velocity is the 938 fps load with 240 grain hard-cast that I posted earlier in this thread. There was minimal recoil, no primer flattening, some fired cases fell out of the cylinder when I turned the gun upside down.
This does not speak of high pressure to me, but everyone must set his own limits. Be careful; don't load any hotter than SAAMI specs and go by the proven reloading manuals if you want to be perfectly safe.

Sonny