I want to add a stainless 3" .44 to the herd.

I've settled on a 696 no dash or a 629-4 (enhancement package).

I'm familiar with 4" N frames already. Have several and carry one. What are the 696's like, and are they better for personal defense? It looks to be more concealable.

Thanks for the opinions.

The 696 is an L frame, and it's very concealable; every bit as much as a K frame; just a bit heavier. The 3" barrel seems the ideal balance.

I carry a 696, and interchange it with my Model 65. Both are excellent self-defense guns. I use a Winchester 200gr STHP as a load for mine.

If you can get the 696 for a decent price (say under $1K), jump on it. They're a bit rare. The 629's in 4" are more plentiful.

Here are my 3" stainless -

The 696 is a great gun, although they do get pricey. I have a 696-1 that I purchased from another member here on the forum not quite 2 months ago. Happy as hell with it. I do use mine for concealed carry. I use an older Gould & Goodrich horizontal shoulder holster with a pouch for 2 speedloaders on the offside. The weight is no issue. Accurate little gun.

__________________
Expect no quarter.

Just an option to throw out there for you if you don't mind the IL. The 3", 696-6 Talo is a sweet shootin' gun. I just bought one and plan on putting a set of Ahrend boot grips on it.

I do not mind the lock, as I just take out ALL the lock parts.

Spend some time looking before you spend your money. Yes, the 696 is a fine gun. Be careful because if you buy one, you'll probably end up buying a 396 too. Its the airlite version of the same gun. Identical in size, just half the weight. As long as you keep your ammo down to reasonable levels, its a pleasure to carry and shoot. With a little hotter loads, the 696 works better. Remember, if you want a magnum, buy one. I've got a M29-something. The 3" with unfluted cylinder. Its not all that pleasant to fire with hot loads, either.

__________________
Dick Burg

I'm with PA Reb on the Talo 629.

Here is mine with a set of Eagle Grips, about the size of factory 'Targets'. I shoot mostly Mags with it and it just makes me smile ear to ear every time.

I don't have a 696 but do have both a 629 and 624 in three inch. Both excellent weapons but both are hard to conceal but not impossible. I do think the 624 is a viable choice if your considering a 696 though.

629 in three inch


And a 624 on the top left.

I'll go against the tide on this one. A 4" 629-6 weighs <6 oz more than a 696. For that, you get a real forcing cone, additional chamber, larger hammer & trigger, and chambers/frame/barrel designed for Keith-level loads. A 3" 629, a la the 'Backpacker', will be even closer in weight.

For reference, I bought both a 296 and a 696 - both new - nine years ago. I'll have the 296, my woods CCW, when I finally sell the 696. I'll still have my 4" 629 when both of the .44 Special L-frames are long gone.

Stainz

Thanks everyone. This gun would not be used for heavy loads. Semi-wadcutter at 750-800 fps, or thereabouts.


Stainz, please explain the difference in forcing cones.

The L-frame was designed to allow a bit more OD on a .357 Magnum's forcing cone. The .44 Special forcing cone comes almost to a knife edge as a result, as it's ID must permit an ~.430" bullet, not a .357". The N-frame's front strap permits not only a .430" ID forcing cone, but even a .452" forcing cone for .45 ACP/.45 Colt use. The L-frame was fitted for .44 Special - not designed for it.

My 696 is a fun shooter - loaded with mild .44 Russians - like a 240gr LSWC over 3.5gr Titegroup - makes a whopping 692 fps from the 3" tube - an all day plinker. Of course, that heavy bullet makes 'major power factor' classification, too. If you can accept the SAAMI maximum specification for chamber pressure for the .44 S&W Special of 15.5 kpsi CUP, a 696 should have a long life. Mine has - and will - but I bought it new. They haven't been made in nine plus years, so take care in buying a used one. Here are my 3" 696 and 4" 629 for size comparison:



Of course, a 3" 629 will be even closer in size. My 296, at 19.7 oz and in a Mika pocket holster, is acceptable as a CCW in baggy cargo pants. The weight of the 696 puts it in a holster on the hip - and that 4" 629, to me, is just as easily carried. It, as a .44 Magnum, is a heck of a lot more utilitarian, too - even if mine only sees wimpy Magnums. YMMV.

Stainz

I had two 696 guns and sold them both. Worth to much money to shoot. Supply and demand. Shoot the heck out of my 629-4 and woods carry my 329. Same holster etc My decision on the 696. Yours may be different.

__________________
T. Johnson

On a pre-owned 696, what would I need to look for if heavy loads had been used in it a lot?