|
|
01-16-2012, 03:11 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 372
Likes: 105
Liked 106 Times in 49 Posts
|
|
Want a 3" .44. 696 or 629-4?
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.
|
01-16-2012, 11:39 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SE Mich - O/S Detroit
Posts: 3,159
Likes: 2,026
Liked 2,801 Times in 1,017 Posts
|
|
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 -
|
01-16-2012, 11:58 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Mayetta, Kansas
Posts: 616
Likes: 412
Liked 173 Times in 71 Posts
|
|
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.
|
01-16-2012, 03:15 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 1,650
Liked 1,818 Times in 572 Posts
|
|
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.
Last edited by PA Reb; 07-01-2013 at 10:13 PM.
|
01-16-2012, 04:02 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,095
Likes: 7
Liked 469 Times in 278 Posts
|
|
I do not mind the lock, as I just take out ALL the lock parts.
|
01-16-2012, 04:26 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Kentucky, USA
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 2,830
Liked 6,261 Times in 2,170 Posts
|
|
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
|
01-17-2012, 12:18 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 401
Likes: 25
Liked 201 Times in 53 Posts
|
|
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.
|
01-17-2012, 12:33 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 98
Likes: 1
Liked 49 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
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.
|
01-17-2012, 12:34 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pinson, AL
Posts: 2,106
Likes: 57
Liked 656 Times in 307 Posts
|
|
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
|
01-17-2012, 01:15 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 372
Likes: 105
Liked 106 Times in 49 Posts
|
|
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.
|
01-17-2012, 08:08 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pinson, AL
Posts: 2,106
Likes: 57
Liked 656 Times in 307 Posts
|
|
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
|
01-17-2012, 07:59 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anchorage, AK USA
Posts: 397
Likes: 4
Liked 52 Times in 34 Posts
|
|
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
|
01-17-2012, 08:08 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 372
Likes: 105
Liked 106 Times in 49 Posts
|
|
On a pre-owned 696, what would I need to look for if heavy loads had been used in it a lot?
|
|
Tags
|
357 magnum, 44 magnum, 629, 657, 696, ahrends, airlite, backpacker, bullseye, ccw, chamber pressure, colt, concealed, fluted, k frame, l frame, lock, m29, model 29, model 65, n-frame, snubnose, unfluted, winchester |
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|