RIDE-RED 350r
Member
The one I fondled at my LGS had a price of $779 plus tax on the tag... $20 more than he charges for the brand new 686 he has laying next to it. Not out of line by any means IMHO...
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Model 69 examination:
- Thread starter Donald Paul
- Start date
The one I fondled at my LGS had a price of $779 plus tax on the tag... $20 more than he charges for the brand new 686 he has laying next to it. Not out of line by any means IMHO...
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
What did S&W do regarding the thin forcing cone? I thought that was a real concern for those hot loading the .44 special L frames? KInda like the .357's battering the K frames so much and then they come out with a .357 J frame? Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought the N frame S&W was the smallest .44 magnum that was practible-being originally a 19th century design and even then it should not be hot rodded as one would a Super Black Hawk. I would think that the cylinder would have a bit more beef due to the 5 shot capacity offsetting the notches, but that forcing cone looks awfully thin!!!
RIDE-RED 350r
Member
Someone posted a pic of the 696 and new m69 forcing cones for comparison in another m69 thread. The m69 cone is notably thicker.. I'm guessing the 2-piece bbl design helps in this area??
Maybe it's time to legitimize the .41 "S&W Special". A friend has had a 686 in this chambering for quite a few years. And it's a "six shooter".
I'd be all over that one. I even have a modified Lyman 410610 mould that throws 187gr non-gas check SWC bullets which seems ideal for the round.
Last edited:
BigBill
Absent Comrade
My son's just got there ccw permits and I know of no reason I can think of not to purchase them a 41magnum m6668 if s&w offers it. That's two for them and three for me a 66, 68 & 6668.
I just read about this last night, and I am really interested. 44 special is a great caliber. I have a 696 and 4" Charter Arms, but I want something that can handle some stout handloads.
I'd probably load 44 mag cause I am guessing the brass would last longer with the hot 44spcls. I want a gun for hiking, so the weight is good and like 4.25" for shooting.
I'd like to hold one and 629 to compare the feel of the weight. I have SBH 7.5" already.
While a little long, you could carry this at times with a coat. My 3" 696 hangs done a little, mostly cause it is pulling my pants though. HA
I'd probably load 44 mag cause I am guessing the brass would last longer with the hot 44spcls. I want a gun for hiking, so the weight is good and like 4.25" for shooting.
I'd like to hold one and 629 to compare the feel of the weight. I have SBH 7.5" already.
While a little long, you could carry this at times with a coat. My 3" 696 hangs done a little, mostly cause it is pulling my pants though. HA
bronco45
Member
Still lurking from LGS to LGS to find a 66 or a 69. Idaho is the last place on Earth outside of London to receive new or cool handguns. One of the most friendly to gun states and the last to ever receive anything new.
Yorkie Man
Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 573
- Reaction score
- 264
I have put 600 rounds through mine and it is an accurate revolver. I changed the grips to a set of Hogue and they work better because of my big hands. I finally took the cylinder apart today and cleaned it thoroughly. It's pretty easy to get apart. I live in Missouri and there are none to found in the local gun shops so I bought mine from a dealer in Delaware. If they make one in .41 I'll buy one it will go with my 657 like this one goes with my 629.
Mike
Mike
I have close to 1,100 round thru 2 M69s. Everything from 240s at 750 fps to 325s at 1,180 fps (actual chrono numbers). Most (approx. 75 %) have been .44 special level loads. My guns are equipped with the S&W Hogue 500 grips (all my round butt S&Ws are so equipped due to a problem with the bone at the base of my thumb).
Questions that always seem to come up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight with Hogue 500 grips:
629 Mtn Gun weighs 39 oz
M69 L Frame weighs 37 oz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took the 329, 629 Mtn Gun and the M69 to the range. Ammo was Federal Factory .44 Mag 240gr JHP (No. 44A). My perception was that recoil of the 329 is definitely snappier/faster, and the Mtn Gun has a bit more muzzle rise vs. the M69. Only thing I can think of is that the barrel is skinnier and the bore to grip relationship is higher on the 629 vs. the M69 (which rides lower in the hand and has a bit more weight forward). Could also just be my imagination. As should be expected, the Mtn Gun feels a bit bulky compared to the M69 – subtle, but noticeable to me.
Recoil is subjective, so your mileage may vary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrel shank/forcing cone measurements:
629 Mtn Gun Barrel Shank OD: .630“
M69 L Frame - Barrel Shank OD: .620“
.
Pictures
.
M69 Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone area:
.
.
M696 Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone Area:
.
.
.
I really like this gun.
.
FWIW,
Paul
Questions that always seem to come up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight with Hogue 500 grips:
629 Mtn Gun weighs 39 oz
M69 L Frame weighs 37 oz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took the 329, 629 Mtn Gun and the M69 to the range. Ammo was Federal Factory .44 Mag 240gr JHP (No. 44A). My perception was that recoil of the 329 is definitely snappier/faster, and the Mtn Gun has a bit more muzzle rise vs. the M69. Only thing I can think of is that the barrel is skinnier and the bore to grip relationship is higher on the 629 vs. the M69 (which rides lower in the hand and has a bit more weight forward). Could also just be my imagination. As should be expected, the Mtn Gun feels a bit bulky compared to the M69 – subtle, but noticeable to me.
Recoil is subjective, so your mileage may vary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrel shank/forcing cone measurements:
629 Mtn Gun Barrel Shank OD: .630“
M69 L Frame - Barrel Shank OD: .620“
.
Pictures
.
M69 Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone area:
.
.
M696 Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone Area:
.
.
.
I really like this gun.
.
FWIW,
Paul
What are you doing trick shooting, a gun in each hand? It is because of guys like you the rest of us can't find one.
What are you doing trick shooting, a gun in each hand? It is because of guys like you the rest of us can't find one.
I know you were being facetious, but they have been continuously available on gunbroker for the same price I paid for the two I have. I bought the first one in late Jan (gunbroker), liked it so much I decided I needed a spare - (gunbroker again) in early Mar.
FWIW,
Paul
Model 69 lockup issues?
Anybody have any more recent info about problems with the 69's ball detent lockup or was that just an 'anomaly?' Sorry, I'm a Trekkie.
P.S. Saw three 69s at last weekend's show in Vegas.
Anybody have any more recent info about problems with the 69's ball detent lockup or was that just an 'anomaly?' Sorry, I'm a Trekkie.
P.S. Saw three 69s at last weekend's show in Vegas.
I was just kidding about preventing us from getting one. Having two I find interesting.
I have seen them for sale from various dealers through websites. I have never ordered off the internet, which may become rarer these days. I checked out Buds, I thought that would be a good place to try first, but they don't have any.
It is funny, sometimes I will buy local, cause I want it that day, but many times I would have had it already if I ordered it.
Like I said I was hoping to order through a big time dealer like Buds, just because I have never done it before, and I am not sure what to watch out for.
Some people have thought that the 696 would do better now, since concealed carry is more common. While my 696 is a little heavy, I do like it, more a woods carry or winter with a jacket.
With as popular as the 696 seems to be, I am surprised they don't sell some short 44s. Though they didn't sell great the first time. But you got Charter Arms who keeps making them.
Also wouldn't mind seeing more beefy 44 specials. Some people say why bother if you can buy a 44 mag. But the special would be lighter and more compact. Which may really be what the 69 is, a stout 44 special.
With as popular as the 696 seems to be, I am surprised they don't sell some short 44s. Though they didn't sell great the first time. But you got Charter Arms who keeps making them.
Also wouldn't mind seeing more beefy 44 specials. Some people say why bother if you can buy a 44 mag. But the special would be lighter and more compact. Which may really be what the 69 is, a stout 44 special.
It's a 6 shot .41 Special. It just doesn't know it yet. Think 175-190 gr projectiles at ~900-1000fps. Lighter bullets, should they become available, faster.
Can't help but think that this thing is a tinkerer's special. Swapping barrel guts, shrouds, cylinders...Not so difficult! Let the customizations commence.
Mounted a 4x Leupold on the M69 to do some load development. It was windy, and even though I had a good rest, it was not perfectly stable.
Loads are marked on the targets. The 265 SWCGC crimped over the front drive band chronoed 1,142 fps and the 310gr Lee FPGC chronoed 1,141 fps (not a typo) seated and crimped in the top grove (short OAL). Both at 50 - 60 deg F and 5 long paces from the muzzle.
The 240gr/6.5gr HP38 is seated deep (1.502 OAL) and runs 883 fps on the chrono.
As most know and the targets show, it pays to test various loads to determine best potential accuracy.
.
.
.
Stil have other stuff to test, but thought those following this thread would be interested in the accuracy potential of the M69.
FWIW,
Paul
Loads are marked on the targets. The 265 SWCGC crimped over the front drive band chronoed 1,142 fps and the 310gr Lee FPGC chronoed 1,141 fps (not a typo) seated and crimped in the top grove (short OAL). Both at 50 - 60 deg F and 5 long paces from the muzzle.
The 240gr/6.5gr HP38 is seated deep (1.502 OAL) and runs 883 fps on the chrono.
As most know and the targets show, it pays to test various loads to determine best potential accuracy.
.
.
.
Stil have other stuff to test, but thought those following this thread would be interested in the accuracy potential of the M69.
FWIW,
Paul
41 Spcl. "L" frame please
The 41 Mag should fit just fine but I'm with you. I think this would be a "good excuse" to formalize the 41 Spcl. & make compact revolvers for it.
The 41 Mag should fit just fine but I'm with you. I think this would be a "good excuse" to formalize the 41 Spcl. & make compact revolvers for it.
