69 vs 696?

Shark Bait · Oct 12, 2015

I apologize if there is already a thread about this, but my search function hasn't worked since I joined the forum.

I have a 696 and have read a lot of concerns about its thin forcing cone. Doesn't the model 69 have the same issue, or am I mistaken?

The reason I ask is that I would like to shoot some of the hotter factory loads, like Buffalo Bore, which they claim is safe for modern .44 Special revolvers, except for the Charter Arms Bulldog. These loads are a fair bit lighter than the average factory .44 Magnum loads, which can be fired out of the 69. It seems reasonable to me that the 696 should be able to handle the hotter cast lead loads if the 69 can handle jacketed .44 Mag. Thoughts?

steelslaver · Oct 12, 2015

I have one of each and both great guns.

The model 69 was made a bit different than the 696. The 69 uses a shrouded barrel and the front lock is on the crane. This allowed the frame where the barrel to be threaded in to be larger and the forcing cone on them is considerably thicker than on the 696 which is pretty thin. I wouldn't want to wreck a 696 for another 100fps, they are sweet.

Dave Lively · Oct 12, 2015

If a site's search function doesn't work right you can search it using Bing, Google and probably others like this:

site:smith-wessonforum.com 69 696

It usually works as well or better than the search function in most forums. If found the thread below pretty quickly. Search for 696 forcing cone the same way and you should be able to find the previous threads about this.

There was recent thread about the 69 that had a couple of pictures of the forcing cones for both guns at http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/360312-model-69-examination.html . The 69 is a lot thicker.

If you are not real attached to your 696 and want to shoot a lot of strong .44 specials consider trading it for a 69. I really like my 69 and think it is a great gun for stout .44 special power levels.

Paul105 · Oct 12, 2015

New model 69 barrel shank:
.

.
M696 Barrel Shank:
.

.
As you can see, the M69s barrel shank/forcing cone area is substantially more robust.

Buffalo Bore's website lists velocities for the M396 (Ti/Al version of 696) using the "Heavy .44 Special" ammo

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=89

Brian Pearce wrote an article on the .44 Special in which he addressed the strength of various .44 specials an the appropriate load levels for each group guns.

http://www.goodrichfamilyassoc.org/44_Special_Articles/Brian Pearce on the 44 Special.pdf

Internet chatter speaks of barrel shank/forcing cone failure with use of heavy loads (only one that I've seen actually saw this occur). Begs the question of how "heavy" is heavy?

In the end, it's your gun, and you'll have to be the final arbiter.

FWIW,

Paul

69 vs 696?

Shark Bait

US Veteran

steelslaver

US Veteran

Dave Lively

Well-known member

Paul105

Well-known member

Similar threads

Latest posts