296 Transformation -- Progress Report

[DCWilson]

EDITED JULY 26 TO ADD PHOTOS WITH STEEL CYLINDER INSTALLED. SEE POST #12 BELOW.

= = = = = = = = = =

I picked up an almost new 296 about a month ago. Based on pictures and reports from others here on this forum (I remember Hondo44 for sure, and I know there was at least one more) I knew I was going to want to add some improvements to it. I have a replacement steel cylinder and a new hand that will go into it, but I won't put those in until I have had the Titanium experience for at least a few rounds.

As soon as I got the gun I knew the factory front blade had to go -- I simply could not see the thing in any but the brightest light. Since others on this forum had put a Big Dot Tritium on a 242, I decided to do the same on my 296. It took some shaving and fitting of the new sight anchor to make everything work, but I got it together and repinned today. I can't tell you what a difference it makes to hold the gun out and see that big white circle with the greenish center hanging right on top of whatever it is you might want to hit.

I hope to give myself a .44 day at the range next week; I have three guns I need to try out, assuming I can get together enough of the different types of ammo required. I'll report back on how this gun, my 696, and a 6-inch 629 all performed.

The basic 296, stock:

And with the new Big Dot Tritium in place:

That new sight looks like it is riding a little high in this photo, but when I check out the gun the base of the sight is right down tight on the alloy base.

I'm expecting not to like the standard stocks once I start live fire. I think I may dress this gun up with smooth combats with a wide back and a huge palmswell to fill my basically hollow hands.

David Wilson

 

[DCWilson]

EDITED JULY 26 TO TAKE NOTE OF NEW PHOTOS IN POST NO. 12 BELOW.

= = = = = = = = = =

I picked up an almost new 296 about a month ago. Based on pictures and reports from others here on this forum (I remember Hondo44 for sure, and I know there was at least one more) I knew I was going to want to add some improvements to it. I have a replacement steel cylinder and a new hand that will go into it, but I won't put those in until I have had the Titanium experience for at least a few rounds.

As soon as I got the gun I knew the factory front blade had to go -- I simply could not see the thing in any but the brightest light. Since others on this forum had put a Big Dot Tritium on a 242, I decided to do the same on my 296. It took some shaving and fitting of the new sight anchor to make everything work, but I got it together and repinned today. I can't tell you what a difference it makes to hold the gun out and see that big white circle with the greenish center hanging right on top of whatever it is you might want to hit.

I hope to give myself a .44 day at the range next week; I have three guns I need to try out, assuming I can get together enough of the different types of ammo required. I'll report back on how this gun, my 696, and a 6-inch 629 all performed.

The basic 296, stock:

And with the new Big Dot Tritium in place:

That new sight looks like it is riding a little high in this photo, but when I check out the gun the base of the sight is right down tight on the alloy base.

I'm expecting not to like the standard stocks once I start live fire. I think I may dress this gun up with smooth combats with a wide back and a huge palmswell to fill my basically hollow hands.

David Wilson

 

[k_rasmussen]

Any updates?

 

[WC145]

Why would you want to replace the titanium cylinder?

 

[squidsix]

I have to agree that replacing the titanium cylinder is a great idea. This would make the gun about perfect. The airLITE guns are just a little too much to shoot for most folks, but the airWEIGHT guns are about perfect. I like it. Keep up the good work!
steve

 

[DCWilson]

UPDATE: This project slowed when my attention was diverted by a rare Pre-war .22/32 Kit Gun I stumbled across in gun store in Santa Barbara. I have now devoted several days to studying these interesting little revolvers. I imagine I'll be back to the 296 next week or the week after.

As to the cylinder swap, if you search this particular subforum for 296 and 696, or maybe 296 and stainless, you'll find a couple of posts from forum members who have made this changeout and like the results.

DCW

 

[AKAOV1MAN]

I like your ideas, I may look for a SS cylinder and the big dot. might try to get Smith to do the work, PC maybe??
I do like the concept of a concealable .44 Special, I use the Speer GD or Buffalo Bore 200 gr loads. I pur Pachy Pro geips on it, with either load you really know you have touched something off. The Buffalo Bore ammo is somewhat better than the Speer for low flash. I also used some blazer 200 gr HPs and they worked quite well, no problems ejecting the aluminium cases.

 

[DrDremel]

I have a 296 at S&W right now getting a Nightguard cylinder. I also told them that they should re-introduce the 296 with a stainless cylinder. It was a little ahead of it's time. With CCW in almost every state it would be a good seller. Send it in to S&W. It would be great to have them see a rash of 296s getting stainless cylinders. Maybe they would notice.

 

[DCWilson]

Well, I took some of my .44s to the range today and shot up some paper. One of the guns getting a test firing was this 296, which was fed some 165gr Cor-Bon rounds.

They are true wrist-slammers and finger-stingers in a gun this light! I only fired this gun 10 times, but that was enough to satisfy my curiosity about how stiff rounds feel in a truly light revolver. One of the advantages of the steel cylinder would be to add enough weight that the recoil should come down about 10-15 percent. Whether a small decrease like that could actually be perceived is a question I will answer the next time.

I am pretty sure this gun will get replacement stocks at some point. My choice is between doing the cheap, sensible thing like putting Pachy decelerators on it, or doing the experimental thing and seeing if heavy, smooth, palm-filling modified boot grips made of some dense wood would do the job. The factory handle has ridges that slam right into some painful nodules on my thumb tendons. (You guys in your 50s, 60s and 70s with palmar connective tissue disorders like Dupuytren's Contracture probably know what I mean.) The kick ought to be manageable if I can just get the recoil to push harder on other parts of my hand and less directly on the base of my thumb.

David W.

 

[Stainz]

You want recoil improvement with a grip change? Try the S&W/Hogue X-frame .460/.500 Magnum backstrap-enclosing grips:

Of course, as with just the Uncle Mike's Rounded (or squared) Combats, just enclosing that backstrap and spreading the recoil over a bit more area with something more resilient than Al helps. Mine is back to the OEM boots so it can regain it's pocket-carry status in a Mika's pocket holster.

Yeah, with the GA Arms 200gr Gold Dots (new Starline brass), it's as nearly brutal as with the CCI Blazers, which it shot half of it's 2,200+ rounds of, it's just feeling safer (I had a Blazer split in my 696!) - and I gain good brass. It's just a CCW - not meant to be a fun plinker. I have no intention of changing the Ti cylinder - it's the least of the X96 design's problems. The lack of a SS deflector in the topstrap over the b/c gap may affect life of the frame, certainly the teeny forcing cone limits power level. Then there is that cast-n the frame cylinder stop - easily pared away with a couple of unloading 'Hollywood' raps of the ejector star.

My 296 will continue it's life as a big brother to my 642 and in it's original form here. It works - and is uncannily accurate with those Speer bullets, whether Blazers, GA Arms, or my loads. It didn't sell well in '01-'02 - when it's MSRP had crept over $700. It was 'dumped' for less than half it's MSRP - mine was $349 new locally 1/03 - for a reason. I'd be shocked to see it return in anything but a very limited run.

Stainz

 

[starbuck]

I was waiting for your back-from-the-range report since I am aware of the recoil involved. Even with the 500 grips I find the recoil punishing. I have recently been given some cowboy loads by my ammo supplier and will be going to the range soon with hopeful expectations. Love the gun--hate the punishing recoil.

 

[DCWilson]

Well, I took a break from my recent prewar I-frame obsession and put a couple of hours into my 296 project. In addition to the Big Dot Tritium front sight, this gun now sports the steel cylinder that adds three ounces to the gun's weight. I'm hoping that will reduce the sting a bit when I touch it off.

I haven't shot it yet in this configuration, but a range rod test shows that the cylinder and barrel align perfectly.

Still thinking about what stocks to put on it. I imagine I will get some rubber for comfort and some wide wood for looks, then switch between the two as mood (and wrist pain) may dictate.

That Big Dot sight sure is easy to see in dry-fire and quick point exercises.

David Wilson

 

[DCWilson]

I took this to the range tonight and fired a few rounds. The gun didn't come apart or throw lead to the side, which confirmed the judgment of my range rod that the pieces all align properly. With a headache and incipient trembles -- hope this isn't flu coming on -- I couldn't group closely at all. I'll try again in a few days.

The extra weight seems to help with recoil, but my comparison isn't perfect because I was shooting lower-powered rounds with heavier bullets. The 296 is not recommended for bullets over 200 grains because the stout recoil can pull bullets from the unfired rounds in the cylinder and potentially tie up the gun. But I pushed a bunch of 240 grain bullets down the barrel without such a mishap. Admittedly these were cowboy action loads, so they carried only about two-thirds the oomph of the 165 grain Cor-Bon loads I fired when the titanium cylinder was still in the gun.

So it was a completely uncontrolled and unscientific evaluation this evening except that I confirmed I put the old and new pieces together in an acceptable way.

David W.

 

[Spotteddog]

As you mentioned earlier, the addition of the couple of extra ounces (S/S cylinder) probably gave you just enough weight, to get away with over a 200 grain weight W/O bullet pull? Sort of like a 642 being "just" heavy enough (over Ti/Aluminum Scandium J frames) to escape bullet pull on 158 FBI loads. Hope your feeling better next time out! Let us know how she does. Personally while fast as a striking rattle snake, I found the Big Dot useless unless the rear notch was hogged out to match when doing accuracy work on a J frame. (JOMO)

 

[smithcollector]

I bought a 296 two summers ago. It came with laser grips (which i traded towards another smith ), and the original rubber grips. I installed wood round butt service grips and a Tyler "T". The kick isnt nearly as bad as I expected with 200grain cowboy loads, which was the only 200 grain ammo i could find at the time. I have thought about installing the big dot front sight as well. I dig this gun.

 

[Smee78]

I to love my 296 but am interested in the big dot sight. I like the looks and cant argue with the function of a sight such as this one. What do you guys carry your 296 in? I usually pocket carry mine in my Rt front pocket.

Smee78

 

[smithcollector]

I have a belt holster for mine, as i am planing on carrying mine when im out fishing/hiking. It's a "combat master". on the Galco website, go to Online Catalog, click on "S&W", scroll down to "L FR 296 2-1/2"

 

[wildcardranch]

David, did you buy the big dot sight from XS directly? What size? .219"?

 

[DCWilson]

Sorry for the slow response -- didn't see your question when it came up.

I bought the sight from Brownell's. I didn't mike it, but just ordered the one that could be fit to a 242 or 296 without much trouble.