duckloads
Member
Looking for info about the 396 Mountain Lite. Isn't this an L frame? It looks like a nice packing gun. How is it to shoot?
396 mountain lite
- Thread starter duckloads
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
rburg
Member
They're great little guns. Yes, its an L frame gun, a 5 shooter. Identical in dimensions to the much loved 696, except it weighs significantly less. I've never looked at the actual weights but I think someone said they weight about 19 ounces, or about like that of a steel J frame. Its 2 sizes bigger.
They've got a few drawbacks. The factory places an ammo limitation on the gun. Its designed to prevent the same drawbacks of other light guns, bullet pull. Its also a bit rougher on the shooters hands than the 696. Saving that weight has a payback when shooting. Its not brutal like the 329 or 357, but its still easy to feel when you fire it. Because you're shooting a big slug at a lower velocity, its much easier to use than the ultra light J frames with hot loads.
These are the sleeper guns of the series. No one really ever gives them credit for what they are. They also use the common holster line of the other L frame guns, like the 586/686 line. Few holsters were made for the exact barrel length. I've got a few belt slide styles that compliment the guns very well. They're light just like the gun, and with open bottoms, you don't have a problem. 4" holsters work pretty well, if a bit too long.
Whats not to love?
They've got a few drawbacks. The factory places an ammo limitation on the gun. Its designed to prevent the same drawbacks of other light guns, bullet pull. Its also a bit rougher on the shooters hands than the 696. Saving that weight has a payback when shooting. Its not brutal like the 329 or 357, but its still easy to feel when you fire it. Because you're shooting a big slug at a lower velocity, its much easier to use than the ultra light J frames with hot loads.
These are the sleeper guns of the series. No one really ever gives them credit for what they are. They also use the common holster line of the other L frame guns, like the 586/686 line. Few holsters were made for the exact barrel length. I've got a few belt slide styles that compliment the guns very well. They're light just like the gun, and with open bottoms, you don't have a problem. 4" holsters work pretty well, if a bit too long.
Whats not to love?
Stainz
Member
The '01 S&W catalog shows it at 18.0 oz, while the 696 lists there at 36.0 oz and the shorter 2.5" hammerless 296, with it's open back boots and hump to whack you, weighs 18.9 oz. I have had the other two for over six years.
I called S&W several times over the first years to get info on the Ti/Al frame ammo requirements and limitations. Like Dick said - 200gr or less due to the lite gun bullet under recoil. They said clad-only - no lead - due to to lead spattering at the topstrap over the b/c gap possibly eroding the alloy there. Also, no short cases (.44 Russians) due to problems with cleaning powder/lead residue from the Ti chamber bores. My 296 has had a steady diet of the excellent Speer #4427 200gr Gold Dot, the first thousand from CCI Al-cased Blazer rounds, the last thousand plus either my reloads or GA Arms (new Starline brass) loads - all making 800-805 fps from the 2.5" barrel (830-840 fps from my 3" 696). It is a healthy whack from the dimunitive boot grips and that alloy 'hump'. It is considerably better with the rounded UM's Combats borrowed from the 696, which really deserves nice wood grips, as the UM's Combats insulate that backstrap as well as give you something bigger to hold on to - a consideration for a holster gun like the 396/696 (My 296 with it's boots and in a Mika pocket holster is a 'pocketable' protector!).
A good thing to look for on the latter run of 396's - as well as the new 396NG - is the little piece of SS in the topstrap over the b/c gap. Check the cast-in-place cylinder stop on the frame front for wear - the front edge of that Ti cylinder can pare it away with a good 'Hollywood rap' on the ejector rod, putting the entire cylinder in your hand, if you are attentive... else, it'll hit the ground. That could prove to be embarrassing in an emergency.
The 396 was the last of the trio introduced - and the last dropped. My local pusher still had one new-in-the-case at $589 just a few years ago. My 296 is the only Ti-equipped revolver I own - and I doubt I'll ever get another one - maybe a 242. As to the 696, although no one asked, a 629 MG only weighs 3.5 oz more - and has none of the shortcomings of an L-frame .44 Special - most important of which is that thin-edged forcing cone. You can get a nice used 629MG for a lot less than a decent used 696 - or, probably, a 396. The new 396 NG is a different animal - SS cylindered, too. The 629 MG - or plain 4" 629 like I now have - is a lot more fun, too... and will take Keith level Specials - and more!
Stainz
I called S&W several times over the first years to get info on the Ti/Al frame ammo requirements and limitations. Like Dick said - 200gr or less due to the lite gun bullet under recoil. They said clad-only - no lead - due to to lead spattering at the topstrap over the b/c gap possibly eroding the alloy there. Also, no short cases (.44 Russians) due to problems with cleaning powder/lead residue from the Ti chamber bores. My 296 has had a steady diet of the excellent Speer #4427 200gr Gold Dot, the first thousand from CCI Al-cased Blazer rounds, the last thousand plus either my reloads or GA Arms (new Starline brass) loads - all making 800-805 fps from the 2.5" barrel (830-840 fps from my 3" 696). It is a healthy whack from the dimunitive boot grips and that alloy 'hump'. It is considerably better with the rounded UM's Combats borrowed from the 696, which really deserves nice wood grips, as the UM's Combats insulate that backstrap as well as give you something bigger to hold on to - a consideration for a holster gun like the 396/696 (My 296 with it's boots and in a Mika pocket holster is a 'pocketable' protector!).
A good thing to look for on the latter run of 396's - as well as the new 396NG - is the little piece of SS in the topstrap over the b/c gap. Check the cast-in-place cylinder stop on the frame front for wear - the front edge of that Ti cylinder can pare it away with a good 'Hollywood rap' on the ejector rod, putting the entire cylinder in your hand, if you are attentive... else, it'll hit the ground. That could prove to be embarrassing in an emergency.
The 396 was the last of the trio introduced - and the last dropped. My local pusher still had one new-in-the-case at $589 just a few years ago. My 296 is the only Ti-equipped revolver I own - and I doubt I'll ever get another one - maybe a 242. As to the 696, although no one asked, a 629 MG only weighs 3.5 oz more - and has none of the shortcomings of an L-frame .44 Special - most important of which is that thin-edged forcing cone. You can get a nice used 629MG for a lot less than a decent used 696 - or, probably, a 396. The new 396 NG is a different animal - SS cylindered, too. The 629 MG - or plain 4" 629 like I now have - is a lot more fun, too... and will take Keith level Specials - and more!
Stainz
I enjoy carrying the 396 much more than the 696 in the woods, because it's so much lighter. It is really nice to haul around a .44 cal revolver and not know it's there! That makes it unique in my book. I use a pancake, and it hugs me. I have hiked many a mile with this.
I don't have a problem with the recoil, but I do find it more difficult to shoot dbl action due to trigger control in such a light gun. Hence, I think it is a great "Mountain Lite" packing gun, but not my pick for an "intown" CCW gun. Maybe that's just me and my shooting.
3" holsters will not work. They leave about 1/8 of an inch showing, and that happens to be the high vis sight, not the part you want to bump. I ordered a holster and hade it made 1/4" longer. Or you could use a 4", as Dick said. Make sure it has a big sight channel, as the sharp edges of the high vis seem to "skin" the leather on the way out.
I don't know anything about the new series of Nightguards, but I bet they are a really nice gun. They look super!
Munster
I don't have a problem with the recoil, but I do find it more difficult to shoot dbl action due to trigger control in such a light gun. Hence, I think it is a great "Mountain Lite" packing gun, but not my pick for an "intown" CCW gun. Maybe that's just me and my shooting.
3" holsters will not work. They leave about 1/8 of an inch showing, and that happens to be the high vis sight, not the part you want to bump. I ordered a holster and hade it made 1/4" longer. Or you could use a 4", as Dick said. Make sure it has a big sight channel, as the sharp edges of the high vis seem to "skin" the leather on the way out.
I don't know anything about the new series of Nightguards, but I bet they are a really nice gun. They look super!
Munster
I'm about to send two older 686s of mine to S&W to have them swap the barrels for some 686 Mountain Gun barrels I bought from them a couple years ago. Couldn't hurt to call them and ask if they have any more.
Alternately, you can always keep your eyes open at Larry's for a used 686+ Mt. Gun, but I doubt they will be cheap there.
Alternately, you can always keep your eyes open at Larry's for a used 686+ Mt. Gun, but I doubt they will be cheap there.
RidgwayCO
Member
The 396 might be the best "woods bum" gun of all time. Mine weighs 18 oz empty with the 3 3/8" barrel, while my 296 with a 2 1/2" barrel weighs 18.5 oz. I agree with the earlier poster's opinion that the 296 might be the better choice for town.
I've shot 165gr LRNFP, 185gr LSWC, and 200gr LRNFP out of both with no trouble. But I don't load my .44 Specials to "fire-breathing" levels ...
Since they've got the titanium cylinders, cleaning is a little different. I've read that you should avoid scrubbing the cylinders in an attempt to get them "as new" clean, because you'll eventually damage them. Therefore I clean the chambers just enough to get out any fouling. The outside of the cylinders get a nice "lived-in" look, but I just think of them as working tools, not for showing off.
Commercial Speer 200gr GDHP ammo chronographed at 860 fps out of the 396, and 820 fps out of the 296. Both were comfortable. By comparison, my S&W 624 4" clocked 900 fps with the same ammo.
Of all my .44 Specials, the 396 would be one of the last that I'd ever part with.
I've shot 165gr LRNFP, 185gr LSWC, and 200gr LRNFP out of both with no trouble. But I don't load my .44 Specials to "fire-breathing" levels ...
Since they've got the titanium cylinders, cleaning is a little different. I've read that you should avoid scrubbing the cylinders in an attempt to get them "as new" clean, because you'll eventually damage them. Therefore I clean the chambers just enough to get out any fouling. The outside of the cylinders get a nice "lived-in" look, but I just think of them as working tools, not for showing off.
Commercial Speer 200gr GDHP ammo chronographed at 860 fps out of the 396, and 820 fps out of the 296. Both were comfortable. By comparison, my S&W 624 4" clocked 900 fps with the same ammo.
Of all my .44 Specials, the 396 would be one of the last that I'd ever part with.
20nickels
Member
All out of MG barrels. I checked last year.
k_rasmussen
Member
Of course, the .44 Spl with the limitations of a short barrel and only light loads makes for a pretty anemic defensive cartridge. By my calculations, a 200gr. Gold Dot HP coming out of the barrel of my 296 at approximately 820fps. produces around 288ft-lbs. of energy. By comparison, my Kel-Tec .32ACP loaded with a 37gr. RBCD produces approximately 271ft-lbs. and holds a couple extra rounds. Bet none of us have ever considered a .32ACP for a woods gun for bear defense?! As much as I LOVE the .44 Spl and anything in that caliber, these lightweight guns really do negate many of the great attributes of the caliber. After thinking about this, I may have to re-evaluate the .32 Magnum or the .327 for a lightweight woods gun. Nah... Guess I'll just need to get my reloading gear set up and load some of the 180gr. XTHPs up to the 1084fps. max., which should produce a more respectable 470ft-lbs. of energy.
Frizzman
US Veteran
I agree with RigewayCo that the 396 makes a great gun for general woods carry. I have had one a few years now. I have taken it with my 4" 629 and 625 Mountain Gun in .45 Colt and wound up packing the 396 when hunting in the mountains in steep terrain where every ounce counts.
It is not a target gun. That's not because its not accurate. It is. It is a fairly hard kicker. It has the infernal IL but its never been a problem. You should always try out anything you intend to use in it for serious purposes. It is particular about the types of ammo it shhots well and will not tie it up. I also find it easy to carry in town. The green fiber optic front sight works very well for my middle aged eyes. I like good, adjustable sights on a revolver carried for that purpose.
As with anything, it is a compromise. The wonderful, feathery weight of it comes at some cost. But, if you want a revolver of moderate size that fires a decent bigger bore round and is very east to carry all day and is accurate with very good sights and is quite resistant to corrosion, the 396 Mountain Lite is very handy. It never sold very well and was dropped by S&w. That's Ok though. I got mine and I'm keeping it.
As medicine for a angry grizzly, well, any handgun is pretty feeble. They move very fast and are hard to stop. I believe they are not deterred by pain like most humans when on the attack. I would want a heavy rifle or stay out of their territory. I think a Marlin Guide Gun with heavy .45/70 or .450 Marlin loads would be a good choice.
It is not a target gun. That's not because its not accurate. It is. It is a fairly hard kicker. It has the infernal IL but its never been a problem. You should always try out anything you intend to use in it for serious purposes. It is particular about the types of ammo it shhots well and will not tie it up. I also find it easy to carry in town. The green fiber optic front sight works very well for my middle aged eyes. I like good, adjustable sights on a revolver carried for that purpose.
As with anything, it is a compromise. The wonderful, feathery weight of it comes at some cost. But, if you want a revolver of moderate size that fires a decent bigger bore round and is very east to carry all day and is accurate with very good sights and is quite resistant to corrosion, the 396 Mountain Lite is very handy. It never sold very well and was dropped by S&w. That's Ok though. I got mine and I'm keeping it.
As medicine for a angry grizzly, well, any handgun is pretty feeble. They move very fast and are hard to stop. I believe they are not deterred by pain like most humans when on the attack. I would want a heavy rifle or stay out of their territory. I think a Marlin Guide Gun with heavy .45/70 or .450 Marlin loads would be a good choice.
20nickels
Member
BTW what's up with the 200gr max boolit weight on these things? I thought it was light boolit weights that that Ti/scan gund didn't like.
RidgwayCO
Member
rhm0351, number check...
A 200gr bullet at 820 fps produces 299 ft-lbs of energy. Not earth-shattering, but respectable.
And if you're getting 271 ft-lbs out of your .32 ACP with a 37gr bullet, then your muzzle velocity is just north of 1815 fps. I'd say that .32 is a keeper!
And 20nickles, I believe the max bullet weight is in deference to the gun's light weight. Heavier bullets are more likely to be pulled from their cases by sharp recoil, possibly tying up the gun. Sort of like a very expensive inertial bullet puller...
A 200gr bullet at 820 fps produces 299 ft-lbs of energy. Not earth-shattering, but respectable.
And if you're getting 271 ft-lbs out of your .32 ACP with a 37gr bullet, then your muzzle velocity is just north of 1815 fps. I'd say that .32 is a keeper!
And 20nickles, I believe the max bullet weight is in deference to the gun's light weight. Heavier bullets are more likely to be pulled from their cases by sharp recoil, possibly tying up the gun. Sort of like a very expensive inertial bullet puller...
Yes, I have checked the numbers. 1815fps. is correct: http://www.rbcd.net/Personal%20Defense-%20Ammo.htm Penetration is poor with the RBCD round, but at 1815fps. from a short barrel and 271ft-lbs. of energy, I carry it.
RidgwayCO
Member
rhm0351, I sincerely apologize. I checked out the link you provided, and it does show 1815 fps.
I had no idea such .32 ACP ammo existed. Have you chronographed this stuff? Does the bullet expand or disintegrate?
I had no idea such .32 ACP ammo existed. Have you chronographed this stuff? Does the bullet expand or disintegrate?
RidgwayCO,
No harm, no foul, friend. I have not chronographed it, myself, but when they first came out, a friend who I trust did chrono it and said they came out awfully close to the claimed velocities. RBCD ammunition is pre-fragmented, so it pretty well disintegrates. I do not believe all that RBCD claims, but I KNOW it has more energy than anything else I'm willing to fire through my Kel-Tec. Buffalo Bore makes a .32 +P, but I can't imagine what it would do to my delicate P32 over time! The RBCD is a very mild-handling round that I am comfortable with. I also carry a 10-round .32 magazine in my other pocket loaded with my FMJ plinking ammunition if I ever have need for more penetration than the RBCD provides. It truly, like any .32ACP, is just for Summer carry when anyone I might have to defend myself against is dressed lightly. In the winter I switch to a .38 Spl 158gr. LSWCHP in standard or +P configuration in either a Colt Agent, Cobra, or Detective Special. I also carry the 296 with the aforementioned 200 grain Gold Dots quite regularly throughout the year. Before considering drinking the RBCD Kool-Aid, I highly recommend reading some of the dissenting arguments, especially that from The Box O' Truth. I have never had reliability issues with my Kel-Tec, but my P32 has had far less trouble than some of my friends' P3ATs have, too.
No harm, no foul, friend. I have not chronographed it, myself, but when they first came out, a friend who I trust did chrono it and said they came out awfully close to the claimed velocities. RBCD ammunition is pre-fragmented, so it pretty well disintegrates. I do not believe all that RBCD claims, but I KNOW it has more energy than anything else I'm willing to fire through my Kel-Tec. Buffalo Bore makes a .32 +P, but I can't imagine what it would do to my delicate P32 over time! The RBCD is a very mild-handling round that I am comfortable with. I also carry a 10-round .32 magazine in my other pocket loaded with my FMJ plinking ammunition if I ever have need for more penetration than the RBCD provides. It truly, like any .32ACP, is just for Summer carry when anyone I might have to defend myself against is dressed lightly. In the winter I switch to a .38 Spl 158gr. LSWCHP in standard or +P configuration in either a Colt Agent, Cobra, or Detective Special. I also carry the 296 with the aforementioned 200 grain Gold Dots quite regularly throughout the year. Before considering drinking the RBCD Kool-Aid, I highly recommend reading some of the dissenting arguments, especially that from The Box O' Truth. I have never had reliability issues with my Kel-Tec, but my P32 has had far less trouble than some of my friends' P3ATs have, too.
Similar threads
