396 NGuard contemplation/musings

[Nicksterdemus]

I haven't observed any in person though I've read there's only 5oz difference in the whole lot of NGs. As well it seems the pach grips are courting folks w/longer fingers. I was curious if the trigger reach on the 396 would be similar to a 686 w/target stocks. I pulled the targets off my 686 coz it was more comfortable reaching the trigger. As well I've yet to run across a double stack semi that felt like a pistol.
Anyone 'splain to me why S&W couldn't have built the 5 round, 44 spl on the K frame? I understand that once upon a time the K frames could be stressed by continuous use of heavy loads, howevah I think by now a 5 round 44 spl should be able to be manufactured on a K frame. The heaviest load Buffalo Bore sells is a 255 grn, 1000'ps, w/566'lb outa a 6" brl. S&W could make up for the lost weight by using a 3" all steel brl. As is 24.8oz is only an oz more than the Kframe 38NG, 4oz less than the 44magNG and .8oz more than my 60-15.
Feel free to tell me I'm whinin' n should be happy w/what the S&W gawdz have offered to my lowly, undeserving self...

 

[Nicksterdemus]

I haven't observed any in person though I've read there's only 5oz difference in the whole lot of NGs. As well it seems the pach grips are courting folks w/longer fingers. I was curious if the trigger reach on the 396 would be similar to a 686 w/target stocks. I pulled the targets off my 686 coz it was more comfortable reaching the trigger. As well I've yet to run across a double stack semi that felt like a pistol.
Anyone 'splain to me why S&W couldn't have built the 5 round, 44 spl on the K frame? I understand that once upon a time the K frames could be stressed by continuous use of heavy loads, howevah I think by now a 5 round 44 spl should be able to be manufactured on a K frame. The heaviest load Buffalo Bore sells is a 255 grn, 1000'ps, w/566'lb outa a 6" brl. S&W could make up for the lost weight by using a 3" all steel brl. As is 24.8oz is only an oz more than the Kframe 38NG, 4oz less than the 44magNG and .8oz more than my 60-15.
Feel free to tell me I'm whinin' n should be happy w/what the S&W gawdz have offered to my lowly, undeserving self...

 

[Andy Taylor]

The reason a .44 is in an L frame instead of a K frame is the flat spot on the bottom of a K frame barrel. At least that would be my guess. Take a look at the forcing cone of any K frame and you will see what I mean.

I did look at a night guard 396 last week and nearly bit, except for that #$%^&* lock.

 

[Nicksterdemus]

Okie, dokie the ejector rod needs the room. Gotcha.
Now I gotta know if, using the same grips, there's any difference in length to the trigger betwixt the K n L frames. It seems to me there's a little more length to the L though I'm comparing it to a pre-great war 38spl hand ejector.

I'm not a fan of the IL n would've prefered a 3" brl, howevah if it fits my hand and the prices keep falling I'm gonna have to buy...

 

[Tom M]

My 396 and 10-5 are exactly the same dimensions. The shape of the trigger on the 396 is very slightly different, but it doesn't increase/decrease the distance to the butt.

The 396 is a handfull. When I got mine, I only had some target handloads, loaded to about 80% of factory standard. Had the same perceived recoil as a .357. I imagine that full load self-defense rounds would give your wrist quite the workout.

 

[starbuck]

If you want to feel a .44 recoil try shooting a S&W 296. I am good for about 5 rounds before I get tears in my eye's. I still love the gun.

 

[Nicksterdemus]

Thanks Tom. I'd read an article, albeit about the 325NG, where the gent claimed the Pachs pllaced him too far from the trigger while smaller ones transferred too much recoil. At least that's what I understood. I'm sure at that weight it's quite a handful which is all the more why I wish for a fit.
------
How much does the 296 weigh? I tend to agree that I probably wouldn't shoot one much, but it does have the kewl factor in spades...

 

[Doug M.]

I think that there is simply not enough meat around the holes in a K frame to put the 44 in it; hence use of the L frame. It's similar to the reason that we can't have a 45ACP 5 shot L frame (rats rats rats).

As for recoil, I found the 296 with the Blazer 200 grain GDHP to be less unpleasant than the 442 with the 135 grain +P short barrel load, even with the CT grips.

 

[Nicksterdemus]

In 1999 the .44 Special found a home in the Model 296Ti: this 2-1/2" 19-ounce .44 had an alloy frame ...

19oz?

Oh! lawd have mercy...

 

[Munsterf18]

I put Ahrends combat wood grips on my 396, to keep from increasing the reach to the trigger, but took them back off because I couldn't keep a grip for the second shot.

It's also very light, has a stiff action, and I have a difficult time not moving the gun around double action shooting. I plan on working on this.

So what should I call this now, a Day Guard?

 

[Nicksterdemus]

Put ya on a Busch t-shirt n head for the mnts. I can see the backstrap. On the NG the Pachs look like pancakes or ping pong paddles and no backstrap in sight. You have the Titanium cylinder and I think it weighs in less than the NG w/carbon steel. That's a fine piece.

 

[rburg]

Yes, the 396 (nothing particularly different about the "nightguard" except its black color)will handle any set of grips that will fit a similar K. K frame guns and L frame guns use the same size and shape grips. Sure, round is round and square is square. I've got a set of 1950s vintage diamond round butts on my 696. They fit pretty well and look different. For whatever reason, S&W seems to be catering to the guys with large hands. Everyone doesn't have big hands. Some just average. But over the last 110 years they've been producing K frame grips, there's just got to be a configuration that will please you.

And if you think the 396 hurts your hand, try out a 329 for a cylinder full!