New L Frame 44 mag!

Messer

Messer

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
592
Reaction score
1,061
Location
Central Virginia
Just a FYI for those interested...

I was looking at the video coverage of the 2014 SHOT Show over on gunblast.com, (day 3 video if you are going to go look) and they were showing the new, 5 shot L Frame model 69, 4.25" barrel in 44 Mag.

I like the concept - will need to see & hold one to really decide.

Anyone else interested?

Have a good weekend,
Bob S.
 
Register to hide this ad
I like the idea myself. Not really sure the ability of the frame to withstand any steady diet of mag-level loads but for a hand loader using light homebrews I think it would be great. :)
 
Sounds like the one thing I always wanted in my 696. A 4" barrel. I would not be able to shoot anything hotter than I can in the .44 Special due to recoil, but another model in that caliber would be great.
 
Very interested! I'm not worried about the steady diet of magnum loads. The gun would still last longer than I would under those conditions. If I couldn't reload, I wouldn't own a 44 magnum to begin with. Unless I was worried about bears so cougars, I'd keep it stoked with 44 specials anyway. By today's standards, the price looks pretty reasonable too.
 
Sarge45 said:
I like the idea myself. Not really sure the ability of the frame to withstand any steady diet of mag-level loads but for a hand loader using light homebrews I think it would be great. :)
Click to expand...

Like a J or K frame will choke on .357 Magnums? ;) :D
I bet an L frame can handle it, and I guarantee there's a market for it.


The nice thing is, if you do have trouble, S&W's Lifetime Warranty will take care of you. :)
 
Like the concept. Am using most of my 44 mags with reduced loads, and the L-frame fits my hand size much better than the N-frame. Hope enough interest is shown for varying barrel lengths, 3-6 inchers.

Ifen I was more practical, could change out a lot of 3 in 44 specials/mags.
 
I'm a bit concerned about the frame size as well; the N frame was already "marginal" to begin with (think endurance package) and when laid beside other 44 Magnums (Colt Anaconda, Ruger Redhawk, Blackhawk, Super Redhawk, and even the Taurus) it is not as robust. Now, modern N-frame revolvers seem to be just fine but I don't know why they'd tempt fate by dropping to an L. I hope they've done their testing/research and that there aren't any long term issues!
 
Been over this one quite a bit. I'm really happy to see this. Hope it's enough of a success that they make a 3 inch barrel.
I'd be ON that, like a politician on a tax hike.
 
Like the effort from S&W and if I run across one, I'll probably buy it and hope they release a shorter barreled version. Maybe even a PC 2.5"! :D
 
I'm not concerned about frame size, but rather the thickness of the forcing cone. Remember, in addition to the 696, there was a 296 and 396 Mt. Lite which were very nice lightweight .44s. If the new L-frame .44 is a smaller version of the 629 Carry Comp, it will be a big winner.
 
Seems like it would have been prudent to keep it a .44 Special, but like was mentioned above, most .44 shooters already reload, so they can work up a good Magnum load that won't beat up the shooter or the gun.
 
I intend to get one as soon as I can. I already know that most of my shooting will be 900-1000 FPS LSWC loads but that will do all that I need done. My interest is sparked because it will fit my hands, unlike the "N" frame. Five shots is plenty for my needs.
 
Like mc5aw, I'd be worried about the forcing cone. I've read on more than one occasion that the forcing cone was the weak point on the 696s. Looking at the pictures, they may have been able to beef that up a bit on these new guns. I noticed that the ejector rod diameter appeared to be smaller than a regular K/L/N frame revolvers, and that it has a ball crane lock up. Wonder if these changes allow for using a larger diameter forcing cone? Sure hope the LGS gets one in, and I get to look it over before it's sold. I suspect that if there are no, or very few, reports of durability problems, S&W is going to sell a Ton of them...
 
Last edited:
Ill get one not because I need it, but I just like different variations of smith .44's to collect. its one of my favorite calibers.
 
About frame size. Making the opening narrower top to bottom to for a 5 shooter will not cause problems as long as the top strap and lock work areas have the same thickness and width as a N frame. Matter of fact the shorter dimensions up and down help. Easier to bend a long piece than a short one. I agree on the forcing cone area being a concern. An N frame has a .670-36 thread and allows it to have a forcing cone OD of about .640. A L frame has a only a .562 -36 thread which only allows an OD of about .532. Take .429 from that leaves .103 and divide that by 2 and you only have .05015, and you need to bevel that fore the forcing cone. Not much left. I have a L frame sized Taurus 44 special and it is around .040 at the edge of the forcing cone. Hard to make the frame accept a larger thread because the forcing cone area of the barrel has to clear the top strap and you have to have some frame below the barrel threads, but still let the ejector rod have a big enough hole in the yoke and still have metal above it. All this is dictated by the OD of the cylinder and radius of the chambers in the cylinder. Move the chambers out and walls get thin and the center line of the barrel has to go up. Move the chambers in and they get closer together with thin walls between and then the center line of the barrel goes down and less room for the yoke ejector rod fit. Kinda stuck. But like said above might get a little with a slightly smaller ejector rod OD.

And then I want a L frame in 45ACP which would leave .040 before the forcing cone taper and about .03 with the taper. But, Taurus made some. I want a S&W.
 
Last edited:
I own a no dash 696 so I know that the forcing cone is alittle wimpy. I've not put a lot of rounds through it nor is it a magnum so maybe someday it will cause a problem. The new "L" magnum could exacerbate the problem (?) with heavy loads I suppose. To be honest,I've never heard of anyone who has had a forcing cone issue with a 696. Does anyone know of one? I'm not trying to start a debate just want to know if the issue is real or not?
Len
 
Just a short update. I took possession of a 69 today. OD of barrel shank is right at .620". The cylinder is 1.670 inches and isn't recessed for cartridge rims -- a 1.712" handload fits, but is right at the face of the cylinder. Lymans No 49 edition shows OAL w their 425421 Keith Bullet is 1.710".

Here are some pictures:
.
M69 Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone area:
.
BarrelShank69-1_zpsb72ac0a2.jpg

.
M696 Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone Area:
.
BarrelShank696-1_zps022af189.jpg

.
629 Mtn Gun Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone area:
.
M629MtGunBarrelShank_zps8e4a7fad.jpg

.
Family Portrait - 629 Mtn Gun, M696, New M69:
.
62969669_zps609b0821.jpg

.
Sorry about the "so-so" pictures -- light wasn't the best and I'm not the best photographer.

Headed to the range with about 25 Lbs of .44 ammo (Mild to wild) and the chrono. Naturally, the range was closed, so I'll do it another day and open a new thread to post results.

What a neat little package.

FWIW,

Paul
 
Congrats on the purchase. While the forcing cone isn't as beefy as the N fram, it does make the 696 look a little weak. Keep us filled in on the range report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Korth .44 frame grip compared to L/N frame?
Replies
5
Views
697
Rangersedge
R
S
L- Frame 41 Magnum?
Replies
26
Views
2K
Jfkidaho
J
lwestatbus
Model 69 4.25" Shoulder Holster
Replies
20
Views
3K
PHS327
P
tcloud
.44 Mag 29-2 vs 500 Mag
Replies
12
Views
1K
tcloud
tcloud
C
  • Locked
WTS: Nill Grips for Colt Python and S&W K/L Frame
Replies
1
Views
1K
Coal Train
C

Latest posts

Back
Top