pro's con's 696

[crsides]

I follow the older smith's in the 1940-50's time frame and largely ignored the newer models until I came across the 696. This is an intriguing concept - 5 shot 44 spl on L frame. I still have not handled one.

Can some of you guys that have owned one share your experience with them, pro's and con. I think this would be neat in a fixed sight version.


thanks, Charlie

 

[ken158]

Those that have them will defend them. Those that got rid of them will say they were cautious of thin cylinder walls and forcing cone area. Dont try to make a magnum out of a 696.

 

[Tom Servo]

Those that got rid of them will say they were cautious of thin cylinder walls and forcing cone area.

While those were concerns for me, I never had a problem. Nor have I heard of anyone breaking one.

One only has to look at the measurements to see that there is a potential risk with warm loads, however. That said, there's an upper limit to how hot of a load I'd find controllable in the gun.

I parted with mine for two reasons. The first was ammunition cost and availability. It shot the CorBon 200gr stuff and Gold Dots quite nicely, but would not group well with both brands of cheap(ish) practice ammunition that I used.

The second reason? Weight. The 696 was to be a carry gun, and as I get older, I'm really noticing the difference in weight between the L and K frames, and the 696 was just a hair over what I found tolerable for 12-14 hour stretches.

 

[Gary7]

Those that have them will defend them. Those that got rid of them will say they were cautious of thin cylinder walls and forcing cone area. Dont try to make a magnum out of a 696.

The L-Frame was S&W's first "41-size" frame, meaning its dimensions were sufficient to build a functional and reliable .41 cal. 6-shot revolver out of it, even a 41 Magnum. It is not, however, large enough to make a 6-shot 44, and even with a 5-shot cylinder the forcing cone is too thin for 44 Magnum. It should be fine with standard 44 Special loads.

NB: Colt's I-Frame (Python and Trooper) is a 41-size frame. But when Colt wanted to build a 44 Magnum they had to create a larger frame.

 

[Chop]

I have two I bought new in the late 90's. One of them is a lew horton mag-n-ported version. I have shot the mag-n-ported one quite a bit. I mostly use factory ammo, blazer 200 gn gold dots. The revolver fits my hand perfect, the recoil is minimal, and the trigger seems very smooth to me. When I take my time and do my part, it is very accurate. If you live in northern Wyoming I will be glad to let you shoot mine.
Chop

 

[VAdoublegunner]

I have a 696-2, the last model made (and few at that) with the IL. I like the gun and have carried it occasionally when out in the woods (I use my Lipsey's Ruger Flattop 44SP more these days). It's a little heavy for everyday, but could work if you don't mind a comparable 686.

Brian Pearce wrote an article in Handloader about different 44Special power level loads, I think it was back in 2006, and held the opinion that the 696 could easily handle 25kpsi level loads and that they were actually capable of more than that according to S&W testing. However, I see no reason to go there since I can get a 240 Hornady XTP to almost 1200fps in that range, or hard cast bullets to the same, and that should take care of most things that need it.

I know there is the oft discussed thin forcing cone, maybe a gun legend issue - maybe not, but I observe that mine seems just slightly thicker than the earlier models. In any case, if you like shooting 240 cast or swaged bullets at around 1000fps, it is a great gun and should last a long, long time. If you need higher power level jacketed loads it can do you there to, just don't try to make it a 44Mag. As a range and occasional carry gun, it is a nice one to have.

 

[Wisent]

Hello crsides,

I've got an earlie 696 without IL andI use it as a carry gun when out in the wooods for rifle hunting on roes and deers, sometimes even on hogs, when back - upo gun (finisher) is needed.
I use the old Remington load and the MagTech load, both very accurate and by no means with hefty recoil.
Since I have no CCP - alsmost impossible to achieve one in Germany, one must be nearly shot to death at elast two times until you arer allowed to carrry concealed - I cannot tell you about every day carry with business suit on.

I'll never give away this gun, except if I could get a 629 Mountain Gun in mint condition.

Best regards

Wisent

 

[Texas1941]

I have a 696 no dash. There may or may not be a strength issue with them, but I've never had any problems. Just about all my 44 Spl loads involve lead bullets running between 850-950 fps from a 4" tube, so I've never really pushed the pressure limits.

I carried mine quite a bit during the late '90s, with the 200 gr Blazer Gold Dot. They averaged 815 fps, or so out of the 3" bbl, depending on lot. That's low end acceptable performance, at least for me. The CorBon 165 gr JHP and the 200 gr DPX are probably better loads. If you are comfortable carrying handloads for self defense, which I'm not, you can get much better performance.

I never found recoil or muzzle flip to be much of an issue, but of course I was using pretty mild ammunition.

I stopped carrying it mainly because of the weight issue. Maybe it's a age thing, but it just seemed too heavy at the end of the day. For the same weight, I could just as easily carry a Government Model and get more bang for my buck.

The problem with a fixed sight version is regulation of the POI. There is a fairly big difference in impact between the lighter 165-200 gr loads and the heavier 240-255 gr loads. Where do you regulate the sights?

Good guns, but I don't use mine much anymore.

Charles

 

[Shooting4life]

My only problem with them is not havin one.

 

[MMA10mm]

I have a 696 no dash.

Good guns, but I don't use mine much anymore.

Charles

Charles, if'n you aren't getting that much pleasure from it anymore, perhaps we can arrange to get it into my hands, as I'd love it and give it very regular attention!!!

 

[Texas1941]

Charles, if'n you aren't getting that much pleasure from it anymore, perhaps we can arrange to get it into my hands, as I'd love it and give it very regular attention!!!

I don't doubt you would give it a good home, but unless driven by dire need, I try to keep my pre-lock guns. I can live with the IL, if I have to, but I prefer the older guns.

There is one thing about the 696 that I didn't mention, but I think is a big plus for it. With the proper ammunition, you get "stopping power" similar to the 357 Mag without the horrible muzzle blast. There is another thread running now concerning the db level of the 357. They are especially loud in the 2.5-3" bbls.

While I have no scientific measurement to back it up, subjectively, the 44 Spl in the 3" tube seems to generate much less blast. The Peltor muffs I use (rated at 30 db) seem to work just fine with the 44. With the 357 in a 3" bbl, I need plugs as well.

Charles

 

[Skeeziks]

There is one thing about the 696 that I didn't mention, but I think is a big plus for it. With the proper ammunition, you get "stopping power" similar to the 357 Mag without the horrible muzzle blast.

The 44 spl. has "stopping power" that exceeds the 357 mag. (greater sectional density.)

 

[Gary7]

The 44 spl. has "stopping power" that exceeds the 357 mag. (greater sectional density.)

There's more to "stopping power" than sectional density.

 

[RidgwayCO]

A 696 thread with no photos? Let's fix THAT oversight right now...

 

[sheriffoconee]

the ONLY reason I traded my 696 no dash was to swap it even for a Model 58....which of course I would have probably given the guy my wife for a 58 if he had asked.
I will own another 696 one day soon.
I really like the round, the gun, and the total concept.
self defense .44 spl rounds were both accurate and controllable....
the gun wasn't a plastic lightweight, but in a good holster I carried it all day....I even carried it in a Smartcarry holster all weekend while on a trip.
696 is a good concept well executed. If you need 15 round mags, or horrific muzzle blast and noise to make you happy, you won't like it. If you need a good, ultra reliable fighting revolver to protect you and yours, a 696 is an excellent choice

 

[alaskavett]

696

I have a 696 and on occasion carry it. I like that it is a sweet shooting, pie plate throwing gun yet it is tame and easily controllable with reasonable loads. One must always remember it is NOT a .44 MAG and was never intended to be one. I also have a Mod 66, 2.5" that goes out with me at times and yes there is a more noticeable muzzle flip and blast with it then with the 696 with similar ammo. One thing for sure is I never want to be on the wrong end of either as they are both scary accurate Kyle

 

[jag312]

I have a 696 no dash. For me, I can carry it all day and the weight doesn't bother me. My 696 has razor edge accuracy with anything I put into it, whether factory or handloads. It is a .44 Special, not a .44 Magnum, and keeping that in mind, my handloads are moderate, and I don't worry about splitting the forcing cone. Most people have never seen one, so I always get questions. I have handloaded .44 Russian for light recoiling target practice.

The con; my barrel leaded badly with plain lead bullets. It didn't matter what kind of lead bullets (home cast or commercial cast) or the bullet lube. The leading did not seem to affect the accuracy. I finally went to Xtreme copper plated bullets for my handloads, and the leading went away.

I wish it had been made with a 4 inch barrel and a square butt, but other than that, I love my 696.

 

[semperfi71]

Mine's a bit dirty from firing in this pic.

I have not gotten around to shooting it much yet, but I will. It may well shoot pretty good considering the groups I have gotten from my one .44 Special reload shot in it.

In country where there's nothing much bigger than a black bear I would think it would make a great woods carry weapon. But so would a K-frame .357 [properly loaded].

As others posted here, it is a pretty good concept, but again although gun writers [and us gun-shooters] wax about the "great" .44 Special, in reality, for gun companies, they don't sell so well. However I like .44 Specials so I have them.

I suspect a really big person could conceal one well enough.

I will load mine with cast 240 grain bullets at about 800 fps with fast burning powder. As such I will get sufficient power with minimal recoil.

The forcing cone is too thin to attempt jacketed loads or lead loads at higher velocities. If I want that I have larger .44 Specials or .44 Magnums.

Balance and handling is great.

 

[MMA10mm]

I don't doubt you would give it a good home, but unless driven by dire need, I try to keep my pre-lock guns. I can live with the IL, if I have to, but I prefer the older guns.

There is one thing about the 696 that I didn't mention, but I think is a big plus for it. With the proper ammunition, you get "stopping power" similar to the 357 Mag without the horrible muzzle blast. There is another thread running now concerning the db level of the 357. They are especially loud in the 2.5-3" bbls.

While I have no scientific measurement to back it up, subjectively, the 44 Spl in the 3" tube seems to generate much less blast. The Peltor muffs I use (rated at 30 db) seem to work just fine with the 44. With the 357 in a 3" bbl, I need plugs as well.

Charles

I don't blame you one bit, partner. Can't fault that logic, as that is the same line of thinking I follow. I just made the error of not getting one when they first came out...

I also agree wholeheartedly with your point about the power without the fuss of the 44 Special in a 3" (or any short) barrel.

Good shootin'!

 

[Gary7]

Those that have them will defend them. Those that got rid of them will say they were cautious of thin cylinder walls and forcing cone area. Dont try to make a magnum out of a 696.

The forcing cone issue I can see, but "thin cylinder walls" is a non-issue, IMO. The chamber walls on a 696 at their thinnest point are about the same as on a J-Frame or K-Frame 357.