S&W 69 .44 Magnum.

[MCorps0311]

I have built up my budget enough to add the S&W 69 .44 Magnum 5 shot to my .44 collection.I already own a Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum 4" 6 shot, and a CA Bulldog .44 Special 2.5" 5 shot. I have watch videos of he revolvers. I would like some opinions from you all, about the S&W 69 .44 Magnum 5 shot revolver. I'm looking to buy it next month.Thanks

 

[Ruber]

S&W 69 .44 Magnum.

I picked up this 69 earlier this year and have needed to work out a few bugs, but it is a real blast to shoot. It has become my favorite pack gun, and with specials, is fun at the range. For a size reference, it is a bit trimmer and lighter than say a 4" Ruger GP100 and lighter than a 4" 686.

It shoots great and has got me back into a cartridge I really have not shot in years because I don't like carrying the bigger guns around. It's as accurate as my larger .44's in my hands, and if I pick the right loads, seems to retain a good amount of the performance.

Brian Pearce has an article in the December '14 Handloader featuring both magnum and special loads for this gun ( https://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/hl293partial.pdf ). Some of the magnum loads using faster powders work pretty well so far. In the short barrel, they give results not too far behind the max loads and don't beat on my wrist like full power loads.


So,,, the issues:

The breech face/recoil shield had some rough spots that needed to be stoned before it cycled smoothly and the lock needed to go. With the rough edges knocked down and the lock flag gone, it has been a reliable and smooth shooter.

I'll get a set of troopers when I get a little extra cash, but the Pachmayrs help with grip and recoil for now.

As for cosmetics, the factory hammer looks like it was kicked around the assembly floor, I think that and the cylinder release will be replaced next. They work fine as is, so still low priority.

Compared with a Redhawk... Much lighter, better balance to me, smoother action, more fun to shoot specials with. One less round, strong recoil with full magnum loads. I have felt some nice triggers on Redhawks recently, but I still like the Smith trigger better. The 69 will be a nice companion, I use a Redhawk for silhouettes, but the 69 for paper targets and backcountry use.

 

[MCorps0311]

I picked up this 69 earlier this year and have needed to work out a few bugs, but it is a real blast to shoot. It has become my favorite pack gun, and with specials, is fun at the range. For a size reference, it is a bit trimmer and lighter than say a 4" Ruger GP100 and lighter than a 4" 686.

It shoots great and has got me back into a cartridge I really have not shot in years because I don't like carrying the bigger guns around. It's as accurate as my larger .44's in my hands, and if I pick the right loads, seems to retain a good amount of the performance.

Brian Pearce has an article in the December '14 Handloader featuring both magnum and special loads for this gun ( https://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/hl293partial.pdf ). Some of the magnum loads using faster powders work pretty well so far. In the short barrel, they give results not too far behind the max loads and don't beat on my wrist like full power loads.


So,,, the issues:

The breech face/recoil shield had some rough spots that needed to be stoned before it cycled smoothly and the lock needed to go. With the rough edges knocked down and the lock flag gone, it has been a reliable and smooth shooter.

I'll get a set of troopers when I get a little extra cash, but the Pachmayrs help with grip and recoil for now.

As for cosmetics, the factory hammer looks like it was kicked around the assembly floor, I think that and the cylinder release will be replaced next. They work fine as is, so still low priority.

Compared with a Redhawk... Much lighter, better balance to me, smoother action, more fun to shoot specials with. One less round, strong recoil with full magnum loads. I have felt some nice triggers on Redhawks recently, but I still like the Smith trigger better. The 69 will be a nice companion, I use a Redhawk for silhouettes, but the 69 for paper targets and backcountry use.

Thanks Ruber.i'll post a picture of mine next month. I like the the 5 shot just in case I want to carry it sometime because it's not as big as that 6 shot Redhawk I have.

 

[Qc Pistolero]

Hey!it is a .44 Magnum.You can't go wrong with the caliber.And Hey!it is a S&W,you can't go wrong with the gun!Looks you're going on the right path!Keep going on and have fun with it!
Qc

 

[bronco45]

Bought my first one in 2014 great shooter, easier to pack than my old Pre 29 and it shoots awfully darn tight.

Gun loves 250 Keith bullets, at 1000 to 1200 fps using medium burn rate powders and standard primers.

I have a Hogue round butt rubber L frame grip on it and it fits my hand very well.

Much easier to pack due to frame size, and sights are great.

Gun originally shot high, so I ordered a taller front sight and the gun shoots right where you look now.

 

[686-380]

You'll really like the feel/weight, if you're like me. 3 oz lighter than the 686!

 

[BLUEDOT37]

I have built up my budget enough to add the S&W 69 .44 Magnum 5 shot to my .44 collection.

Which barrel length are you looking at? 2.75" or 4.25" ?

The new snubbie gets an improved ball detent lock.

Fun to shoot & surprisingly accurate.

.

69 Combat Magnum (-01a)

.

69 Combat Magnum (-01b)

.

 

[kaaskop49]

Can anyone explain or show a pic of the newer ball detent lockup on the snub 69 to this J-hound? Thanks in advance.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[BLUEDOT37]

M69 ball detent lock - new

Here you go...

.

69 Combat Magnum - ball detent lock (2.75" bbl.)

(-014a)

.

 

[Paul105]

I have both 4 ¼" and 2 ¾" versions. Bought one of the first 4 ¼" avail in early 2014 and added the 2 ¾" several month ago. Both are equipped with the S&W Hogue 500 X Frame grips which I have on all my recent round butt K, L, & N frame S&Ws. With the Hogue grips, I find the recoil of the 4 ¼", with heavy loads, to be a slightly less than a 4" N Frame Mountain Gun. For me, the 2 ¾" gun's recoil is a bit less than the 4 ¼" with equal loads (my guess is that is due to approx. 100 fps less velocity thru the shorter tube).
As mentioned above by BLUEDOT37, the little snubbie is amazingly easy to shoot and my sample is quite accurate. As far as durability goes, one of my 4 ¼" guns has 5,700+ rounds down the pipe (1/3 magnum level loads) and is still going strong. I could live happily with either barrel length, but think the 4 ¼" is a bit more versatile and the added sight radius is helpful.

I live and recreate pretty much daily in moose, bear, cougar and wolf country. My predominant all day everyday carry gun is the 4 ¼" M69. The L Frame .44 Mag fits my needs perfectly and has relegated my other .44s to occasional range use.

Here are some chronograph results for both the 2 ¾" and 4 ¼" guns.

Chronoed these from the 2.75" M69. Three rounds at 5 Long paces from muzzle and 68 deg F. Larger sample could change the results a bit. Largest ES was 42 fps.

260 WFNGC w/23.0gr H110 avg 1,125 fps
240 Zero JSP with 23.5gr H110 avg 1,126 fps
240gr Fed Factory avg 1,125 fps
265gr CSWCGC (Lyman Thompson) with 17.5gr A2400 (Deep Seat) 1,119 fps avg
325gr WLNGC (BTB) with 22.0gr H110 avg 1,104 fps

For comparison purposes these were shot a while back from my 4 ¼" M69: Same temp, distance from the muzzle.

260 WFNGC w/23.0gr H110 avg 1,224 fps
240 Zero JSP with 23.5gr H110 avg 1,230 fps
240gr Fed Factory avg 1,220 fps
265gr CSWCGC (Lyman Thompson) with 17.5gr A2400 (deep seat) 1,140 fps avg
325gr WLNGC (BTB) with 22.0gr H110 avg 1,182

Some additional information on the different ball detent(s):

New front lockup on 2 ¾" (vs orig M69 4 ¼"). Ball detent is on the frame and locks up on/in back of crane/yoke (don't know exact config as I haven't disassembled cyl/yoke assy yet). Not sure why S&W hasn't identified this as a dash 1 (engineering change).

Orig M69 (4 ¼") front lockup. Ball detent on front of crane/yoke that locks into a v notch on the rear of the ejector shroud.

I can't find any incidence of the much criticized (mostly early on due to newness) ball detent being a problem. Nothing on any of the forums in over 3 ½ years, and it would have been a definite topic for discussion/criticism.

I think you've made a geat choice – hope it works for you as well as it has for me.

Hadn't planned on getting so wordy, but the M69 brings it out in me.

Thanks for your service.

Paul

 

[joe44va]

I like mine a lot and carry it in the woods and rivers.

 

[kaaskop49]

Attn BLUEDOT37, Paul105

Thank you very much for your pix and explanations. Wonder if the newer system will make it's way to the 4.25" model.

Now, if they would only produce this gun in a snub nose, fixed sight version! 2.75" is like a telephone pole! There was a photo of such a 2" Model 29 (heavily customized) in CH magazine years ago. Good shooting all and thanks again.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[MCorps0311]

Which barrel length are you looking at? 2.75" or 4.25" ?

The new snubbie gets an improved ball detent lock.

Fun to shoot & surprisingly accurate.

.

69 Combat Magnum (-01a)

.

69 Combat Magnum (-01b)

.

I'm going with the 4.25" barrel. I already have a Bulldog 2.5" barrel .

 

[StakeOut]

The good thing about the 69 or 629 is you have choices and not much difference in price on grab a gun.

If the revolver is intended for carry lighter is often better.

I shoot my 3" 629s much more often than my 3" 696.

I probably shoot a 4" Mountain Gun the most

If you reload,my suggestion is to load 44 magnum cases for use in 44 magnum guns.
5.0gr of Bullseye(Keith Load) in a magnum case with standard primer under a 240gr lead bullet makes a nice round for punching holes in paper.

 

[03Fatboy]

5.0gr of Bullseye(Keith Load) in a magnum case with standard primer under a 240gr lead bullet makes a nice round for punching holes in paper.

Thanks and I'm going to try that load!

 

[richcory]

I love mine & carry it hunting. Really not bad to shoot, even with full magnum loads.

Cory

 

[shocker]

Another 69 fan here, 4.25 barrel. I've kept mine stock as the grip fits my hand and sights are fine. Only knock I have against it is the trigger on mine is merely "good" vs. great but I could always have it tuned.

Favorite loads - Steel targets or paper at close range - 180 gr wadcutter with 5.5 gr AA 2 or 6 gr W231

Everything else - 240 gr cast with a "starting magnum load" of AA 7 or AA 9. I have gone max load with those combos and the noise, blast, and recoil get zesty but it's not that much worse than say a 4" 629.

 

[twodog max]

I have had mine almost 2 years and really enjoy it. Shoots great and recoil is manageable even with full bore loads. I put Pachmayr Diamond Pro grips on it and they help. Mine too shoots a little high but not enough for me to change the front sight. I shoot it every few days.
I would like to see a 6 inch version.

 

[Voyager28]

She's not the prettiest girl at the prom. But, she can dance all night and come back for more.

Best woods gun I've ever owned.

Bob

 

[oneoff]

The 69 is just a great little gun! Coming from having packed a Super Blackhawk for a couple of decades +.

Mine really likes 7.0-7.1 grains of trail boss behind a 240gr. Semi-wadcutter. It gives 1" groups at 20 yards, & .45acp performance for those times when a lighter load is desired.