S&W Model 69 Review

howdy53

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
11
Reaction score
12
Location
Twin Falls, Idaho
Howdy, All

Well, I just purchased a new model 69 and thought I would do a review since I was a model 696 owner. As I sold my 696 because I was not happy with the way it shot. With the heavy 240 grains 44 special loads, I did not like the way the three inch barrel handled (I know there are a lot of three inch barrel lovers on this site). But, to each his own and I do not miss my model 696, as it did not suit me. Well, I still wanted a model 686 in 44 special with a 4 inch barrel. So, out comes the model 69 in 44 mag. And it has a 4 inch barrel so I needed to see how it handled since I will shoot 44 specials in it anyway!
The good points, it has a very nice single and double action pull and mim parts work just as smooth as my older 686’s without mim parts. With 44 special loads, the gun handled a pointed better than my 696 did, so I’m happy with that. With 44 mag. loads it is a hand-full and I will not shoot much of that except to carry them when back packing or out in bear country. The 44 snake loads are great and give a nice big pattern and you could use them for quail or grouse when camping. It also fits my Diamond D Alaskan guide chest holster great. For those of you who have not purchased this holster, it is very nicely made and carries a revolver very well and out of the way with packs on, yet very assessable.

The not so good points according to my assessment and the revolver I have. The finish is not up to par with my older 686’s and those black parts (cylinder release, trigger, hammer and side plate screws make the gun look cheap to me). Why S&W can’t put on a barrel straight is beyond me, the last two Smith’s I have purchase all lean to the left a tiny bit, it is just annoying that they let this got out the door like that. As, to the ball detent up front on the yoke, it looks real cheap and with a hole in the bottom of the barrel shroud it does not help the looks also. When you look at it real close, it does not seem to be a big help in holding the cylinder in. With the ejector rod being smaller than a 357 mag. rod I guess they had to put it some ware, just looks cheap. As, for the hole in the side for the IL I have gotten past that in the last to Smiths I have purchased. No problems with them yet!

Overall I am pleased with the way it handled and shot, as it will make a great trail or mountain gun. And, with-out the full under lug barrel it will carry better and the 4.25 inch barrel it is easier to shoot without the weight. Time will tell how it will hold up; it is just not a gun to shoot full power 44 mag. loads as a daily diet. For the once in while emergency situation in Bear or Mountain lion country it will serve well without the weight of a big bore 44 mag.

After shooting this thing for a couple of days now, the one thing that keeps screaming out at me from this gun is, why in the Hell did they not make this gun a 41 magnum!!! The L-frame seems to be the perfect size for this smaller caliber instead of the 44 mag. (would love to have a 41 special) he he!!! These are my comments and thoughts on this new model 69 and your mileage may differ – good shooting everyone!
 
Register to hide this ad
I love my M69, warts and all. Did you notice it's a little more slender and 3 oz. lighter than your 686?

Great, now I have to go and shoot mine a little more ;)
 
Picking up my M69 tomorrow from my FFL. I bought one on Gunbroker last week. Can't wait to try it out!!
 
If I ever get one, I'll shoot hot .44 Specials a lot more than .44 Mags.
 
After shooting this thing for a couple of days now, the one thing that keeps screaming out at me from this gun is, why in the Hell did they not make this gun a 41 magnum!!! The L-frame seems to be the perfect size for this smaller caliber instead of the 44 mag. (would love to have a 41 special) he he!!!
.

This has been mine, & other's thoughts too, but I severely doubt S&W will thrill us with either in this gun. :(

The 41 always needed a Special.

Glad you like your 69!

.
 
Last edited:
Yep.... I'd be standing in line for an L frame .41 in 4" and/or a 2 1/2 - 3". From what I've heard and seen so would a lot of other people.... There are some caliber/frame configurations that would be a perfect fit and the L frame in .41 mag would be one of them.

I have a 66-8 and a 69. They are both home runs for S&W. The L frame screams for the .41 caliber in both barrel lengths as does the Mod. 69 in a 2 or 3" . If S&W doesn't offer these guns soon I can't imagine one of the major distributors not providing a special run.

I agree the black screws and cylinder releases detract from the overall appearance of the guns. I'd also like to see X frame grips become standard on all magnum RB L and N frame S&W handguns. They greatly cushion the recoil in these lighter magnum guns...

My 2c....

 
I really like mine too. You might want to try the 500 grips available directly from S&W. They make the gun easier to shoot with magnum loads.

Like you, I seldom shoot full power loads through mine but it is nice to have that option. My favorite power level is a 240 grain round advertised at 1000 fps. It seems like it was made for the 69.
 
Had one of my M69s out the last two days -- always bring a smile to my face.

I've basically settled on two loads: A 240gr SWCBB commercial cast over 6.5gr HP38 (880 fps) and 265gr SWGC (Thomson 429244) over 17.5gr A2400, seated deep and crimped over the drive band (1,140 fps) -- actual chrono results. Shot the latter the last two days.

Plus one on the Hogue 500 grips. Have them on all my K, L, & N (don't have an X frame) round butt guns. Here are three -- M66-8 (.357 Mag), M69 (.44 Mag), and M617 (.22 LR).
.
m317%20-%20m66%20-%20m69_zpsz47oxwwa.jpg


Paul
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the HP-38 load. I still love my 69s. Like you I bought one then turned around and bought another because I liked the L Frame 44 so much.

Been looking for a load at 850 for plinking and I've followed your work with the 69s so I will go with it.
 
B45,

Just to clarify, regarding the 6.5gr HP38 load, I deep seat and crimp the 240gr SWCBB over the front drive band in .44 Mag case. If you seat to normal OAL (i.e. crimp in the crimp grove, you won't get 850 fps).

David Bradshaw posts on Lee Martin's singleaction forum and said his go to light .44 load is 5.5gr HP38/WW231 under a 240gr SWCBB deep seated and crimped over the front drive band and was accurate in most .44s he tested. In my guns, the 5.5gr load just didn't work as well as the 6.5gr load I settled on.

Crimping over the front drive band reduces case capacity and promotes more consistent powder burn. Another benefit is that you don't have to seat and crimp in separate operations (I have a D 550, so that doesn't matter to me). And lastly with the 265gr, deep seating allows it to run effortlessly thru my Rossi M92 carbine.

Anyway, you may have to tinker with the load to get it to shoot well in your gun, or not (who knows).

FWIW,

Paul
 
Last edited:
I have a 66-8 and a 69 but I bought the 66 first. One thing I've noticed is that the black is wearing off of the trigger and hammer in the 66. Both barrels are properly aligned, unlike my 60-15 that leans left. I would much prefer it in a right leaning configuration.

I've only shot the 69 once so far. It performed well with 44 mag from Honady both leverution and 300 grain soft point. When I went to the Buffalo Bore 300 grain bullets they were so hot that they were very tough to eject when hot. Had to run a pen down the charging hole into the casing to get them out.

I felt that the grips on both guns are perfect both in fit and recoil but could be just a little softer. Wouldn't want wood on either of these weapons. Both the 66 and 69 fit perfect into the same Galco Wheel Gunner holster. The Simply Rugged Cattleman made for the 66 K frame will not work with the Model 69 at all. Guess I'll have to order one soon.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1952.jpg
    IMG_1952.jpg
    114.4 KB · Views: 180
When I went to the Buffalo Bore 300 grain bullets they were so hot that they were very tough to eject when hot.

Buffalo Bore lists two "Heavy .44 Mags......." A 304gr cast and a 300gr JFP -- which one was causing the problem. Just curious. I've loaded 325gr LFNGC from Beartooth Bullets over the max H110 load listed by Hodgdon in their online data. Didn't have extraction problems, but the actual chronographed velocity was 1,180 fps in the 4 1/4" M69 vs. Hodgdon's 1,368 fps from an 8.275" (test?) bbl.

Buffalo Bore is getting over 1,300 fps from both loads in a 5.5" Redhawk, so they may be really pushing the upper limits pressure wise. If hard extraction only occurs when gun is hot, they should serve their intended purpose (hunting or last ditch defense) just fine.

FWIW,

Paul
 
Last edited:
Buffalo Bore lists two "Heavy .44 Mags......." A 304gr cast and a 300gr JFP -- which one was causing the problem. Just curious. I've loaded 325gr LFNGC from Beartooth Bullets over the max H110 load listed by Hodgdon in their online data. Didn't have extraction problems, but the actual chronographed velocity was 1,180 fps in the 4 1/4" M69 vs. Hodgdon's 1,368 fps from an 8.275" (test?) bbl.

Buffalo Bore is getting over 1,300 fps from both loads in a 5.5" Redhawk, so they may be really pushing the upper limits pressure wise. If hard extraction only occurs when gun is hot, they should serve their intended purpose (hunting or last ditch defense) just fine.

FWIW,

Paul

Hi Paul, I was using 300 grain JFN. They fired fine (severe recoil) but when I tried to eject using the rod they wouldn't move at all. After bang on it with my hand I decided to run the pen into the cylindar from the front and hit on that instead. No other round did that and I've had no similar problems with Buffalo boar in the past. Not sure why I did here. I hope to load BB in hard cast lead in Alaska next year but I'll have to test it first.
 
When it comes out in a 2 1/2 " barrel, I will look at it. Already have a 6.5" 629. I like big bore snubbies. Like others, I would use hot special loads unless I was in the woods.
 
I absolutely love my M69 with Herrett Jordan Troopers. Wanted to say thanks for the hp38 load info too, especially since it'll be worked around my M92 and a SBH as well. Starting to look for its little brother in 357 since I have the lever gun in that cal too
 
Back
Top