howdy53
Member
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!
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!
