S&W model 696 .44 spl

[tipoc]

Hmmm. 6 year old thread.

 

[Snapping Twig]

Hmmm. 6 year old thread.

So true!

That said, the 696 is worth resurrecting a thread over.

I sure do like mine! Drove 4+ hours each way to get it from a guy in LA, he met me in Bakersfield, and as you know, here in California, you have to do FTF, then come back in 10 days, so I drove it twice.

 

[Frank46]

Since just about any of the 24-3 series and 624 series "N" framed 44 revolvers sell very well besides not being made for quite a few years now. I've always wondered why they never made any more 44 specials on the "N" frame??. Limited market? or too busy with their line of ar style rifles they have been making and selling for sometime?. My 624 with the 6.5" barrel shooting some winchester 200 grain silvertips has the recoil of about a 38 special. The 3" and 4" bbld 24-3 that I have also do not recoil all that much. My Ruger Redhawk in 44 magnum has been quietly reposing in the safe since I got those three 44 specials. And this from a shooter who shot 50-100 rounds out of the Redhawk at more than just a few range sessions. Frank

 

[The Norseman]

S&W Model 696-1 44Spl

Thread resurrection.

My New In Box Factory Fired S&W Model 696-1
44Spl 3"Bbl. Bought a few months ago.

 

[fortyshooter]

Isn't the Model 69 an "improved" version of the 696? Same size but can handle .44 Special and Magnum?
When I say improved I mean a stronger platform for Magnum loads.

 

[G-Mac]

Had one. Sold it. I consider my 66-1 snubby to be better in every way.

 

[Bacon]

I'm happy with my 696 no-dash. Bought it when they first came out over 20 years ago. Not interested in the 69 after checking it out. One revolver in 44 Mag (a 629-1) is all I need. Can't get enough 44 Specials. Own 5 of them with another one on they way.

 

[rkrcpa]

I'm happy with my 696 no-dash. Bought it when they first came out over 20 years ago. Not interested in the 69 after checking it out. One revolver in 44 Mag (a 629-1) is all I need. Can't get enough 44 Specials. Own 5 of them with another one on they way.

I can't decide. I thoroughly enjoy my 696 no dash and would never consider selling it but I wonder about the forcing cone. I would like to feel I could use "Keith" loads in my 696 if need be and it seems the 69 resolves that. I would probably never shoot full magnum loads in a 69.

Maybe someday I will run in to someone at the range and get a chance to try one.

 

[jglsprings]

There seems to be lots of second-hand anecdotal info on the interwebs about 696s suffering split forcing cones. Anyone have FHE with this?

If you could provide a link or reference that would be much appreciated. I've never heard this about this particular gun... I would be very interested in this information...

 

[RoyM52]

I can't decide. I thoroughly enjoy my 696 no dash and would never consider selling it but I wonder about the forcing cone. I would like to feel I could use "Keith" loads in my 696 if need be and it seems the 69 resolves that. I would probably never shoot full magnum loads in a 69.

Maybe someday I will run in to someone at the range and get a chance to try one.

The 69 should feel about the same as a 696. both are L frames, both are 5 shot. The 69 has 1/4 inch shorter barrel but because of the new style lock-up still is able to have a full length ejector . The 69 also has the ability to be not attempting to load 44 special to the max because all loading can dabble into a 44 mag range or all the way to full 44 mag power. Same size package without the power limits. I would only buy a 696 as a safe queen since the introduction of the 69. The 69 should make the 696 into a more collectable item. So if you wish to only fire reasonable 44 specials {not push the limit} there would be no real reason to buy a 69 other than to save the 696 as an investment if you have a mint one.

 

[CScott]

My 696 has only seen the Skeeter loads and does just fine with them. It is nice to carry on mountain trails but I need to find a better holster (suggestions welcome). I do shoot N-frames more but no concerns after about 400 rounds with the 696. I'll report back after about 4000 rounds.

I enjoy seeing old posts re-activated. It gives perspective on evolving opinion.
Scott

 

[Old Arkansawyer]

I'm one of those posting on here that cc a 4 inch barrel 44 sp. Although I did play linebacker in my early days, only weighed 180 and now 170, I have no trouble cc in any season.

 

[bigshep85]

I may get this one.

 

[ladder13]

The 696 is the most accurate revolver I’ve ever shot.

Oh wait a minute, they’re garbage.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/135716823-post16.html

 

[Chukar60]

I recently bought a 696 no dash. The gun met all my expectations. It is pleasant to shoot, very accurate and carries easily for hiking or ranch work.
It shoots 200 gr. hard casts at around 850 fps very well.
I always viewed the 696 as a great platform for launching relatively heavy projectiles at moderate velocity out of a compact gun.
I have a 60-10 and find the 696 to be for the 44 spcl, what the 60-10 is for the 357 mag. Smaller easier to carry and very capable as long as you are not trying to make a grenade launcher out of it.

 

[clarkstoncz]

Back when I seen them on the shelves, I should have bought 3 or 4 of them but was ore into Cz collecting (Founder, CZ forum.com) then
concentrating on my .44 Specials (Charter, 624) and .44 Mags.

The 696 offered a heavier gun than the Bulldog, and not too much
more money thand a Charter Arms,.before S&W jumped in price.

It was cool, but not the DA .44 Special that I dreamed about to go with my other Ruger DA and Single-actions.

Now that we have had the GP44 for a couple years, I think that Smith
should bring back the 696.

I'm out of reloading for good, and the only .44 Special I can find locally is
Speer 200 grain Gold Dot, but still know where awe some carry ammo is:

So, the practice ammo issue leaves the GP44, Bulldogs
and any new or used 696 revolvers off the table for me.

So enjoy them all.

 

[Jul]

The 696 has a little better trigger but both are equal down range.

 

[Rammer Jammer]

A 696 is on my bucket list when my finances will afford it.

Til then I have had to settle for my Rossi M720 that though similar to the 696, just isn't quite the same. But I can feel more comfortable CCing the 720 because it isn't as highly valued as the 696.

44 Special has become my favorite caliber to reload and shoot.

 

[clarkstoncz]

Found practice ammo locally.


GP44 is pretty sweet shooting!

Might even prompt me back into reloading.

 

[HamHands]

"But...it is a bit of a "strange concept". I think it is too large to carry in normal concealed circumstances, except for maybe offensive linemen in the NFL. It might work if a normal to bigger sized person goes about with a coat or jacket on. Or carries it in a purse, with little room for anything else."

I have to disagree with that statement. With a quality holster, belt, the correct outergarmet and a larger waist size in the pants that 696 will dissapear and be quite comfortable to carry with a Inside the Waistband holster. Been legally packing a full size 1911 since 93 IWB and also pack a 3" 657 .41 mag OWB, and a few other S&W's and never has anyone ever noticed them. I'm 5' 7"'s and 167 lbs BTW.

My only complaint with the 696 is it's missing one hole, but makes up for that as its a potent round that shoots very well in a small package. Like many other Smiths I wish I would have bought a prelock when they first came out and prices were down on them. A 3" 686 is the better gun for SD but only when using magnums for the extra power and can be had for less money.

With that said I still want one!

As to the emboldened.. I'm a big guy, ex athlete and I stay in shape. However, I got up to almost 270lbs in January; I looked good everywhere except the stomach. I've carried a 3" M629 for the last year, OWB Holster, with a Beltman Bullhide Belt. The revolver/rig still concealed/hid nicely and was comfortable to wear even driving my truck. However, since February I decided to get back to the weight I was when my wife met me as a promise to her. Since Feb, I've lost 35lbs.. 90% of it was in the gut "front butt", region. Oh, and I no longer have a double chin which is a plus too, hahaha! I went from a 40" waist to a 35" waist after a nice dinner! And the same gun/rig now fits and conceals even better on me @ 6'2" and weighing a comfortable 235lbs.

It's all about the holster and belt combo rig I certainly agree with you about that! Nobody has to be a ogre to OWB an "N" frame. My little brother is 6'1" and 185lbs. He carries a 625 I recently sold him, with a good belt and Azula holster that you have to look hard to see any kind print and 98.5% of the Sheeple will never think twice.

Pic of me a couple months ago of me with the Jerry Miculek M625 with a quality belt and aforementioned Azula Holster (I sold him the whole set-up.) This rig stayed so snug to my body that there was pretty much zero printing. In summation, I think a trimmed waist person can OWB an L or N frame 3" or 4" barreled Revolver better than someone with a bigger waist. This has been my experience
at least. YMMV..