Smith 696 (3" barrell) hard-cast bullet loads

[sonny]

Smith model 696 (3" barrel) Cast-bullet loads
(December 2009)
Several loads below are well above SAAMI pressure levels.

Powder grains avg veloc Veloc Spread MAD Recoil
(fps) (low to high) (perceived)

Alliant 2400 12 gr 844 fps 799-888 2.6% 6.0
13 923 905-938 0.82% 7.0
14 957 945-975 1.02% 8.2
15 1021 1008-1040 0.84% 8.6
16 1055 1034-1065 0.82% 8.7

Unique 7.5 938 914-945 1.00% 7.0
7.8 949 936-962 0.88% 7.0
8.0 960 945-976 0.81% 7.5
8.5 993 983-1019 1.00% 7.5

HS-6 7.7 731 704-755 2.63% 6.0

H-4227 17 1002 962-1049 2.67% 8.0

Power Pistol 9.0 1007 984-1023 0.95% 8.0

W-231 6.0 809 794-827 1.66% 7.0

MAD = Mean Absolute Deviation. WLP primers used for all loads.
253 grain hard-cast, Keith design, used in all loads. Leadheads Bullets, Kansas.
All cases new Hornady or new Starline. Five cartridges used with each new loading.
Tested velocity difference between case manufacturers was less than 2.5%.
Powder charges weighed: desired weight, +0.1/-0.1 grain.
Some loads based on the .44 Special article by Brian Pearce,
in Handloader magazine #236, August 2005, by Wolfe Pub. Co.
Perceived Recoil: 6-7.90 = mild, actually pleasant, 8-8.90 begins to feel heavy
9.0-9.9: heavy, unpleasant recoil 10+: severe recoil
Always easily extracted five cases with one palm-push on extractor rod.
No primer flattening noted. Case expansion not measured.
These loads seem to be safe in my gun; they may NOT be in yours.
Use at your own risk.

 

[sonny]

These are my loads. They worked well in my gun. I have more work to do with several of these powders which look promising.
I realize that a number of these loads DO exceed standard SAAMI pressure standards. If you find any of these uncomfortable for you in any way, do NOT use them in your gun.
There are several here who see it their just cause to criticize those who would dare to step outside of the bounds of SAAMI. Elmer would laugh. Several of my good friends stay within SAAMI at all times. This is fine; there's nothing wrong with promoting safety. I would be inclined to say that "experimenters" are well-advised to work up their loads slowly, carefully, using measurement and visual clues, discretion and prior knowledge.
The 696 is a rare bird. Born and conceived by Smith, this L-frame was built with strong chambers, upon which has been previous detailed and interesting discussion in my earlier thread. And, no, the forcing cone hasn't cracked yet, although, if it does, I will report it promptly.
One interesting article comes to us in the HANDLOADER article on the .44 Special, #236, August 2005, where the prominent author and experimenter, Brian Pearce, classified various revolver makes and models into three separate categories with their own pressure limitations. And then, Mr. Pearce developed and listed specific and numerous recipe data within each group. In his defense of the Smith L-frame five-shot cylinder, he relates that "the factory conducted some rather strenuous torture tests wherein the Model 696 easily endured pressures well beyond anything we will present here."
The "Categories" were 15,500 psi or less, 22,000 psi or less, and finally "Category Three" at 25,000 psi or less. Category Three is, of course, where Brian Pearce specifically included the Model 696.
Wolfe Publishing Company has these older issues in stock for those of you who might be interested in the entire article.

 

[Centenniel]

Interesting load information. I have a 696 and I really like that revolver. I do handload for it. I'm printing your notes for future reference. Thanks for posting.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Good job on posting all the info, and I agree 100% with you on your second post.

There are reasons that SAAMI has to set limits very low on certain cartridges, and it has nothing to do with the round itself, but rather that certain guns of questionable strength, that were manufactured a very long time ago are still around and in use. If the .45 Colt and .44 Special were new, modern rounds, they would most certainly be loaded to much higher pressures specs than they are listed at currently by SAAMI. With modern guns, we have a bit of room for careful experimentation, if you know what you are doing. No one new to handloading should ever just start pouring in powder and having at it.

 

[flat top]

Sonny; Good Job! My wifey took over the 696-0 right after I bought it. She wants a load that is a little more stout than what I originally loaded up for her (light), and she is very proficient with the gun. Although the gun is a dresser drawer special, I think something with a bit more oomph would make her feel a bit more protected when I am not around. I am not going to jump right into your loads, but, they give me some idea of top end parameter with the 696. I doubt that I or she will ever want to go that high, so, where the accuracy comes in with a bit more power than we now have on hand, is where we will end up! Thanks again!!! FT

 

[Spotteddog]

FWIW(?)
35 years ago I was drifting the trigger group retaining pin sideways out of a Charter Arms Bull Dog with 12.5 grains of (old) 2400 behind a Remington 240 grain JHP of the era. Shot great! But I always forgot my sun screen somehow? She clocked 900-920 FPS. I've not tried the same load over the traps in my 696 N/D, but wouldn't expect much difference.

(EDIT)
I'm running the 255 SWCGC out of my 696 for carry & H/D.
Either on this page will "git' 'er done"!
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=17

 

[ddixie884]

Great info, thanks for the data.

 

[sonny]

Thanks to all posters for kind comments. I enjoyed doing the work. I do have some "fill-in" work to do with some of the powders, and when finished, I'll post those here also.
Everyone, please have a pleasant day.
Sonny

 

[flat top]

Sonny; Here are the bullets that we discussed off forum.

 

[sonny]

Sonny; Here are the bullets that we discussed off forum.

Good morning, FT. I am certain I would want to duck quickly if those HP's were coming in my direction. No doubt that they will expand rapidly. Nice pix. Your gun actually gives the impression of being "small" although it's an N-frame. Short barrel helps.
Thanks for that picture. Do you carry this gun CCW? Or something smaller and less likely to frighten the masses?

Good day,
Sonny

 

[flat top]

Sonny; Nope, I carry it out in the open....so there is no doubt in anybodies mind that I mean business!!! LOL!!!!!

Yes. I carry it CCW..............Those bullets in the few simple tests I have done, show rapid expansion and low penetration...perfect for indoors or close range. They will shoot one ragged hole at ten yards, so, for the purpose they work well..........The N snubbie is not small/light compared to most CCW guns, but, why bring a peashooter to a gun fight!