Smith 696 .44 Spc HANDLOADER article

[sonny]

In my earlier post concerning my 696 cast loads, I've spoken about Brian Pearce's outstanding article in an older issue of HANDLOADER. I think I paid Wolfe Pub $8.00 plus shipping. It was well worth it. I cannot ethically reproduce it here, but I can tell you what it has to offer.
I have previously mentioned that he classifies various makes and models into three "pressure groups" up to 25,500 psi, and lists many specific load recommendations, using seven specified and different cast bullet weights, specific revolvers used, primers, cases, that fall less than, or equal to, that pressure max. Seventeen different powders are used. Each revolver has its own list of loads.
The article is ten pages long, 8 1/2 x 11" format. "Category One" (15,500 psi or less) lists 32 loads (two revolvers, Triple-Lock and FA mod 97), nine powder choices, bullets weights from 200 through 255 grains. These bullets include specific models of HP's, cast rd-nose, Keith, Gold Dots, Hornady, Lyman etc., velocities ~800fps-almost 1100 fps).
Category Two lists 46 different load recipes, using the mod 97 and a Colt SAA. Similar bullet weights, powders, velocities from 933-1184 fps. This category at 22,000 psi or less.
Category Three has 19 loads, max velocity (200gr) was 1,254 fps, using FA 97(4 1/4" bbl) and Smith 24-3 (6 1/2") from 200 grains through a 307 gr cast SWC @ 1,057 fps.
This data comes from Wolfe Pub Co, Prescott, Arizona, telephone # is 800-899-7810. I spoke with Melinda (several times, nice lady).
How can you live without this information? This is one of the great values of our times.
Sonny

 

[sheriffoconee]

thanks for the heads up....I just made a deal for a 696 and reloading is certainly in my future

 

[jibjab]

So what pressure group for the 696 ?

 

[sonny]

So what pressure group for the 696 ?

Basically, my loads achieved Category Two.

My 2400 loads maxed out in Category Two: at 22,000 psi or less.
My Unique loads did the same: Cat Two.

HS-6 loads came in low, well under Cat Two. This is one powder I will be working up in the future, or switching to HS-7.

My loads with H-4227 came in just under Cat Two.

Power Pistol ran higher than Cat One, but Brian Pearce did not use that powder in any loads higher than 8 grs in 255 cast. Mine ran 9 grains.
My W231 loads were wimpy, right at Cat One, 15,500 psi or less.

So, my friends, what changes do we see when we get to the big banana?...the Category Three:
The bullets are still basically the same, with one addition of a real thumper, a 307 grain SWC driven to 1,057 fps. I see that Brian has switched powders at this point to liberal use of H-110 and AAC-7. He now uses HS-7 in place of HS-6. Still plenty of 2400 in this group. Also, a tiny bit of H-4227 and Blue Dot get a spot in the top category.

Cat Three is the speedy group, with 19 loads listed for each gun: FA97, 4 1/4" and Smith 24-3 with 6 1/2" bbl. The bullet velocities for the 250-255 gr cast are all around 1125 fps or so. The 200-220 grain bullets generally exceed 1200 fps. And then there is that 307 gr SWC that humps along in both guns at 1,058 fps.

Brian Pearce discusses the various bullet designs used in great detail, the powders, cast versus jacketed, bore and groove diameters and its relationship to accuracy, and bullet moulds and where to get them.

In addition, Brian answers some questions concerning ".45 vs .44" within this same magazine.
Anyway, this is something that any and all .44 Special aficionados should hasten to bring to their library.

I still have work to do within the Category Three. Most of my previoius loads were Cat Two.

Sounds like fun to me.
Sonny

 

[Boxhead]

I'd suggest that the pressure groups as provided by Pierce are strictly tied to the cylinder strength and not to the durability of the gun, i.e., the 696's thin barrel extension and known forcing cone issues. I'd not use catagory 2 loads much in one, let alone catagory 3 loads. Just my $.02.

 

[sonny]

So what pressure group for the 696 ?

Three...

Sonny

 

[sonny]

I'd suggest that the pressure groups as provided by Pierce are strictly tied to the cylinder strength and not to the durability of the gun, i.e., the 696's thin barrel extension and known forcing cone issues. I'd not use catagory 2 loads much in one, let alone catagory 3 loads. Just my $.02.

The easy way to address this is to say that 7.5 grs and 8.5 grs of Unique with 255 cast are Category Two.
In terms of the fragility of the 696 forcing cone. Brian Pearce, and the manufacturer's destructive testing of the 696, did not show any evidence of this, even at pressures far exceeding 25,000 psi. Careful measurement by me, using magnified optics, of the 696's forcing cone shows that it is the same thickness as the forcing cone of the 640-1 .357 mag, which is SAAMI'd at 35,000 psi , over twice the pressure-rating (15,500) of the .44 Special. Based on these points, I would respectfully disagree. But your two cents is worth just as much as mine.
When I shot 7.5 and 7.8 grns of Unique in my 696, five cartridges each, the perceived recoil was registered by me as 7.0, which is exceptionally light.
Even my 8 and 8.5 grs were perceived to be 7.5, which to me means "mild, actually pleasant." I would think that I could shoot these for a very long time without problems. I realize that recoil is also a matter of weight and balance and does not necessarily represent the actual strength of a firearm.
A very distinguished fellow, with tons of experience in the field had this to say: "Cracked forcing cones are very rare except with S&W Mod 19 or 66 K-frame 357 Mags where a chunk of the lower barrel was machined out to accommodate the yoke." Also, "..... most forcing cone damage is a result of poor cylinder-to-bore alignment."
I respect opinions of all posters...I'm trying to learn here.
Thanks for your post.
Sonny

 

[rkrcpa]

Which issue is the article in?

 

[sonny]

This 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 I (800-899-7810) has these older issues in stock for those of you who might be interested in the entire article.
IIRC, I paid $8 plus shipping. No dog in this race.
Sonny

 

[sonny]

I'd suggest that the pressure groups as provided by Pierce are strictly tied to the cylinder strength and not to the durability of the gun, i.e., the 696's thin barrel extension and known forcing cone issues.

These "known" forcing cone issues are not "known" by me, and I have yet to see any verification or background concerning their origin.


I'd not use catagory 2 loads much in one, let alone catagory 3 loads. Just my $.02.

Note that Buffalo Bore loads (according to Brian Pearce's article), designed for the .44 Special, exceed SAAMI pressure recommendations. And Mr. Pearce notes that his classifications consider the fact "just because a gun has digested a given load doesn't mean that it will stand a steady diet of such." He also states: "The point being, loads must have a suffcient margin of safety to allow a reasonable life span for the gun."
Brian Pearce also notes that most folks, even if shooting one of the stronger guns, will find one of the loads in the 15,000 to 22,000-psi range to be most pleasant and useful. That is also what I found.


The point is to shoot loads that are safe and appropriate for the moment. I enjoy shooting 750-900 fps, 240 cast, for target and plinking. However, for serious "work," i.e. hunting elk or black bear, I want to be able to carry a more powerful load, still safe for my particular revolver, that will do the job. This means that I would carry the hotter loads perhaps 5% of the time, and actually shoot them even a lesser percentage of time. But without proper load development, how am I to know what a safe, hotter load would be? Of course, I could use Brian Pearce's "tables" to give me a head-start...
Sonny

 

[oldRoger]

I too have the article and have carefully read all of the follow-up letters and answers.
I look at it as the word for the 44spl.
I have watched as each year the manuals have fewer 44 spl loads and those listed are slower and s l o w e r, and s.l.o.w.e.r. It also became difficult to find any of what I consider more modern powders IE; AA or VV at anything over 700fps.
Given the desire to preserve and protect old triplelocks this trend is admirable I suppose. But I have a 696 and a 624, certainly modern and not antiques.
A pox on all lawyers, say I.

 

[ddixie884]

Alliant powder has the 8gr Power Pistol and 240 gr Speer swc in their manual at over 950 fps.

 

[sonny]

I too have the article and have carefully read all of the follow-up letters and answers.
I look at it as the word for the 44spl.
A pox on all lawyers, say I.

I agree most heartily.
Sonny