Tell me about the 696

[YosemiteSam]

I've recently been getting a vague desire for a .44 special, and stumbled across a mention of the model 696. I can't find a lot of info about it, other than it being a 5 shot L frame, maybe available in 3 or 4" versions. Are they particularly rare and/or expensive?

I kind of like the idea of a .44 special on something lighter than an N frame. I can shoot my 25-5 if I want that big a gun. I'm thinking a 3" L frame might be a bit more concealable.

-- Sam

 

[Emerson]

The 696 is a 5-shot L-Frame. There are several folks on this forum who own them who should be able to answer any questions you may have about them.

There was an issue with the forcing cones, I don't remember exactly what the problem was but I am sure you can do a search on the forum and find out what the deal was with the forcing cones.

The 696's seem to have a following for CCW and nice ones are typically bringing $700 or more.

 

[TSQUARED]

I shoot a 696 with mild loads of 44 Special using the Lyman #429421 245 gr. Keith LSWC and 4.2 gr. Trail Boss - a mild and accurate load.

 

[DCWilson]

The 696 is a great gun. S&W made them for only a few years -- 1996 to 2002. Three inch barrel (not four inch), fun to shoot. In demand, and therefore more costly than you might like. Every so often you hear about somebody who lucked into one at $400 to $500, but $700-900 for a gun in good condition is probably more likely. Some have gone for over $1000 or a little more in package deals that included some extras.

As an L-frame, the gun is more compact than an N-frame .44 of similar barrel length. Here's a comparison photo with, obviously, the stainless 696 on the right. The other one is the three inch Lew Horton model 24-3 of the mid 1980s (another great .44, but heavier than the 696).

The 696 came with rubber grips; the combats you see above are an addition to mine.

The 696 is found in the original version and two subsequent engineering revisions: the no-dash model has forged parts and a hammer-mounted firing pin; the -1 version featured MIM parts and a frame-mounted firing pin; the -2 version added the internal lock to the -1 version.

There is a kind of purist's regard for the no-dash version, but it is a strong likelihood that any of them would become a favorite child in any collector's .44 family.

EDITED TO ADD: The forcing cone issue that Emerson mentioned is probably only an issue if you try to shoot hot handloads. Forcing cones have been known to split in these models; there is not a lot of steel left at the breech end of the barrel in these smaller-scale revolvers. Mine has not split; it has been fed only standard ammo.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Thanks for all the info. The rarity and desirability figures: I've been at this long enough that it takes something special to peak my interest. I usually find that I'm not the first to have my interest so peaked...

Thanks again. I guess I'll just stick to light .45 Colt loads when I want them, rather than get into a whole different caliber, (expensive) gun, etc.

-- Sam

 

[diamonback68]

There was an issue with the forcing cones, I don't remember exactly what the problem was but I am sure you can do a search on the forum and find out what the deal was with the forcing cones.

There is no problem with the forcing cone and never was. Because of the bore size the forcing cone is somewhat thinner than say a 629, but the gun was made for the .44 Special and as long as you don't use hot rod hand loads trying to push it into a .44 Mag. you should have no problem.

 

[G-Mac]

Had one, sold it...

I "just had to have one", so I bought one on the forum here...a "no dash" with box and docs.

Found something I like better...a 66-1 snubby.

Think about it...slightly smaller gun...holds an extra round of .357 Magnum...no forcing cone issues.

Sold my 696, broke even, no regrets. Don't miss it...

 

[Duke426]

I "just had to have one", so I bought one on the forum here...a "no dash" with box and docs.

Found something I like better...a 66-1 snubby.

Think about it...slightly smaller gun...holds an extra round of .357 Magnum...no forcing cone issues.

Sold my 696, broke even, no regrets. Don't miss it...

Sorry, but the 66 does have forcing cone problems (if you shoot hot 125 grainers). That is why the L-frame .357 (models 581, 681, 586 and 686) was designed and the K-frame magnums (models 13, 65, 19, 66) were eventually dropped from production. There have been no forcing cone problems with the 696 - in fact I've never even heard a rumor of some problem before this thread..

 

[G-Mac]

Sorry, but the 66 does have forcing cone problems (if you shoot hot 125 grainers). That is why the L-frame .357 (models 581, 681, 586 and 686) was designed and the K-frame magnums (models 13, 65, 19, 66) were eventually dropped from production. There have been no forcing cone problems with the 696 - in fact I've never even heard a rumor of some problem before this thread..

That being said, you got a great gun in the 66 and I hope you enjoy it for a long time to come.

I don't shoot hot 125 grainers in my 66. Mostly, that problem is related to the Model 19 anyway.

Go look at the wall thickness of the forcing cone on a 696 and then look at the wall thickness on a 66.

Common sense will tell you which one is more durable.

Oh, and if you do break the forcing cone on that rare 696, word is that S&W is out of replacement barrels.

I'll take my chances with the 66-1.

 

[Jimmymac46]

The 66/19 was and remains one of the best revolvers Smith has ever manufactured. However, it is common knowledge that the forcing cone was a problem, due to excessively hot 357 rounds on a regular basis. Hence, the 'L' frame 586/686. Problem solved.

The 696 has never had any forcing cone problems, no recalls, no issues. Some may have created problems with 44 magnum pressure type loads but that is not a problem with the gun, only the user. The 696 is a 44 special. Any factory 44 special ammo will work without any problems forever. For the reloader, IMO a great performing and powerful load is the Keith type 250 grain semi-wadcutter with 7.5 grains of unique. It will do anything you would need. The hot 357 loads are 35000 psi, while the best 44 specials are 20000. Do the math, no forcing cone problems with 44 specials if you keep them as 44 specials. If you want more, get a 629/29. Final note. If you have not fondled, carried, shot, or just looked at a 696, you have clearly miss out on one of Smiths finest. And, while I am not a huge fan of rubber grips, the factory combat grips that came with the gun are somewhat amazing, in that they fit about every sized hand....... a remarkable achievement.

I have an early 696 that I don't shoot often anymore in that I have others now. But it seems to be the one I enjoy just handling in front of the TV more often than the rest. JMO.

 

[BUFF]

I believe that the "forcing cone" problem mentioned is not just a thinner one because of the bigger bore, but many of the 696's have a tight spot just forward of the forcing cone. It is speculated that the restriction came about during barreling of the frame. Many times it is easily visible.

I haven't had mine out of the safe since hearing about this a couple years ago. (Yeah, I know!) I don't know how pronounced mine may be.

 

[G-Mac]

The 66/19 was and remains one of the best revolvers Smith has ever manufactured. However, it is common knowledge that the forcing cone was a problem, due to excessively hot 357 rounds on a regular basis. Hence, the 'L' frame 586/686. Problem solved.

The 696 has never had any forcing cone problems, no recalls, no issues. Some may have created problems with 44 magnum pressure type loads but that is not a problem with the gun, only the user. The 696 is a 44 special. Any factory 44 special ammo will work without any problems forever. For the reloader, IMO a great performing and powerful load is the Keith type 250 grain semi-wadcutter with 7.5 grains of unique. It will do anything you would need. The hot 357 loads are 35000 psi, while the best 44 specials are 20000. Do the math, no forcing cone problems with 44 specials if you keep them as 44 specials. If you want more, get a 629/29. Final note. If you have not fondled, carried, shot, or just looked at a 696, you have clearly miss out on one of Smiths finest. And, while I am not a huge fan of rubber grips, the factory combat grips that came with the gun are somewhat amazing, in that they fit about every sized hand....... a remarkable achievement.

I have an early 696 that I don't shoot often anymore in that I have others now. But it seems to be the one I enjoy just handling in front of the TV more often than the rest. JMO.

Hi Jimmymac46,

Good post but I'm not convinced that the only, or main reason the L-frame series was conceived was due to forcing cone breakage on .357 Magnum K-frames.

I think they also simply were introduced to fill a gap in the marketing strategy...something "mid-sized" between the K and N frames.

Also, you can't help but compare a full-lug 586/686 to a Colt Python. Yes, I know the Python was Colt's "top-of-the-line" and the Model 27 is/was S&W's top gun...but I'm pretty sure that the L-frame designers must have thought about stealing some market share from the Python to some extent.

I had a 696 no dash. Nice gun...but still just a gun. Nothing "magical" about them. Frankly, just looking at the thin wall on that forcing cone had me concerned. It's definitely under-built in this area...a by-product of squeezing .44 Special rounds into a frame that was designed for .357 rounds. When I heard that replacement barrels were not available through S&W, I decided I wasn't willing to risk owning an $800.00 paperweight.

That, plus the fact that it's only a five-shot, made me do some thinking. I've always been a .357 Magnum guy anyway, so, to me, the 66 snubby fills the same "niche" as a 696...but does it better. Plus, it's a tad smaller (more concealable), shoots a very versatile potent cartridge, can also shoot .38's...and holds an extra round.

The 696 is a nice S&W...no doubt...but given the choice, for the "long run", I'll take a 66 2 1/2" every time.

Oh, and for the record...there have been numerous posts here on 19/66 cracked forcing cones...yes, it happens on occasion, but also the "exception not the rule". I know one person that has put 20,000 rounds of 125gr. .357 Mag loads through a 4" 19-3 and his forcing cone has not cracked.