Want a 3" .44. 696 or 629-4?

[GregG]

I want to add a stainless 3" .44 to the herd.

I've settled on a 696 no dash or a 629-4 (enhancement package).

I'm familiar with 4" N frames already. Have several and carry one. What are the 696's like, and are they better for personal defense? It looks to be more concealable.

Thanks for the opinions.

 

[Dennis The B]

The 696 is an L frame, and it's very concealable; every bit as much as a K frame; just a bit heavier. The 3" barrel seems the ideal balance.

I carry a 696, and interchange it with my Model 65. Both are excellent self-defense guns. I use a Winchester 200gr STHP as a load for mine.

If you can get the 696 for a decent price (say under $1K), jump on it. They're a bit rare. The 629's in 4" are more plentiful.

Here are my 3" stainless -

 

[357larry]

The 696 is a great gun, although they do get pricey. I have a 696-1 that I purchased from another member here on the forum not quite 2 months ago. Happy as hell with it. I do use mine for concealed carry. I use an older Gould & Goodrich horizontal shoulder holster with a pouch for 2 speedloaders on the offside. The weight is no issue. Accurate little gun.

 

[PA Reb]

Just an option to throw out there for you if you don't mind the IL. The 3", 696-6 Talo is a sweet shootin' gun. I just bought one and plan on putting a set of Ahrend boot grips on it.

 

[NE450No2]

I do not mind the lock, as I just take out ALL the lock parts.

 

[rburg]

Spend some time looking before you spend your money. Yes, the 696 is a fine gun. Be careful because if you buy one, you'll probably end up buying a 396 too. Its the airlite version of the same gun. Identical in size, just half the weight. As long as you keep your ammo down to reasonable levels, its a pleasure to carry and shoot. With a little hotter loads, the 696 works better. Remember, if you want a magnum, buy one. I've got a M29-something. The 3" with unfluted cylinder. Its not all that pleasant to fire with hot loads, either.

 

[peppercorn]

I'm with PA Reb on the Talo 629.

Here is mine with a set of Eagle Grips, about the size of factory 'Targets'. I shoot mostly Mags with it and it just makes me smile ear to ear every time.

 

[logictox]

I don't have a 696 but do have both a 629 and 624 in three inch. Both excellent weapons but both are hard to conceal but not impossible. I do think the 624 is a viable choice if your considering a 696 though.

629 in three inch

And a 624 on the top left.

 

[Stainz]

I'll go against the tide on this one. A 4" 629-6 weighs <6 oz more than a 696. For that, you get a real forcing cone, additional chamber, larger hammer & trigger, and chambers/frame/barrel designed for Keith-level loads. A 3" 629, a la the 'Backpacker', will be even closer in weight.

For reference, I bought both a 296 and a 696 - both new - nine years ago. I'll have the 296, my woods CCW, when I finally sell the 696. I'll still have my 4" 629 when both of the .44 Special L-frames are long gone.

Stainz

 

[GregG]

Thanks everyone. This gun would not be used for heavy loads. Semi-wadcutter at 750-800 fps, or thereabouts.


Stainz, please explain the difference in forcing cones.

 

[Stainz]

The L-frame was designed to allow a bit more OD on a .357 Magnum's forcing cone. The .44 Special forcing cone comes almost to a knife edge as a result, as it's ID must permit an ~.430" bullet, not a .357". The N-frame's front strap permits not only a .430" ID forcing cone, but even a .452" forcing cone for .45 ACP/.45 Colt use. The L-frame was fitted for .44 Special - not designed for it.

My 696 is a fun shooter - loaded with mild .44 Russians - like a 240gr LSWC over 3.5gr Titegroup - makes a whopping 692 fps from the 3" tube - an all day plinker. Of course, that heavy bullet makes 'major power factor' classification, too. If you can accept the SAAMI maximum specification for chamber pressure for the .44 S&W Special of 15.5 kpsi CUP, a 696 should have a long life. Mine has - and will - but I bought it new. They haven't been made in nine plus years, so take care in buying a used one. Here are my 3" 696 and 4" 629 for size comparison:

Of course, a 3" 629 will be even closer in size. My 296, at 19.7 oz and in a Mika pocket holster, is acceptable as a CCW in baggy cargo pants. The weight of the 696 puts it in a holster on the hip - and that 4" 629, to me, is just as easily carried. It, as a .44 Magnum, is a heck of a lot more utilitarian, too - even if mine only sees wimpy Magnums. YMMV.

Stainz

 

[J-FRAME]

I had two 696 guns and sold them both. Worth to much money to shoot. Supply and demand. Shoot the heck out of my 629-4 and woods carry my 329. Same holster etc My decision on the 696. Yours may be different.

 

[GregG]

On a pre-owned 696, what would I need to look for if heavy loads had been used in it a lot?