PDA

View Full Version : S&W 69


Timber Wolf
January 16, 2014, 13:00
Looks like S&W has come out with a new Revolver with my favorite number. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_827559_-1_757751_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y I like it but don't know that I need one. I have a good .44 Redhawk (and a .44 Super Blackhawk) for .44 magnum "needs" and a nice .45 Colt S&W Mountain Revolver if I want a nice, light, powerful (with warmish handloads) woods loafing belt gun. But I could see where a nice medium .44 Magnum pistola might appeal to some. I am saving my pennies for a 929.

MAINER
January 16, 2014, 13:36
I like it BUT.......5 rounds, 10" in length w'4 1/4" barrel and 2lbs 5 oz. for $850.

I would be more enthused if it were a six-holer in .44 Spec.

I would just as soon carry my Model 29 SIX-shooter, or my Model 24 SIX-shooter.

I like SIX guns! :love:

W.E.G.
January 16, 2014, 13:53
For somebody just getting into .44 wheelguns, I have to say, that thing looks like its EXACTLY right for the job.

While it will be plenty big, its not TOO big to carry. Stainless steel. Adjustable sights. Slimmer 5-shot cylinder. Yeah. That's good stuff.

If I were 20 years younger, and 50 guns shorter, I'm sure I would not be able to live without it.

Retired Bum
January 16, 2014, 14:56
That is a neat looking revolver. But I wouldn't buy it for two reasons. The internal lock and the fact that I have an early Model 629 four inch .44 Mag Mountain Gun with the tapered barrel and the beveled cylinder. The two weight about the same and though the 629 is a bit bulkier this is of no importance to me. A good holster/belt combo is all that is needed.

And so it goes.


The Retired One

W.E.G.
January 16, 2014, 15:14
Just noticed that it has the "two-piece barrel."

That gives me heartburn.

See http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/83648-2-piece-barrel-came-apart.html

BUFF
January 16, 2014, 15:28
The Models 29, 629, 24 and 624 are all built on the larger S&W N frame. This gun will be built on the more compact L frame.

There are shooters for who the grip size and trigger reach of the N frame are too big, no matter how they stock the revolver. The L frame is the same dimensions as the K frame (Model 10, Model 19, etc.) as far as grip and trigger reach go, so this will fit some of those smaller hands better.

S&W made some 5 shot .44 Specials on the L frame in the past, the Model 696 being the most common. They have become sort of 'cult' guns these days and clean used ones often sell for $800-$1,000. This shows some demand for a more compact, big bore revolver, which this will help fill.

I think the 2 piece barrel design is supposed to be stronger at the rear of the barrel, the forcing cone area. The extra strength probably was the reason for the 2 piece design.

I don't know how "real" the need for a compact .44 Magnum revolver really is, but most of the guns folks in this country buy are to solve "want" more than "need."

I think it's pretty cool. I have no need whatsoever for this new revolver, but will probably buy one anyway!

MAINER
January 16, 2014, 16:15
I think it's pretty cool. I have no need whatsoever for this new revolver, but will probably buy one anyway!

:rofl:
Yeah, that works for me! Let us know how it turns out.

Timber Wolf
January 17, 2014, 08:39
I am a big fan of .44 Special five shooters (I have three) and the more I look at and think about the 69 it looks like it would be a great "platform" to launch .44 Special out of. Or .44 Special level handloads in .44 Magnum cases. Now we just need a stretched version in .460.:rofl:

xcpd69
February 12, 2014, 13:07
The Models 29, 629, 24 and 624 are all built on the larger S&W N frame. This gun will be built on the more compact L frame.

......I think the 2 piece barrel design is supposed to be stronger at the rear of the barrel, the forcing cone area. The extra strength probably was the reason for the 2 piece design......

Looking at some pictures on other forums, it appears that the forcing cone is significantly thicker on the 69 vs the 696, which was one of the complaints of the latter. Looks like they solved that problem with less "meat" on the frame around the forcing cone, a larger barrel shank, a new front lock consisting of a thinner ejector rod and a ball bearing frame lock for the crane, replacing the traditional ejector rod lockup.

Wonder if they can "retrofit" the 696, or reintroduce it with the updated stronger set up?