S&W model 69 - Page 2

Wheelie_Fan · September 22, 2014, 06:34 PM

Good luck Oz, I ordered mine on 8/20 and so far no estimate on delivery.... Still showing as back ordered. I think the wait just might drive me crazy.

Although.... It's giving me time to track down some factory ammo and consider getting into reloading....

Hope yours shows up soon!

Ozzieman · September 23, 2014, 06:40 PM

Thanks Wheelie_Fan, Do yourself a favor, if you’re going to shoot 44's RELOAD.
With several thousand cases and lead bullets I can reload 50 for around 6 to 7$.

Red Ramp · September 25, 2014, 03:15 AM

Here is a visual of both the L frame 69 and the K frame 66-8, side by side, to compare size differences...

Mike_Fontenot · September 25, 2014, 09:45 AM

Hard to see any difference at all. I'm surprised that the cylinder doesn't have a noticeably smaller diameter (thereby allowing a frame that is shorted vertically (perpendicular to the bore axis)), because of the narrower cartridges of the .357 ... maybe they used the same cylinder diameter, and just drilled smaller holes in it (in which case, the cylinder would probably be heavier). I thought tat the K-Frame would be noticeably smaller than the L-Frame ... are you sure that the .357 is a K-Frame?

Red Ramp · September 25, 2014, 06:50 PM

It's the same outside diameter as the earlier K frame 66 Mods. It may be the angle of my picture makes them appear somewhat similar to the L frame 69. I hope the OP doesn't mind a momentary hijack but below is a picture of a very early no-dash Mod 66 with a new 66-8.

Both the Mod 69 and the 66-8 are destined to become major successes in the S&W lineup..... And many collectors like myself hope a 41 Mag and additional barrel lengths will follow...

Mike_Fontenot · September 25, 2014, 07:08 PM

OK ... in your new picture, the cylinder does look smaller. What do you get if you measure vertically from the top of the frame to the bottom of the "crane" (I think that's what it's called), for both the K-Frame and the L-Frame? That's probably the only noticeable difference in the two frame dimensions ... the length of the cylinder, and the horizontal length of the frame is probably about the same, because the length of a .357 cartridge is about the same as the length of a .44mag cartridge, I think (it's their diameters that are very different).

Model12Win · September 25, 2014, 07:09 PM

I love thr M69, I think it'd be a real gem with specials!

Mike_Fontenot · September 25, 2014, 07:18 PM

You can easily see the difference in cylinder diameters in these two links:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y

But also, I hadn't realized that the 66 is a 6-shot, not a 5-shot. So the 66's cylinder is larger in diameter (and closer to the 69's diameter) than it would be if they were both 5-shots.

Red Ramp · September 25, 2014, 08:12 PM

I don't have those dimensions or have my guns handy to measure them. I can say the 69 is built on the basic L frame with the new addition of the two piece barrel and the ball lock up for the crane. The internet will be your best friend for technical size data info on the cylinder of the 5 shot 69.

Like with all the K and L frame guns the additional size of the L frame is very noticeable if viewed in person. The two piece barrel for the new 66 has substantially improved that gun both with its ball lock up and the elimination of the old cut on the bottom of the original barrels that was so susceptible to metal fatigue and occasional cracking, especially with 125 gr ammo.

On the issue of size differences -- viewing the various frames from the rear or the top, side by side, can sometimes reveal a difference if you look very carefully. Maybe the pictures below will help somewhat... These are earlier guns but the frame dimensions are much the same.

Mike_Fontenot · September 26, 2014, 08:44 AM

Thanks for those photos. It still looks to me like the biggest difference by far is the step up to the X-Frame, and the step down to the J-Frame. The middle three (N, L, and K Frames) are pretty similar ... cylinder diameters differ perceptibly, but not much else is noticeable.

Sevens · September 26, 2014, 10:00 AM

Mike, in my experience, here is how the K-L-N frame revolvers feel different, to me:

The K-frame and L-frame use the same grip, they are completely interchangeable and Smith & Wesson specifically designed them that way. While the N-frame and K-frame each go back a hundred years, the L-frame is a youngster in comparison, arriving in 1980 with the 586/686 revolvers.

The L-frame showed up as a method of beefing up the durability of the K-frame for the purpose of .357 Magnum loads. One could argue (many have!) that Smith & Wesson never intended K-frame guns to run .357 Magnum ammo and that they were nudged that way by Bill Jordan and others who wanted a more service/duty friendly revolver size & weight with the ability to run the high pressure .357 Magnum.

Some folks may not realize... the .357 is not just a "bumped up" version of a .38 Special it. It runs fully twice the pressure of the .38 Special and S&W debuted the round in the large N-frame and went 20+ years before they ever considered putting the hot round in to a K-frame revolver.

Your grips & reach when holding an L-frame with similar grips to the K-frames you own should be very, VERY similar. The big difference I have found with the L-frame is that for the most part (and obviously, not including this new Model 69) is that the L-frame revolvers most all came with full barrel underlugs. That's a -LOT- of weight out front and it does help to tame the effects of .357 Magnum, but it radically changes the balance of the revolver.

So if a K-frame feels perfect, and an L-frame feels "less perfect", it may not be about your reach or grip. For me, this is exactly the case, and it's about balance.

The larger N-frame runs a different grip and a different "reach" but without the heavy mass hanging out front altering the balance. I absolutely love shooting my big 6-inch Model 28 N-frame...

...but there exists NO REVOLVER that feels more "RIGHT" in every single way (to ME, of course) than a 4-inch heavy barrel K-frame, like my Models 10 and 64.

Sevens · September 26, 2014, 10:01 AM

Hey Red Ramp, those are some very classy photos you've put together. Well done!

Mike_Fontenot · September 26, 2014, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevens

[...]
The larger N-frame runs a different grip and a different "reach"
[...]

But the stock grips for the enormous S&W500 fit the S&W69 (I've got them on my 69 right now) ... apparently the part of the two frames that mount the grips must be close to the same size and shape. And I'm surprised that the "reach" is different between the L-Frames and N-Frames, because the cartridges (.44mag) are the same, and the cylinders at least LOOK like they have the same length in those pics. And the amount of material before and after the cylinder doesn't look much if any different to me in the pics. Is the fore-and-aft position of the trigger, wrt the cylinder, different? Doesn't look like it in those pics to me. I suspect that the trigger must be slightly lower in the N-Frame, because the 6-shot cylinder has a slightly larger diameter than the 5-shot cylinder, so maybe that gets perceived as a longer reach (at least for people who use a high grip position). Maybe if I had a 29 or a 629 here (I don't), that I could handle alternately with my 69, the differences would be more obvious.

Sevens · September 26, 2014, 12:44 PM

Smith & Wesson very specifically designed the (then-new) monster X-frame revolvers to make use of the K-frame grip. They must also believe that the K-frame grip size is the best thing they've yet come up with. I can't exactly tell you from memory what the reach to an X-frame .460/.500 is like in comparison to a K-frame, but I do know the grip is 100% interchangeable.

Something else that occurs to me when I pick up my buddy's new Model 69 L-frame is that these rubber grips that S&W are shipping with the Models 66 and 69 are unlike any grip I've used. The shape and feel of each different grip you put on to any of them is certainly going to change the way it feels and fits.

The original magna grip that shipped with K-frames seems to be a lousy fit & feel for most, the Tyler T-Grip became a VERY good product on the market to address it. The goncalo alves target filled the hand better, it's what was shipped new on my 17-6 and 686-3 revolvers, both made 88-89. But I've long preferred the Pachmayr decelerator, SK-G, the rubber finger groove grip with the covered back strap. If you go to the Pachmayr with the back strap exposed, you get another feel and reach right there. And yet another if you go to the Pachmayr Presentation grip.

Lately on a K-frame, I've fallen in love with the fit & feel of the low-cost Uncle Mike's rubber grip. It looks very much like the Pachmayr SK-G but it fits my hand better, it's just a bit smaller. It's been my experience that my hand size runs large or a bit larger. Not HUGE, mind you, but I prefer an XL glove over a large for any application where I need gloves. (such as motorcycling)

Mike_Fontenot · September 26, 2014, 01:22 PM

The black grips on the S&W66 K-Frame in Red Ramp's post #30 look like the stock grips that came on my S&W69 L-Frame. I wonder if the "reach" would feel different, with the same grips, on those two guns ... I suspect that the longitudinal (bore-axis) dimensions on those two guns are essentially, the same, although the vertical dimensions are a bit different because of the slight difference in cylinder diameter. So the reach to the trigger, and/or to the hammer, might be perceptible because of that slight difference in the vertical dimensions.

I think I DID notice a little difference in the reach to the trigger when I swapped out the grips on my 69 ... I think I get a little less finger on the trigger when shooting DA with the new 500 grips, although it is still acceptable. I like to shoot SA MUCH more than DA, and in SA the trigger is very easy to reach with either of the two grips.

Red Ramp · September 26, 2014, 02:09 PM

Here are some additional pictures that show the interchangeability of the X frame S&W "Tamer" grips with an N frame 629. Keep in mind these grips also fit the round butt K, L, and N frame as well as the X frame. That includes the 69 and the 66-8. Perhaps seeing the frames without the grips will provide some help....although their "feel" with each individual frame can be different based on weight, barrel length balance, hand size, etc....

Sevens.... Your clear description of the frames and their history was excellent!

Paul105 · September 26, 2014, 05:40 PM

Here are some measurements for K, L, N frames.

For reference:

The M66-8 - the new one
The M19 is a 19-3 (pinned and recessed)
The M69 is the new L Frame, 5 shot .44 Mag
The 629 Mtn Gun is pre mim, pre lock, and has hammer mounted firing pin.
One of these days, I’ll measure the M60 – J Frame
I don’t have an X Frame

Frame window front to back:
M66 - 1.815”
M19 - 1.805”
629 Mtn Gun Frame Window – Width: 1.880“
M69 L Frame - Frame Window Width: 1.820“

Frame window top to bottom:
M66 - 1.475”
M19 - 1.475”
629 Mtn Gun Frame Window - Height: 1.735“
M69 L Frame - Frame Window Height: 1.600“

Top strap:
M66 - 0.665”
M19 - 0.655”
629 Mtn Gun Frame Top Strap – Width: .665“
M69 L Frame - Frame Top Strap Width: .665“

Cylinder Diameter:
M66 - (six shot) - 1.450”
M19 - (six shot) - 1.450”
629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Diameter (six shot): 1.70”
M69 L Frame Cylinder Diameter (five shot): 1.56”

Cylinder Length:
M66 - 1.670”
M19 - 1.675” (Recessed charge holes)
629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Length: 1.705”
M69 L Frame Cylinder Length: 1.670”

Note, all of my K, L, N Frame round butt’s have the Hogue 500 grips on them.

Paul

Mike_Fontenot · September 27, 2014, 11:48 AM

WOW! Many thanks for taking the time and effort to provide those detailed measurements ... very interesting and very useful!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul105

[...]
Here are some measurements for K, L, N frames.
[...]

Frame window front to back:
M66 - 1.815”
M19 - 1.805”
629 Mtn Gun Frame Window – Width: 1.880“
M69 L Frame - Frame Window Width: 1.820"

Cylinder Length:
M66 - 1.670”
M19 - 1.675” (Recessed charge holes)
629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Length: 1.705”
M69 L Frame Cylinder Length: 1.670”

I was surprised that the frame "window" width was that different for the L-Frame compared to the N-Frame, since the cartridges are the same length. The N-Frame cylinder has more space in front of the bullets, before the bullets leave the cylinder (conformed by the cylinder length measurements). I HAD noticed that the bullets in my M69 DO come fairly close to the end of the cylinder, but I didn't have an N-Frame around to compare it with. The L-Frame and K-Frames are not much different, as far as the extra length of the cylinder in front of the bullet.

Quote:

Frame window top to bottom:
M66 - 1.475”
M19 - 1.475”
629 Mtn Gun Frame Window - Height: 1.735“
M69 L Frame - Frame Window Height: 1.600“

Cylinder Diameter:
M66 - (six shot) - 1.450”
M19 - (six shot) - 1.450”
629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Diameter (six shot): 1.70”
M69 L Frame Cylinder Diameter (five shot): 1.56”

I would have guessed that the difference in the cylinder diameter between a 5-shot .44mag and a 6-shot .44mag would be greater than that. And I would have guessed that 6 shots of .357 would be closer in diameter to 5-shots of .44mag than it is ... maybe shouldn't be surprising, .44mag cartridges ARE really wide compared to a .357.

Quote:

Top strap:
M66 - 0.665”
M19 - 0.655”
629 Mtn Gun Frame Top Strap – Width: .665“
M69 L Frame - Frame Top Strap Width: .665“

About the same, as far as "beefiness" of the frame.

Thanks again for that data ... I'm saving THAT!

Wheelie_Fan · October 1, 2014, 02:21 PM

Rumor has it, there's a Mod. 69 on it's way from the distributor.... hoping it's got my name on it. Hopefully later this week or early next!

Ozzieman · October 1, 2014, 06:10 PM

Well it showed up last night and this is the letter that I just wrote to S&W.

Smith and Wesson
I ordered and received last night a new M69 with the markings I have added below including the markings on the blue box.
A little story about myself, I am a collector of N frame S&W’s, my prime collection are of older Model 24’s and 29. These I have multiple of including 2 Lew Horton 24’s. 25’s 27’s and a 1955 Target in 44 special. I know a quality gun when I handle one.
This 69 is not one of them. The following are my concerns.
1. The grips are a poor fit along the back of the grip. They don’t align, and to me they seem to be manufactured poorly where the back sides go together are very thin. When griping the gun I can feel the two edges roll under my palm. This gives a very poor feel.
2. Single action is very nice but too heavy. I can live with it but I would guess 5 lb. But the smoothness is inconstant. Sometimes you can feel a little creep sometimes not.
3. Here is the worse problem. This is by far the worse double action I have ever handled. The first quarter of the pull feels like dragging bricks through gravel and I was shocked at the weight. I have no scales but I have no guns that come close. This is very poor trigger for a S&W.
4. The cylinder release is a joke. Two bricks sliding together.
5. This one surprised me coming from S&W. I know the guns have to be fired so you can retain a fired case but can’t you at least clean the gun. Only two cylinders have been fired from the look of the front of the cylinder with one at 12 and the other two chambers around. The ring I don’t mind but the barrel has so much copper fowling that I was just simply surprised. You must be using very cheap jacketed bullets or something.
6. The barrel shroud. There is a flat spot that runs along the left side of the shroud at 7 o’clock. Yes a flat spot. There are also discolorations on the side. A scratch at the shroud to frame aria and the barrel crown has a small scratch that runs to the edge of the rifling. This is small but it’s also the worse location for a nick or scratch.
7. One final thing. When I got home with it I dry fired it. This is where I became very unhappy with the double action. In less than 20 dry firings the cylinder has a ring.
When I first heard of the 69 I went nuts. I have been looking for a 696 for several years and just can’t find a decent one that hasn’t been beat up. When the 69 came out I waited for this long so that I wouldn’t get the first off the production line. I will probably never shoot magnums in it, the Redhawk and 29's are for that.
I am not very happy with this gun. I know that its impossible to get the quality of hand built guns from the 30's 40's and 50's, that is a sad loss for us all
I hope you can do something to get my confidence in your great company again. I hope you will be willing to look at the gun and do something about the quality or lack thereof.
Thank you.

jglsprings · October 2, 2014, 07:22 PM

I just don't understand how people take delivery of a new gun - and then are surprised when they get it home?

Didn't you even look at it before paying for it? If it was prepaid and your dealer won't allow returns - you need a different dealer.

If the gun had the physical defects you describe - I sure wouldn't have accepted delivery.

All I can say is I was very pleased with the workmanship, fit and finish of my gun - before - I brought it home.

Good luck - let us know what S&W says.

Ozzieman · October 3, 2014, 05:39 PM

I just don't understand how people take delivery of a new gun - and then are surprised when they get it home?
You did read that I ordered it?
The shop owner is a good friend who went out of his way to get the order filled in less than a couple of weeks.
I opened the shipping box in his store like I do every time I buy or order a gun from him. Together we found the issues all but the jacket fowling due to the less than adequate light in his store. I showed him some of the issues and I said that I would contact S&W first and if I didn't get any help from them I would bring it back. He was ok with that.
Just a couple of minutes ago I got 4 e mails from S&W one from the manager of customer service apologizing for the issues. And his phone number if things don't get fixed to my satisfaction.
Another one is a free shipping label so it’s going back.
I'm working on some photos to send them to him and I will post them here.
I'm glad you got a good one. Having seen, handled and owned a lot of S&W's this is by far the worst one I have ever seen. I don't think I have handed a Taurus as bad as this. I do wish I had a trigger pull scale so that I could tell you the weight but if its not in the 20 pound plus class I'm an anti-gunner!

Ozzieman · October 3, 2014, 07:06 PM

The first one is the back of the grip. You can’t make your own mind up on the quality.
The other photo is Ring on the cylinder after only 10 dry firings.
Also note that the side plate which has a gap near the rear sight where line reaches the cylinder cover it looks like it was forced inward and the metal at the point of the frame and plate have been compressed and flowed upward slightly.
Also along the curve there is a bright spot. This is a deep dent.

Ozzieman · October 3, 2014, 07:13 PM

Now for some photos.
Flat spot.
It’s hard to see and much harder to photograph but if you look at the two black lines I have added you can see what might look like a shadow,,, it’s not. It’s actually a flat spot on the barrel shroud.
The second one is the copper fowling.

Ozzieman · October 3, 2014, 07:18 PM

This is the barrel crown. I assure you that some of the scratches are much deeper than they look in the two photos.

September 23, 2014, 06:40 PM	#27
Ozzieman Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 6,117	Thanks Wheelie_Fan, Do yourself a favor, if you’re going to shoot 44's RELOAD. With several thousand cases and lead bullets I can reload 50 for around 6 to 7$. __________________ It was a sad day when I discovered my universal remote control did not in fact control the universe. Did you hear about the latest study.....5 out of 6 liberals say that Russian Roulette is safe.

September 26, 2014, 10:00 AM	#36
Sevens Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 11,756	Mike, in my experience, here is how the K-L-N frame revolvers feel different, to me: The K-frame and L-frame use the same grip, they are completely interchangeable and Smith & Wesson specifically designed them that way. While the N-frame and K-frame each go back a hundred years, the L-frame is a youngster in comparison, arriving in 1980 with the 586/686 revolvers. The L-frame showed up as a method of beefing up the durability of the K-frame for the purpose of .357 Magnum loads. One could argue (many have!) that Smith & Wesson never intended K-frame guns to run .357 Magnum ammo and that they were nudged that way by Bill Jordan and others who wanted a more service/duty friendly revolver size & weight with the ability to run the high pressure .357 Magnum. Some folks may not realize... the .357 is not just a "bumped up" version of a .38 Special it. It runs fully twice the pressure of the .38 Special and S&W debuted the round in the large N-frame and went 20+ years before they ever considered putting the hot round in to a K-frame revolver. Your grips & reach when holding an L-frame with similar grips to the K-frames you own should be very, VERY similar. The big difference I have found with the L-frame is that for the most part (and obviously, not including this new Model 69) is that the L-frame revolvers most all came with full barrel underlugs. That's a -LOT- of weight out front and it does help to tame the effects of .357 Magnum, but it radically changes the balance of the revolver. So if a K-frame feels perfect, and an L-frame feels "less perfect", it may not be about your reach or grip. For me, this is exactly the case, and it's about balance. The larger N-frame runs a different grip and a different "reach" but without the heavy mass hanging out front altering the balance. I absolutely love shooting my big 6-inch Model 28 N-frame... ...but there exists NO REVOLVER that feels more "RIGHT" in every single way (to ME, of course) than a 4-inch heavy barrel K-frame, like my Models 10 and 64. __________________ *Attention Brass rats and other reloaders:* I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.

September 26, 2014, 10:01 AM	#37
Sevens Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 11,756	Hey Red Ramp, those are some very classy photos you've put together. Well done! __________________ *Attention Brass rats and other reloaders:* I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.

September 26, 2014, 12:44 PM	#39
Sevens Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 11,756	Smith & Wesson very specifically designed the (then-new) monster X-frame revolvers to make use of the K-frame grip. They must also believe that the K-frame grip size is the best thing they've yet come up with. I can't exactly tell you from memory what the reach to an X-frame .460/.500 is like in comparison to a K-frame, but I do know the grip is 100% interchangeable. Something else that occurs to me when I pick up my buddy's new Model 69 L-frame is that these rubber grips that S&W are shipping with the Models 66 and 69 are unlike any grip I've used. The shape and feel of each different grip you put on to any of them is certainly going to change the way it feels and fits. The original magna grip that shipped with K-frames seems to be a lousy fit & feel for most, the Tyler T-Grip became a VERY good product on the market to address it. The goncalo alves target filled the hand better, it's what was shipped new on my 17-6 and 686-3 revolvers, both made 88-89. But I've long preferred the Pachmayr decelerator, SK-G, the rubber finger groove grip with the covered back strap. If you go to the Pachmayr with the back strap exposed, you get another feel and reach right there. And yet another if you go to the Pachmayr Presentation grip. Lately on a K-frame, I've fallen in love with the fit & feel of the low-cost Uncle Mike's rubber grip. It looks very much like the Pachmayr SK-G but it fits my hand better, it's just a bit smaller. It's been my experience that my hand size runs large or a bit larger. Not HUGE, mind you, but I prefer an XL glove over a large for any application where I need gloves. (such as motorcycling) __________________ *Attention Brass rats and other reloaders:* I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.

September 26, 2014, 05:40 PM	#42
Paul105 Senior Member Join Date: March 26, 2007 Location: Montana Posts: 343	K, L, N Frame Measurements Here are some measurements for K, L, N frames. For reference: The M66-8 - the new one The M19 is a 19-3 (pinned and recessed) The M69 is the new L Frame, 5 shot .44 Mag The 629 Mtn Gun is pre mim, pre lock, and has hammer mounted firing pin. One of these days, I’ll measure the M60 – J Frame I don’t have an X Frame Frame window front to back: M66 - 1.815” M19 - 1.805” 629 Mtn Gun Frame Window – Width: 1.880“ M69 L Frame - Frame Window Width: 1.820“ Frame window top to bottom: M66 - 1.475” M19 - 1.475” 629 Mtn Gun Frame Window - Height: 1.735“ M69 L Frame - Frame Window Height: 1.600“ Top strap: M66 - 0.665” M19 - 0.655” 629 Mtn Gun Frame Top Strap – Width: .665“ M69 L Frame - Frame Top Strap Width: .665“ Cylinder Diameter: M66 - (six shot) - 1.450” M19 - (six shot) - 1.450” 629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Diameter (six shot): 1.70” M69 L Frame Cylinder Diameter (five shot): 1.56” Cylinder Length: M66 - 1.670” M19 - 1.675” (Recessed charge holes) 629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Length: 1.705” M69 L Frame Cylinder Length: 1.670” Note, all of my K, L, N Frame round butt’s have the Hogue 500 grips on them. Paul

September 22, 2014, 06:34 PM	#26
Wheelie_Fan Senior Member Join Date: November 27, 2009 Location: CT Posts: 117	Good luck Oz, I ordered mine on 8/20 and so far no estimate on delivery.... Still showing as back ordered. I think the wait just might drive me crazy. Although.... It's giving me time to track down some factory ammo and consider getting into reloading.... Hope yours shows up soon!

September 25, 2014, 03:15 AM	#28
Red Ramp Member Join Date: October 26, 2009 Location: The X ring Posts: 18	Here is a visual of both the L frame 69 and the K frame 66-8, side by side, to compare size differences...

September 25, 2014, 09:45 AM	#29
Mike_Fontenot Senior Member Join Date: March 7, 2009 Posts: 568	Hard to see any difference at all. I'm surprised that the cylinder doesn't have a noticeably smaller diameter (thereby allowing a frame that is shorted vertically (perpendicular to the bore axis)), because of the narrower cartridges of the .357 ... maybe they used the same cylinder diameter, and just drilled smaller holes in it (in which case, the cylinder would probably be heavier). I thought tat the K-Frame would be noticeably smaller than the L-Frame ... are you sure that the .357 is a K-Frame?

September 25, 2014, 06:50 PM	#30
Red Ramp Member Join Date: October 26, 2009 Location: The X ring Posts: 18	It's the same outside diameter as the earlier K frame 66 Mods. It may be the angle of my picture makes them appear somewhat similar to the L frame 69. I hope the OP doesn't mind a momentary hijack but below is a picture of a very early no-dash Mod 66 with a new 66-8. Both the Mod 69 and the 66-8 are destined to become major successes in the S&W lineup..... And many collectors like myself hope a 41 Mag and additional barrel lengths will follow...

September 25, 2014, 07:08 PM	#31
Mike_Fontenot Senior Member Join Date: March 7, 2009 Posts: 568	OK ... in your new picture, the cylinder does look smaller. What do you get if you measure vertically from the top of the frame to the bottom of the "crane" (I think that's what it's called), for both the K-Frame and the L-Frame? That's probably the only noticeable difference in the two frame dimensions ... the length of the cylinder, and the horizontal length of the frame is probably about the same, because the length of a .357 cartridge is about the same as the length of a .44mag cartridge, I think (it's their diameters that are very different).

September 25, 2014, 07:09 PM	#32
Model12Win Junior member Join Date: October 20, 2012 Posts: 5,854	I love thr M69, I think it'd be a real gem with specials!

September 25, 2014, 07:18 PM	#33
Mike_Fontenot Senior Member Join Date: March 7, 2009 Posts: 568	You can easily see the difference in cylinder diameters in these two links: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y But also, I hadn't realized that the 66 is a 6-shot, not a 5-shot. So the 66's cylinder is larger in diameter (and closer to the 69's diameter) than it would be if they were both 5-shots.

September 25, 2014, 08:12 PM	#34
Red Ramp Member Join Date: October 26, 2009 Location: The X ring Posts: 18	I don't have those dimensions or have my guns handy to measure them. I can say the 69 is built on the basic L frame with the new addition of the two piece barrel and the ball lock up for the crane. The internet will be your best friend for technical size data info on the cylinder of the 5 shot 69. Like with all the K and L frame guns the additional size of the L frame is very noticeable if viewed in person. The two piece barrel for the new 66 has substantially improved that gun both with its ball lock up and the elimination of the old cut on the bottom of the original barrels that was so susceptible to metal fatigue and occasional cracking, especially with 125 gr ammo. On the issue of size differences -- viewing the various frames from the rear or the top, side by side, can sometimes reveal a difference if you look very carefully. Maybe the pictures below will help somewhat... These are earlier guns but the frame dimensions are much the same.

September 26, 2014, 08:44 AM	#35
Mike_Fontenot Senior Member Join Date: March 7, 2009 Posts: 568	Thanks for those photos. It still looks to me like the biggest difference by far is the step up to the X-Frame, and the step down to the J-Frame. The middle three (N, L, and K Frames) are pretty similar ... cylinder diameters differ perceptibly, but not much else is noticeable.

September 26, 2014, 01:22 PM	#40
Mike_Fontenot Senior Member Join Date: March 7, 2009 Posts: 568	The black grips on the S&W66 K-Frame in Red Ramp's post #30 look like the stock grips that came on my S&W69 L-Frame. I wonder if the "reach" would feel different, with the same grips, on those two guns ... I suspect that the longitudinal (bore-axis) dimensions on those two guns are essentially, the same, although the vertical dimensions are a bit different because of the slight difference in cylinder diameter. So the reach to the trigger, and/or to the hammer, might be perceptible because of that slight difference in the vertical dimensions. I think I DID notice a little difference in the reach to the trigger when I swapped out the grips on my 69 ... I think I get a little less finger on the trigger when shooting DA with the new 500 grips, although it is still acceptable. I like to shoot SA MUCH more than DA, and in SA the trigger is very easy to reach with either of the two grips.

September 26, 2014, 02:09 PM	#41
Red Ramp Member Join Date: October 26, 2009 Location: The X ring Posts: 18	Here are some additional pictures that show the interchangeability of the X frame S&W "Tamer" grips with an N frame 629. Keep in mind these grips also fit the round butt K, L, and N frame as well as the X frame. That includes the 69 and the 66-8. Perhaps seeing the frames without the grips will provide some help....although their "feel" with each individual frame can be different based on weight, barrel length balance, hand size, etc.... Sevens.... Your clear description of the frames and their history was excellent!

October 1, 2014, 02:21 PM	#44
Wheelie_Fan Senior Member Join Date: November 27, 2009 Location: CT Posts: 117	Rumor has it, there's a Mod. 69 on it's way from the distributor.... hoping it's got my name on it. Hopefully later this week or early next!

October 1, 2014, 06:10 PM	#45
Ozzieman Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 6,117	It showed up last night Well it showed up last night and this is the letter that I just wrote to S&W. Smith and Wesson I ordered and received last night a new M69 with the markings I have added below including the markings on the blue box. A little story about myself, I am a collector of N frame S&W’s, my prime collection are of older Model 24’s and 29. These I have multiple of including 2 Lew Horton 24’s. 25’s 27’s and a 1955 Target in 44 special. I know a quality gun when I handle one. This 69 is not one of them. The following are my concerns. 1. The grips are a poor fit along the back of the grip. They don’t align, and to me they seem to be manufactured poorly where the back sides go together are very thin. When griping the gun I can feel the two edges roll under my palm. This gives a very poor feel. 2. Single action is very nice but too heavy. I can live with it but I would guess 5 lb. But the smoothness is inconstant. Sometimes you can feel a little creep sometimes not. 3. Here is the worse problem. This is by far the worse double action I have ever handled. The first quarter of the pull feels like dragging bricks through gravel and I was shocked at the weight. I have no scales but I have no guns that come close. This is very poor trigger for a S&W. 4. The cylinder release is a joke. Two bricks sliding together. 5. This one surprised me coming from S&W. I know the guns have to be fired so you can retain a fired case but can’t you at least clean the gun. Only two cylinders have been fired from the look of the front of the cylinder with one at 12 and the other two chambers around. The ring I don’t mind but the barrel has so much copper fowling that I was just simply surprised. You must be using very cheap jacketed bullets or something. 6. The barrel shroud. There is a flat spot that runs along the left side of the shroud at 7 o’clock. Yes a flat spot. There are also discolorations on the side. A scratch at the shroud to frame aria and the barrel crown has a small scratch that runs to the edge of the rifling. This is small but it’s also the worse location for a nick or scratch. 7. One final thing. When I got home with it I dry fired it. This is where I became very unhappy with the double action. In less than 20 dry firings the cylinder has a ring. When I first heard of the 69 I went nuts. I have been looking for a 696 for several years and just can’t find a decent one that hasn’t been beat up. When the 69 came out I waited for this long so that I wouldn’t get the first off the production line. I will probably never shoot magnums in it, the Redhawk and 29's are for that. I am not very happy with this gun. I know that its impossible to get the quality of hand built guns from the 30's 40's and 50's, that is a sad loss for us all I hope you can do something to get my confidence in your great company again. I hope you will be willing to look at the gun and do something about the quality or lack thereof. Thank you. __________________ It was a sad day when I discovered my universal remote control did not in fact control the universe. Did you hear about the latest study.....5 out of 6 liberals say that Russian Roulette is safe.

October 2, 2014, 07:22 PM	#46
jglsprings Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2009 Posts: 1,827	I just don't understand how people take delivery of a new gun - and then are surprised when they get it home? Didn't you even look at it before paying for it? If it was prepaid and your dealer won't allow returns - you need a different dealer. If the gun had the physical defects you describe - I sure wouldn't have accepted delivery. All I can say is I was very pleased with the workmanship, fit and finish of my gun - before - I brought it home. Good luck - let us know what S&W says. __________________ Let's eat Grandma. Let's eat, Grandma. Commas save lives...

October 3, 2014, 05:39 PM	#47
Ozzieman Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 6,117	I just don't understand how people take delivery of a new gun - and then are surprised when they get it home? You did read that I ordered it? The shop owner is a good friend who went out of his way to get the order filled in less than a couple of weeks. I opened the shipping box in his store like I do every time I buy or order a gun from him. Together we found the issues all but the jacket fowling due to the less than adequate light in his store. I showed him some of the issues and I said that I would contact S&W first and if I didn't get any help from them I would bring it back. He was ok with that. Just a couple of minutes ago I got 4 e mails from S&W one from the manager of customer service apologizing for the issues. And his phone number if things don't get fixed to my satisfaction. Another one is a free shipping label so it’s going back. I'm working on some photos to send them to him and I will post them here. I'm glad you got a good one. Having seen, handled and owned a lot of S&W's this is by far the worst one I have ever seen. I don't think I have handed a Taurus as bad as this. I do wish I had a trigger pull scale so that I could tell you the weight but if its not in the 20 pound plus class I'm an anti-gunner! __________________ It was a sad day when I discovered my universal remote control did not in fact control the universe. Did you hear about the latest study.....5 out of 6 liberals say that Russian Roulette is safe.

October 3, 2014, 07:06 PM	#48
Ozzieman Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 6,117	photos The first one is the back of the grip. You can’t make your own mind up on the quality. The other photo is Ring on the cylinder after only 10 dry firings. Also note that the side plate which has a gap near the rear sight where line reaches the cylinder cover it looks like it was forced inward and the metal at the point of the frame and plate have been compressed and flowed upward slightly. Also along the curve there is a bright spot. This is a deep dent. __________________ It was a sad day when I discovered my universal remote control did not in fact control the universe. Did you hear about the latest study.....5 out of 6 liberals say that Russian Roulette is safe. Last edited by Ozzieman; February 12, 2017 at 06:28 PM.

October 3, 2014, 07:13 PM	#49
Ozzieman Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 6,117	Now for some photos. Flat spot. It’s hard to see and much harder to photograph but if you look at the two black lines I have added you can see what might look like a shadow,,, it’s not. It’s actually a flat spot on the barrel shroud. The second one is the copper fowling. __________________ It was a sad day when I discovered my universal remote control did not in fact control the universe. Did you hear about the latest study.....5 out of 6 liberals say that Russian Roulette is safe. Last edited by Ozzieman; February 12, 2017 at 06:28 PM.

October 3, 2014, 07:18 PM	#50
Ozzieman Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 6,117	This is the barrel crown. I assure you that some of the scratches are much deeper than they look in the two photos. __________________ It was a sad day when I discovered my universal remote control did not in fact control the universe. Did you hear about the latest study.....5 out of 6 liberals say that Russian Roulette is safe. Last edited by Ozzieman; February 12, 2017 at 06:28 PM.