S&W 69, L frame 5 shot 44 mag

Ozzieman · January 27, 2014, 03:52 PM

Anyone see the new S&W 69, L frame 5 shot 44 mag at the shot show?
Wish it didn’t have a lock and had a full lug but I will buy one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs8wGQ3cnvw

Noreaster · January 27, 2014, 03:53 PM

Id prefer a 5 inch barrel but I like. In my State, while hunting, we're only allowed to load 5 cylinders.

Ozzieman · January 27, 2014, 03:54 PM

I would like a 3 inch

Hal · January 27, 2014, 04:02 PM

Quote:

I would like a 3 inch

+1
or even a 2.5".

I've always wanted a S&W version of the Charter Arms Bulldog.
Having magnum capability is just a plus.

WESHOOT2 · January 27, 2014, 04:59 PM

Too much cartridge in too little gun.

Colt46 · January 27, 2014, 06:31 PM

Wasn't a raging success(the few that have them love them) commercially. The forcing cone was a weak point. I hope smith learned from that enterprise and made the critical parts beefier.

bigghoss · January 27, 2014, 08:19 PM

I'm holding out for a 2-3" snubby but I like the idea. I want one in .45acp too.

Elerius · January 28, 2014, 02:48 AM

This is actually the only gun I was interested in from the Shot Show. I already have a 5.5" blue Ruger Redhawk in .44 Mag and wanted to balance it with a stainless S&W 44 but the only option was a variation on the M29, until this. I like the barrel length but I wouldn't be carrying it and I think the L-frame will fit the hand better. Haven't seen one in person (don't know if they're even available yet) so I will reserve judgment.

As for the lock, I don't buy Smiths when there are earlier pre-lock versions available just on principle, but in this case where it is brand new and there aren't older versions to be had, I don't think I'll mind since I'm not carrying. I do like the half lug, very M66-ish which I'm partial to

salvadore · January 28, 2014, 10:43 AM

Just like my Mountain Lite only in stainless.

**Tom Servo** · January 28, 2014, 12:37 PM

We'll see how they hold up. I had a 696, and there were two concerns running hot ammunition through it. The first was the razor-thin forcing cone. The second is the fact that the chambers are bored very close together.

Bob Wright · January 28, 2014, 03:19 PM

This, in my opinion, is the ultimate .44 Magnum DA revolver:

Five inch, full lug, Model 29, BLUED STEEL.

Bob Wright

Ozzieman · January 28, 2014, 04:32 PM

I totally agree Bob. Never seen one in real life but the full lug makes the gun look smaller but man that is nice looking.
I wish mine were blued instead of shiny.
One comment I will make on the 69. I will NEVER NOT ONCE EVER shoot magnums in the gun.
Now if Ruger would get off their buts and build a 44 special in the SP101,,,,,,,

bigghoss · January 28, 2014, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Now if Ruger would get off their buts and build a 44 special in the SP101

Not sure that would work. On the GP100 frame would work.

Roughedge · January 28, 2014, 05:54 PM

I held one at the shot show and it felt good. I'd rather have one that will last so I got the Ruger Alaskan this week.

tlm225 · January 28, 2014, 10:31 PM

I became very interested in this gun as soon as I learned of it. While the 29/629 series are excellent guns, (I've owned one of each) the "N" frame grip just doesn't work with my hand size. The "L" frame does. I have already made inquiries at two shops to order one with no success. I foresee loading up 240-250 grain LSWC at 900-1000 FPS as my working load.

WESHOOT2 · January 28, 2014, 11:30 PM

Quote:

240-250 grain LSWC at 900-1000 FPS as my working load

THIS; this will work.

But if your load might make a 29's cylinder rotate backward, then this ain't the right gun

BOI · January 29, 2014, 05:18 AM

If they make one with a 3 inch barrel and it is mine. I like the idea of a ruger gp100 in 44 mag also. Hope the people at S&W and ruger are listening.

Mannlicher · January 29, 2014, 08:16 AM

an expensive make over of a Charter Arms Bulldog.

P5 Guy · January 29, 2014, 05:38 PM

How does the forcing cone stand up to Magnum loads?
The last 44 in an 'L' frame had forcing cone concerns.

Nick_C_S · January 29, 2014, 07:30 PM

I'm good with the barrel length - 4.25" seems about right. The show-stopper for me is that the barrel isn't fully lugged - like a 686. With 44 Mag, I would like the front weight.

Also, I'm sure this gun isn't meant to be fired extensively with hot rounds - just like the M66 - and for the same reason. I'm okay with that.

Nick_C_S · January 29, 2014, 07:33 PM

Bob Wright: Your 44 Mag is a beauty. I'd be proud to have one of those in my arsenal.

Paul105 · January 29, 2014, 08:27 PM

First, this gun is a .44 Magnum (not .44 Special).

I have one. It’s great. Haven’t put a bunch of loads downrange, but have covered the spectrum – 240s at 730 fps and 325grs at 1,182 fps (and several in between) – all manageable but POI may be problematic.

Anyway, here are some photos, dimensions, loads, and personal observations. The long/thin barrel shank/forcing cone of the 696 .44 Special is evident in the picture below. By the way, has anyone ever seen, or have personal knowledge of a barrel shank/forcing cone failure in a 696 or 396 – not being argumentative, just curious?

629 Mtn Gun weighs 39 oz
M69 L Frame weighs 37 oz

Some M69 Dimensions:

OD of barrel shank is right at .620".

Frame window - height: 1.600"
Frame window - width: 1.820"

Cylinder - outside diameter: 1.560"

Cylinder - wall at narrowest: .600" (this was really hard to measure so it is definitely plus/minus)

Cylinder - length: 1.670"

(The cylinder is 1.670 inches and isn't recessed for cartridge rims -- a 1.712" handload fits, but is right at the face of the cylinder. Lymans No 49 edition shows OAL w their 425421 Keith Bullet is 1.710").

A .429 minus plug gauge will enter all throats a .430 plug will not.

HERE ARE SOME PICTURES:
.
M69 Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone area:
.

.
M696 Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone Area:
.

.
629 Mtn Gun Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone area:
.

.
Family Portrait - 629 Mtn Gun, M696, New M69:
.

.
Sorry about the "so-so" pictures -- light wasn't the best and I'm not the best photographer.

What a neat little package.

FIRST RANGE SESSION:

I was in a hurry, hands were cold, light going fast, and the wind was blowing, so I didn't get to do as much testing as I wanted to. Will get to it soon.

The loads were:

240gr SWC Lasercast (.431)seated to 1.500" OAL and crimped lightly over the front drive band. Multi-x Starline cases and Winchester WLP primers.

5.6gr of HP 38 (Vel: 739 fps)
10.6gr of HS6 (Vel: 1,035 fps)
9.4 gr of Longshot (Vel: 1,078 fps)

265gr SWCGC (429244) (.429) seated deep and crimped over the front drive band. Multi-x Starline cases and WLPs.

16.9gr A2400 (Vel: 1,142 fps)

When seated deep (as was done here), this load will run right at 1,200 fps from a 6" barrel.

Federal Factory 240gr JHP (No. 44A) Vel: 1,217 fps
(We chroned this load at 1,375 fps from a 7 1/2" Bisley Hunter.

.

.

.
Couple of observations:

For me, while very comfortable feeling, the grip panels that come with the gun aren't comfortable under heavy recoil (shouldn't be a problem in the field). I'll probably mount some of the S&W 500 Hogues for longer bench sessions to test heavier loads.

Looks like this gun was sighted in at the factory with .44 Special ammo.

The rear sight has some room to move the POI down, but may need a higher front sight.

I was real pleased with the limited test targets.

That Fed Factory load looks to have excellent accuracy potential.

Recoil with the 265gr SWCGC/16.9 A2400 and the 240gr Fed Factory load were the same and would not be abusive with proper fitting (to the individual) grips. We'll see what it's like with some 305s and 325s.

SECOND RANGE SESSION – CHRONOGRAPHING ONLY:

Load Data for REFERENCE ONLY -- NOT A RECOMMENDATION.

Replaced the factory grips with the Hogue 500s (see 629 photo above).

Didn't shoot any groups but ran some loads over the chronograph.

Chrono 5 long paces from muzzle and temp was about 45 deg f., 5 shots except for 240gr Fed Factory, and 325gr WLNGC (both 3 shots):

Bullet make, OAL, cases and primers shown above

240gr, 9.4gr Longshot, ... 1,078 fps avg, 18 fps ES.
240gr, 10.6gr HS6, ....... 1,035 fps avg, 24 fps ES.
265gr, 16.9gr A2400,...... 1,142 fps avg, 37 fps ES.
240gr, Federal Fact, ..... 1,216 fps avg, 12 fps ES

Load Data for REFERENCE ONLY -- NOT A RECOMMENDATION.

300gr WFNPB 1.651" OAL - LBT type - source unknown.
20.0gr H110.
Fed 155 (Mag)
New Top Brass (Scharch.com).
1,102 fps avg, 37 fps ES

310gr RNFPGC DC 1.605" OAL (top crimp grove) - LEE mold.
20.0gr H110.
Fed 155 (Mag)
New Top Brass (Scharch.com).
1,141 fps avg, 23 fps ES

325gr WLNGC 1.711" OAL - Beartooth Bullets.
22.0gr H110.
Fed 155 (Mag)
New Top Brass (Scharch.com).
1,182 fps avg, 13 fps ES (3 shots only)

Load Data for REFERENCE ONLY -- NOT A RECOMMENDATION.

The Hogue 500s worked great making this gun comfortable to shoot with the heavier loads. I have a problem with grips that are hard or narrow at the top (or both) -- recoil just hammers the bone at the base of my thumb -- the Hogue 500s pretty much solve this problem for me.

Didn't shot any targets, so can't comment on POI of the heavier bullets.

The 300s were not bad at all recoil wise -- but was noticeable and the 325gr/1,180fps was a bit more so. Certainly won’t shoot many of these.

THIRD RANGE SESSION – JUST SHOOTING:

Yesterday, I shot 65 rounds of 6.0gr Win Super Target under the 240gr Lasercast (seated to 1.510 OAL) in Starline cases and lit by Win Large Pistol primers. What a pleasant load – probably running 850 fps or a bit more. Didn’t shoot on paper or chronograph – will do that another day.

CONCLUSION:

Fitted with the Hogue 500s, FOR ME, it is comfortable to shoot with any and all loads likely to be used. Again, FOR ME, it is the ideal handgun - reasonable weight, portable size, good balance, good accuracy (so far), and sufficient caliber.

I plan on both shooting and carrying this gun a lot, and won’t baby it. Will find out how well it holds up over time.

Hope this gives a bit better picture of what the new S&W M69 is or might be.

FWIW,

Paul

Nick_C_S · January 29, 2014, 11:20 PM

Thanks Paul. Lots of effort and information there. We appreciate it.

aarondhgraham · January 30, 2014, 05:39 PM

Am I the only one who likes half lug frames?

I think the revolver is very pleasing to the eye just as it is.

Am I going out to buy one?,,,
Nope.

Would I toss it if someone gifted me one?,,,
Oh heck no!

Many people have fired my 629 and wished the frame were a bit smaller,,,
This new offering looks like it will fill that desire very nicely.

But why does the cylinder release look like a Taurus?

Aarond

.

Hal · January 31, 2014, 09:41 AM

@ Paul - Awesome information!

My pet .44mag load is 17.3gr of A2400 under a Hornady .430" swaged lead SWCHP bullet using a standard LPP.

It shoots mild and I "guestimated" it's velocity at the high end of the 1100 something fps. out of my 4" barreled M29.
That load was actually worked up for my Winchester Trapper.
I'd used a big dose of Unique - but - that was too hot and blew by the base of the bullet and caused a lot of leading & the bullet to tumble.
The 2400 burns slower and cooler and works very, very, very well.

Anyhow - I'm really wanting this gun (M69) now.
I'll have to check out the price for having the barrel cut back and the hammer bobbed.

View Poll Results: S&W 69, L frame 5 shoot 44 mag
Thumbs UP	45	75.00%
Thumbs DOWN	15	25.00%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

January 27, 2014, 03:52 PM	#1
Ozzieman Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 6,117	S&W 69, L frame 5 shot 44 mag Anyone see the new S&W 69, L frame 5 shot 44 mag at the shot show? Wish it didn’t have a lock and had a full lug but I will buy one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs8wGQ3cnvw __________________ 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.

January 27, 2014, 03:54 PM	#3
Ozzieman Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 6,117	I would like a 3 inch __________________ 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.

January 27, 2014, 04:59 PM	#5
WESHOOT2 Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 1999 Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country) Posts: 14,324	I predict warranty service backlog Too much cartridge in too little gun. __________________ . "all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"

January 27, 2014, 06:31 PM	#6
Colt46 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: Campbell Ca Posts: 1,090	They tried the .44 special in the L-frame Wasn't a raging success(the few that have them love them) commercially. The forcing cone was a weak point. I hope smith learned from that enterprise and made the critical parts beefier.

January 27, 2014, 03:53 PM	#2
Noreaster Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2011 Location: New England Posts: 1,449	Id prefer a 5 inch barrel but I like. In my State, while hunting, we're only allowed to load 5 cylinders.

January 27, 2014, 08:19 PM	#7
bigghoss Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2006 Location: Pueblo, Colorado Posts: 2,664	I'm holding out for a 2-3" snubby but I like the idea. I want one in .45acp too. __________________ I don't collect guns, I accumulate them.

January 28, 2014, 02:48 AM	#8
Elerius Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2013 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 365	This is actually the only gun I was interested in from the Shot Show. I already have a 5.5" blue Ruger Redhawk in .44 Mag and wanted to balance it with a stainless S&W 44 but the only option was a variation on the M29, until this. I like the barrel length but I wouldn't be carrying it and I think the L-frame will fit the hand better. Haven't seen one in person (don't know if they're even available yet) so I will reserve judgment. As for the lock, I don't buy Smiths when there are earlier pre-lock versions available just on principle, but in this case where it is brand new and there aren't older versions to be had, I don't think I'll mind since I'm not carrying. I do like the half lug, very M66-ish which I'm partial to

January 28, 2014, 10:43 AM	#9
salvadore Junior member Join Date: January 1, 2007 Location: Idaho Posts: 2,282	Just like my Mountain Lite only in stainless.

January 28, 2014, 12:37 PM	#10
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	We'll see how they hold up. I had a 696, and there were two concerns running hot ammunition through it. The first was the razor-thin forcing cone. The second is the fact that the chambers are bored very close together. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

January 28, 2014, 03:19 PM	#11
Bob Wright Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 2012 Location: Memphis, Tennessee Posts: 2,989	This, in my opinion, is the ultimate .44 Magnum DA revolver: Five inch, full lug, Model 29, BLUED STEEL. Bob Wright

January 28, 2014, 04:32 PM	#12
Ozzieman Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 6,117	I totally agree Bob. Never seen one in real life but the full lug makes the gun look smaller but man that is nice looking. I wish mine were blued instead of shiny. One comment I will make on the 69. I will NEVER NOT ONCE EVER shoot magnums in the gun. Now if Ruger would get off their buts and build a 44 special in the SP101,,,,,,, __________________ 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.

January 28, 2014, 05:54 PM	#14
Roughedge Senior Member Join Date: January 24, 2011 Location: Monroe,NC Posts: 669	I held one at the shot show and it felt good. I'd rather have one that will last so I got the Ruger Alaskan this week. __________________ The man that die's with the most stuff win's!

January 28, 2014, 10:31 PM	#15
tlm225 Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 962	I became very interested in this gun as soon as I learned of it. While the 29/629 series are excellent guns, (I've owned one of each) the "N" frame grip just doesn't work with my hand size. The "L" frame does. I have already made inquiries at two shops to order one with no success. I foresee loading up 240-250 grain LSWC at 900-1000 FPS as my working load. __________________ All that is neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke

January 29, 2014, 05:18 AM	#17
BOI Junior Member Join Date: October 27, 2013 Posts: 10	If they make one with a 3 inch barrel and it is mine. I like the idea of a ruger gp100 in 44 mag also. Hope the people at S&W and ruger are listening.

January 29, 2014, 08:16 AM	#18
Mannlicher Senior Member Join Date: July 8, 2001 Location: North Central Florida & Miami Posts: 3,209	an expensive make over of a Charter Arms Bulldog. __________________ Nemo Me Impune Lacesset "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.".........Ronald Reagan

January 29, 2014, 05:38 PM	#19
P5 Guy Senior Member Join Date: December 1, 2005 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 1,804	How does the forcing cone stand up to Magnum loads? The last 44 in an 'L' frame had forcing cone concerns.

January 29, 2014, 07:30 PM	#20
Nick_C_S Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2013 Location: Idaho Posts: 5,523	I'm good with the barrel length - 4.25" seems about right. The show-stopper for me is that the barrel isn't fully lugged - like a 686. With 44 Mag, I would like the front weight. Also, I'm sure this gun isn't meant to be fired extensively with hot rounds - just like the M66 - and for the same reason. I'm okay with that. __________________ Gun control laws benefit only criminals and politicians - but then, I repeat myself. Life Member, National Rifle Association

January 29, 2014, 07:33 PM	#21
Nick_C_S Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2013 Location: Idaho Posts: 5,523	Bob Wright: Your 44 Mag is a beauty. I'd be proud to have one of those in my arsenal. __________________ Gun control laws benefit only criminals and politicians - but then, I repeat myself. Life Member, National Rifle Association

January 29, 2014, 08:27 PM	#22
Paul105 Senior Member Join Date: March 26, 2007 Location: Montana Posts: 343	First, this gun is a .44 Magnum (not .44 Special). I have one. It’s great. Haven’t put a bunch of loads downrange, but have covered the spectrum – 240s at 730 fps and 325grs at 1,182 fps (and several in between) – all manageable but POI may be problematic. Anyway, here are some photos, dimensions, loads, and personal observations. The long/thin barrel shank/forcing cone of the 696 .44 Special is evident in the picture below. By the way, has anyone ever seen, or have personal knowledge of a barrel shank/forcing cone failure in a 696 or 396 – not being argumentative, just curious? 629 Mtn Gun weighs 39 oz M69 L Frame weighs 37 oz Some M69 Dimensions: OD of barrel shank is right at .620". Frame window - height: 1.600" Frame window - width: 1.820" Cylinder - outside diameter: 1.560" Cylinder - wall at narrowest: .600" (this was really hard to measure so it is definitely plus/minus) Cylinder - length: 1.670" (The cylinder is 1.670 inches and isn't recessed for cartridge rims -- a 1.712" handload fits, but is right at the face of the cylinder. Lymans No 49 edition shows OAL w their 425421 Keith Bullet is 1.710"). A .429 minus plug gauge will enter all throats a .430 plug will not. HERE ARE SOME PICTURES: . M69 Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone area: . . M696 Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone Area: . . 629 Mtn Gun Barrel Shank/Forcing Cone area: . . Family Portrait - 629 Mtn Gun, M696, New M69: . . Sorry about the "so-so" pictures -- light wasn't the best and I'm not the best photographer. What a neat little package. FIRST RANGE SESSION: I was in a hurry, hands were cold, light going fast, and the wind was blowing, so I didn't get to do as much testing as I wanted to. Will get to it soon. The loads were: 240gr SWC Lasercast (.431)seated to 1.500" OAL and crimped lightly over the front drive band. Multi-x Starline cases and Winchester WLP primers. 5.6gr of HP 38 (Vel: 739 fps) 10.6gr of HS6 (Vel: 1,035 fps) 9.4 gr of Longshot (Vel: 1,078 fps) 265gr SWCGC (429244) (.429) seated deep and crimped over the front drive band. Multi-x Starline cases and WLPs. 16.9gr A2400 (Vel: 1,142 fps) When seated deep (as was done here), this load will run right at 1,200 fps from a 6" barrel. Federal Factory 240gr JHP (No. 44A) Vel: 1,217 fps (We chroned this load at 1,375 fps from a 7 1/2" Bisley Hunter. . . . Couple of observations: For me, while very comfortable feeling, the grip panels that come with the gun aren't comfortable under heavy recoil (shouldn't be a problem in the field). I'll probably mount some of the S&W 500 Hogues for longer bench sessions to test heavier loads. Looks like this gun was sighted in at the factory with .44 Special ammo. The rear sight has some room to move the POI down, but may need a higher front sight. I was real pleased with the limited test targets. That Fed Factory load looks to have excellent accuracy potential. Recoil with the 265gr SWCGC/16.9 A2400 and the 240gr Fed Factory load were the same and would not be abusive with proper fitting (to the individual) grips. We'll see what it's like with some 305s and 325s. SECOND RANGE SESSION – CHRONOGRAPHING ONLY: Load Data for REFERENCE ONLY -- NOT A RECOMMENDATION. Replaced the factory grips with the Hogue 500s (see 629 photo above). Didn't shoot any groups but ran some loads over the chronograph. Chrono 5 long paces from muzzle and temp was about 45 deg f., 5 shots except for 240gr Fed Factory, and 325gr WLNGC (both 3 shots): Bullet make, OAL, cases and primers shown above 240gr, 9.4gr Longshot, ... 1,078 fps avg, 18 fps ES. 240gr, 10.6gr HS6, ....... 1,035 fps avg, 24 fps ES. 265gr, 16.9gr A2400,...... 1,142 fps avg, 37 fps ES. 240gr, Federal Fact, ..... 1,216 fps avg, 12 fps ES Load Data for REFERENCE ONLY -- NOT A RECOMMENDATION. 300gr WFNPB 1.651" OAL - LBT type - source unknown. 20.0gr H110. Fed 155 (Mag) New Top Brass (Scharch.com). 1,102 fps avg, 37 fps ES 310gr RNFPGC DC 1.605" OAL (top crimp grove) - LEE mold. 20.0gr H110. Fed 155 (Mag) New Top Brass (Scharch.com). 1,141 fps avg, 23 fps ES 325gr WLNGC 1.711" OAL - Beartooth Bullets. 22.0gr H110. Fed 155 (Mag) New Top Brass (Scharch.com). 1,182 fps avg, 13 fps ES (3 shots only) Load Data for REFERENCE ONLY -- NOT A RECOMMENDATION. The Hogue 500s worked great making this gun comfortable to shoot with the heavier loads. I have a problem with grips that are hard or narrow at the top (or both) -- recoil just hammers the bone at the base of my thumb -- the Hogue 500s pretty much solve this problem for me. Didn't shot any targets, so can't comment on POI of the heavier bullets. The 300s were not bad at all recoil wise -- but was noticeable and the 325gr/1,180fps was a bit more so. Certainly won’t shoot many of these. THIRD RANGE SESSION – JUST SHOOTING: Yesterday, I shot 65 rounds of 6.0gr Win Super Target under the 240gr Lasercast (seated to 1.510 OAL) in Starline cases and lit by Win Large Pistol primers. What a pleasant load – probably running 850 fps or a bit more. Didn’t shoot on paper or chronograph – will do that another day. CONCLUSION: Fitted with the Hogue 500s, FOR ME, it is comfortable to shoot with any and all loads likely to be used. Again, FOR ME, it is the ideal handgun - reasonable weight, portable size, good balance, good accuracy (so far), and sufficient caliber. I plan on both shooting and carrying this gun a lot, and won’t baby it. Will find out how well it holds up over time. Hope this gives a bit better picture of what the new S&W M69 is or might be. FWIW, Paul

January 29, 2014, 11:20 PM	#23
Nick_C_S Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2013 Location: Idaho Posts: 5,523	Thanks Paul. Lots of effort and information there. We appreciate it. __________________ Gun control laws benefit only criminals and politicians - but then, I repeat myself. Life Member, National Rifle Association

January 30, 2014, 05:39 PM	#24
aarondhgraham Senior Member Join Date: December 1, 2009 Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma Posts: 8,638	Am I the only one who likes half lug frames? Am I the only one who likes half lug frames? I think the revolver is very pleasing to the eye just as it is. Am I going out to buy one?,,, Nope. Would I toss it if someone gifted me one?,,, Oh heck no! Many people have fired my 629 and wished the frame were a bit smaller,,, This new offering looks like it will fill that desire very nicely. But why does the cylinder release look like a Taurus? Aarond . __________________ Never ever give an enemy the advantage of a verbal threat. Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once. Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it? Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)

January 31, 2014, 09:41 AM	#25
Hal Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 1998 Location: Ohio USA Posts: 8,563	@ Paul - Awesome information! My pet .44mag load is 17.3gr of A2400 under a Hornady .430" swaged lead SWCHP bullet using a standard LPP. It shoots mild and I "guestimated" it's velocity at the high end of the 1100 something fps. out of my 4" barreled M29. That load was actually worked up for my Winchester Trapper. I'd used a big dose of Unique - but - that was too hot and blew by the base of the bullet and caused a lot of leading & the bullet to tumble. The 2400 burns slower and cooler and works very, very, very well. Anyhow - I'm really wanting this gun (M69) now. I'll have to check out the price for having the barrel cut back and the hammer bobbed.