S&w 69 44 mag

[budd]

I am interested in the new S&W 69 5 shot 44 magnum L frame revolver. The revolver cannot be sold here in Maryland until it passes the Handgun Safty board's inspection and safty tests and waiting period of 3 months after the firearm added to the "HANDGUN ROSTER" of permitted handguns sold here in Maryland or put on the shelves for display. So I have a while before I can look at and handle one at my local handgun dealer.

Has anyone purchased or seen the Model 69 and have any opinion of the revolver???

V/R
J Budd

[Sevens]

Friend of mine bought one. Seems like a nice, solid build. NOTE that when look closely at the ball detente lock-up, it will appear as if perhaps it was NOT manufactured properly as the little ball does not fall all the way in to the cut-out that receives it. It certainly confused me when I saw it and it has confused many others. Smith & Wesson says that it is normal, and we've already had a few discussions to hash that out.

Other opinions...
I think it's going to punch awfully hard, as it's a .44 Magnum that is neither large nor heavy. Being an L-frame, it uses the K-frame grips. The monster magnum X-frame guns also use a K-frame grip. I would consider trying to get one of the X-frame grips for the Model 69 if I wanted to shoot the full-powered stuff. I'd also send it off to Mag-Na-Port.

Neat revolver, but I'm curious about how much full-bore pounding most shooters could take with it. With lesser loads, or for a "carried more than shot" revolver, it's a player.

[jglsprings]

I got it when they first came out. I've never "jumped" on a version 1.0 of anything. This was the exception.



Full power loads are a handful. I don't usually shoot them from any of my 44 mags. The 4" 629, the 8 3/8" Model 29 or the 4" and 6" barrels from my Dan Wesson all will bite you if you load them with heavy loads. Accuracy, recovery and "fun" are all better in the mid range loads. I do have a large selections of hand loads from 44 special to elephant stoppers.

How is your current aversion to or love of handgun recoil? I'm a 44 mag fan from way back and I can take a lot of abuse. Other folks don't like the beating any of the big bore magnums dish out - that is really the question.

The 69 is a nice carry (NOT concealed carry) gun. Seems to be very well built (so far). It is very accurate. Carries well on a belt holster or cross chest rig.

I don't care for the bead blast finish. Just a personal preference.

I hope they come out with 2 1/2", 3" and 6" versions. I'd get one of each.

Look around here for some of the other threads about it. Also look on the S&W forum as well.

P.S.

I really can see how all those gun restrictions in Maryland have made you folks so much safer there... NOT!

[Roughedge]

I saw one at the Shot Show in January. Feels nice and it on my "want " list.

[Technosavant]

NOTE that when look closely at the ball detente lock-up, it will appear as if perhaps it was NOT manufactured properly as the little ball does not fall all the way in to the cut-out that receives it. It certainly confused me when I saw it and it has confused many others. Smith & Wesson says that it is normal, and we've already had a few discussions to hash that out.

I have a 66-8 with that same lockup. I'm going with S&W on it- you don't want it in the middle of the notch. If that ball is equally bearing on both sides of the notch then it isn't providing any thrust to keep it closed. Had they not left that notch open to the bottom nobody would see it and make a stink over it.

As for the 69, it looks like an interesting gun but is likely a handful to shoot. Probably good for a "carried a lot, shot a little" role.

[ChiefTJS]

Waiting for a .41Magnum version.

[Sevens]

I have a 66-8 with that same lockup. I'm going with S&W on it- you don't want it in the middle of the notch. If that ball is equally bearing on both sides of the notch then it isn't providing any thrust to keep it closed. Had they not left that notch open to the bottom nobody would see it and make a stink over it.

In my defense , I'm also going with S&W on this one. I didn't make a stink over it, but the first time I saw the revolver, I had not EVER heard any stink over it (I didn't even know they did the ball detente, though I knew the X-frame had it) but I looked at it and I immediately wondered if my buddy bought a brand new gun with a factory error.

I'm no engineer. When I saw it, it looked "off." Others felt the same way. Smith & Wesson has explained it, and I'm on board with their explanation. But I think my reaction is common. It doesn't "look" right to most folks who don't know what they were aiming for.

[Technosavant]

Sevens, I think you're right. A little more machining to hide that notch and no explanation is necessary. But so far I've no complaints about my 66-8 at all; I can't imagine the 69 would be a bad gun either. I'd pick one up if I found one at a good price.

[aarondhgraham]

In my not-o-humble opinion it's missing one thing,,,
Where is that elegance and beauty S&W once had in abundance.

Oh I know all about manufacturing costs in the 21st century,,,
I realize that polishing the gun even a little bit would add $100 or more.

I also realize that for pure functionality,,,
The rubber grips are more practical.

But I do miss the beauty of the earlier S&W's,,,
I'm just bemoaning the passing of an earlier standard.

Even so, I can't wait until someone in my Rifle & Pistol Club buys one,,,
I'm certain I have something they will want to shoot,,,
In trade for a cylinder or two through their gun.

Aarond

.

[rodfac]

I'm also looking fwd to a .41 magnum version. But I have slim hopes that it will actually happen. Rod

[DennisE]

I'm getting the 44 but would sure like one in 41 magnum!