S&w 696-1 44 spl

W

warningshot

New member
Oh yaah...well, I...I...I, I found a...a...a, a great deal on...on...a on a wechama-callit. Seriously, I'm happy for you. But maybe just a little bit jealous too. :D

Any .44 Special Reloader types out 'thar' ever trim a .44 Magnum case down to .44 Special diamentions?
 
D

drail

Moderator
Look very carefully at your bore. Or better yet at a recovered bullet fired from your gun. The rifling used is not standard button cut rifling. I also have a 696 ND and every other one I have seen has this type of rifling. I do not know how many other models they used it on or why. S&W changed a large number of manufacturing operations and bought new CNC mills right before the 696s were introduced. The extractor is completely different also. Every one of these guns I have seen also shows a very slight bore constriction right where the barrel is threaded into the frame which causes bullets to get "sized down" slightly as they pass through. Some owners have complained about accuracy problems with some bullets due to this and sent them back to S&W and had them fixed. Mine shows the constriction but accuracy is fine on mine with my handloads and cast bullets. Both the new rifling process, the new extractor design, and the bore constriction were well documented in the gun mags when the 696 was first introduced. I have trimmed .44 Mag cases down to Spl. length but can see no difference between them and modern made Spl. cases. I think they are the same case except for length.
 
Last edited:
W

warningshot

New member
Darn Drail,

Now that is some good information. Well done.

I was around back then but I missed any and all polygonal rifling issues regarding S&W Revolvers. (Sometimes I read with just one eye open.) Is it the barrel or is it the forcing cone that is polygonal? If true, then first, the shooter will get better performance than from a traditional revolver; and secondly, wouldn't there be some kind of warning or disclamier about using cast bullets with a polygonal design? Something akin to the Glock Factory warnings about not using cast bullets in their barrels.

Did I just use that word in a discussion about Smith & Wesson Revolvers? Shame on me. Shame, shame shame.
 
M

Mr. Whimsy

New member
I got one of the bad 696's when they first came out.

I thought it was a by-product of the chemical rifling process they were trying, or a forcing cone issue - but it was the least accurate Smith and Wesson revolver I've ever owned. And would lead up horribly. It's possible that in reality it was the afore-mentioned barrel constriction. Sent it back to S&W, who re-cut the crown.

Can't remember if it fixed the accuracy or not. I was relieved to get my money back out of it and am now amazed at the current popularity of these things on the Internet.

Smith needs to re-issue this. Fantastic concept that was poorly implemented.
 
D

drail

Moderator
They definitely had some problems when they changed the manufacturing process (and still are having problems) but most of the ones I have handled were good. The barrel constriction seemed to range from barely measurable to "you gotta be kidding". If considering a used 696 make certain to look at the bore and the forcing cone VERY carefully. They are without a doubt kind of picky about what type of bullet is used. Most will fire jacketed bullets with no problem. I shoot almost nothing but cast bullets so I guess I got lucky. I do consider the 696 to be one of S&W's better ideas. But by 96 everyone was switching to alloy/polymer 9mm guns.
 
O

Ozzieman

New member
I hate this thread, every time I come back to it!;)
It’s the one 44 Special I have been looking for, since I heard S&W built it.
I have so far only seen one but it was engraved to the point of being ridiculous and 2500$.
Not to hijack this thread, but I have been sending monthly requests to Ruger to build a 5 shot 44 special on the 100 or 101 frame. I keep getting nothing more than a “thank you for the request”.
If you think this is a good idea please ask Ruger to build one at the following location.

http://www.ruger.com/footer/contact.html
 
D

drail

Moderator
While a .44 cal. cylinder could be fit into the GP frame the barrel is the problem. Sticking a barrel with a bore that big through the GP frame leaves no room for a normal sized forcing cone, which is the weak point on a 696. On an SP frame, forget about it. I don't believe that Ruger will build a big bore revolver with a forcing cone that is that thin and fragile. S&W found out that consumers, for the most part, are not really too intelligent and will try to run extreme loads in their guns. I have seen 696s with cracked and flared forcing cones from owners trying to make a .44 Magnum out of it. Ruger builds guns that have special load data in most manuals. (for Ruger only). If you want to shoot a bullet that large you have to design the frame around it or else you will have to compromise on strength and service life. And the stupid people will return them to your service department after they tear them up. I wouldn't offer any kind of warranty on a proposition like that. Taurus and Rossi built some medium frame .44 Spl. 5 shot revolvers. Look around, they're out there. It is a shame because the .44 Spl. is one of the best self defense rounds we have ever come up with.
 
Last edited:
O

Ozzieman

New member
drail I agree with your point about numnuts shooting Keith loads through something like a Charter bulldog. But I disagree with not being able to build one out of a SP.
I have one of the mid framed Taurus 44 special’s (445) and it’s not as big as a Ruger and it has a small forcing cone. For normal NON Ruger loads the SP frame would work fine.
Also the 696 frame which was built on the L, I was under the impression that it was larger than a K (19) but still smaller than a Ruger.
Then again to protect themselves at Ruger, their lawyers could put a 12 line disclaimer on the OTHER side of the barrel.;)
 
D

drail

Moderator
You are correct. Personally the forcing cone on the 696 never bothered me because I only shoot 200 - 240 gr. loads @ 900 fps. or so. If I need more than that I'll grab another gun. But there seems to be a significant market for the Buffalo Bore/Corbon type stuff and lots of handloaders try to reach those levels. Not me. I am amazed I haven't heard more accounts of people "grenading" the Charter Bulldogs since I have seen plenty where they got pretty close. I only wish I would have bought 2 696s when they first hit the stores.
 
Last edited:
O

Ozzieman

New member
I only wish I would have bought 2 696s when they first hit the stores.

Sir, you get my vote for understatement of the week.:D
 
J

JayCee

New member
I bought a no-dash back in the early 2000s...almost didn't get it, however. It had been sitting on the shelf at my local gun shop for about a year, and I'd stop and look at it every time I went in. I was intrigued by it, but it was priced at $425, and I thought that was a bit too much. Finally, after I had looked at it for about the tenth time that year, the owner of the shop said "Look if you really want the gun, I'll sell it to you for $375. It's been sitting here for ages, and I just want to get it out of here". Even then, I hemmed and hawed for a while (I'd have to get 44 special brass since I didn't have a 44 special...), and finally took him up on his offer.

That was one of the few times I got what turned out to be a good deal on a gun...
 
Z

zeke

New member
Have not seen a 696 for sale up here in years. The only ones i ever chanced across were immediately purchased, and paid max of $350. Way before they got desirable.

Excellent balance of size, power and control. Very fond of 200 grainers at 900 fps, and very easy to load for. On one, the accuracy improved by smoothing up the barrel and forcing cone.
 
D

drail

Moderator
$375 for a 696? As Anton (the bad guy) said in "No country for old men" - "that's the best deal you're going to get."
 
S

smee78

New member
I finally went and picked mine up, It is a little dirty and will need a good cleaning but she is all mine. I already swapped on the Ahrends I had waiting for her. Pics to follow this weekend.:D
 
D

DFrame

New member
Superb gun. FAR lighter and handier than a 29. That L frame makes it feel like a much smaller gun. And there just isn't a better calibre than 44 special. I regret not buying one a friend had for sale a couple of years ago.

"Penny wise and Pound foolish" is what my grandmother would have called me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top