44 Magnum in a S&W 696?

[Badger Arms]

Yes, I know the cylinder is shorter on the 696, but can I trim down Magnum brass and the load light magnum loads in this gun? It's such a compact pistol, I was hoping to use it for a lightweight carry with nearly the punch of the heavier 629. My thought was to use the thicker brass and increase the pressures, but I want to be safe. Can I safely assume that I can better 44 special Max Loads without exceeding the limits of the gun? The 696 is based on the mid-sized 686 which has been made with 7-rounds of 357 magnum.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

.44 mag brass is no stronger the .44 special. It will be a waste of time to trim it. The gun should have no problem with limited use of keith level loads. Like 16-17 2400 with a 250 cast bullet and that will take care of just about anything in north america shy of grizzly.

 

[Preacherman]

Badger, ol' buddy, you can't "safely assume" anything when it comes to firearms strength with loads greater than those for which it's rated! I know folks who swear that the 696, being an L-frame, is safe with limited use of .44 Magnum loads: but ask S&W about this and they'll have a conniption fit faster than you can say "Boo!" to a goose... You are going to be held liable for anything that goes wrong if you overload the gun: and if it "grenades" on you, and bits of flying metal injure you or someone standing close to you, guess who will carry the can (and the bills!)?

NOT a good idea to exceed .44 Special pressures, IMHO.

(However, even within standard pressure loads, you should be able to hit 1,000 fps with a Keith-type bullet, so this gives you plenty of power to play with!)

 

[Stainz]

I like my 696 too much to try really hot loads in it. I reserve it for true .44 Specials... not even the 'Keith'-loads here.

In the same vein... one night I just had to know... the freshly cleaned cylinder & crane were off my 625 MG in .45 Colt. I picked up a 240gr Hornady XTP in .454 Casull... it dropped in with the rim flush - and, that HP was barely inside the cylinder, too. Theoretically, it would work... once. Of course, the .454 is just a bit longer than a .45 Colt... but, it shouldn't fit flush - the case mouth step should be in the correct place. Shocking... can you imagine what that would do to the thin cylinder walls of the 625MG?

Please... let's reserve our fine revolver's for what they were designed (... and clearly labelled!) for.

Stainz

PS I know... I am a hypocrit... see my 'Nagant Revolver' thread...

 

[Majic]

Everything shouldn't be magnumized. You lack the needed steel and heat treatment in the 696. You can't backdoor engineering and assume you can get away with it. Somewhere along the line someone and something is going for pay for it.

 

[Badger Arms]

Like 16-17 2400 with a 250 cast bullet and that will take care of just about anything in north america shy of grizzly.

Hmmmm, not a good career choice either way. It would risk my revolver (and boy has the price gone up on these!) as well as get me in a fix when Mr. Brown Bear decides he doesn't like the way I cast!

 

[Lloyd Smale]

I dont have a 696 but do have a 396 and talking to smith on the phone they told me the gun was perfectly safe with loads at this level. If that lightweight alloy gun will handle 1100fps loads so should your stainless gun. 16 grains of 2400 and a 250 is far from 44 mag level loads. Pressures are still well under 30,000 psi. Like i said i wouldnt tackle big bear with it either but have taken wild bore and black bear that went over 300# with that load and it gave complete penetration in both instances. As far as shooting a .44 mag cartidge in a .44 special gun only an idiot would try a stunt like that!

 

[sgt127]

Take a good look at the thickness of the forcing cone on the 696. I think that is the weakest point on the gun and will be the first to go. As a matter of fact, do a search on the S&W Forum. A guy in Alaska managed to blow out the forcing cone on his until it was bell shaped by running hot loads.