Thank you, it is not unlike the lockup used by several makers of the PPC revolvers. Being in the frame, it supposedly gave better support to the cylinder.
Impulse buy: S&W 69 Combat Magnum
- Thread starter eldon519
- Start date
- Status
I don't know if you misread my OP, but I did think about it for two days after fighting off the initial urge. In fact couldn't stop thinking about it and am still smitten with it. I love big bores, and for whatever reason I love 5-shot revolvers. Fits in with my SP101 and my FA 97 .45 Colt. And I wouldn't be surprised if a 83 sneaks into the collection some day as well. I'm not planning to use it for "Combat", that is what S&W called it. My Glock 19 and AR-15 are for all the imaginary "Combat" I do from the safety of my living room
My intended use is just to put a huge grin on my face.Attachments
I was worried that someone would announce a purchase on here without our forum's Negative Nancy coming around to rain on the parade. Thanks for rectifying the situation Pablo. I'm especially glad that you know, better than the OP, which gun would have been better for him to buy.
Different people's "combat" needs are different. Some people value capacity, some value penetration, some just like a certain cartridge. If this thing came with a 3" bbl, I'd think it would make an awesome carry gun with heavily loaded .44spl.
Besides, the model 19 is a Combat Magnum, and it only has 6 rounds of .357mag. Losing one round but gaining all that power is a tradeoff that I really can't fault a guy for making.
Eldon- very interesting that they actually stamped the name on the barrel of the gun. I'm not sure how I feel about S&W giving a great old name to a new gun, as it means that gun has a lot to live up to (ie. the modern M&P lineup). But then again, I guess there's no need to retire the jersey and never use a great name again. Interesting either way. With a name like Combat Magnum, that gun's got big shoes to fill. I hope it does it justice.
Either way, I want one. And if a 3" becomes available, I'll trip all over myself running to the LGS to buy one.
Either way, I want one. And if a 3" becomes available, I'll trip all over myself running to the LGS to buy one.
The L-frame was actually called Distinguished Combat Magnum. Impulse buys are almost always bad choices. I saved bunch of cash by using kool off hold period. I passed on Benelli, AKMS 74, PPS, P99AS, S&W 32H&R Magnum, S&W 1006,...... The only winner in impulse buy category was $150 ATP8s with Surefire light attached. The S&W 940 was impulse buy and I'm not that disappointed though for $100 more G24 would have been better choice for me.
Well I appreciate your concern Pablo, but I'm really not too concerned about it. I'm pretty confident in this purchase, and you can let me worry about my own finances ;-)
In general though I might recommend against telling people their possessions are "useful as (expletive)". Sometimes I feel that way about other people's opinions, but I try not to come right out and tell them ;-)
In general though I might recommend against telling people their possessions are "useful as (expletive)". Sometimes I feel that way about other people's opinions, but I try not to come right out and tell them ;-)
Eaglestroker
Member
I think the gun is great, and will buy one in hopes that sales drive more variations of this one. Too often folks moan about what their not making and while this isn't an 'ideal' for me it's close enough to get my money
C'mon 3", or 6 shot 10mm L frame....
C'mon 3", or 6 shot 10mm L frame....
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'll say it again. I've been watching gun boards for a while now, and the single most common "Oh, Please Won't They Make???" request of all time is easily a S&W 5-shot .44 on a smaller frame. It will be good to see if folks really put their money where their mouths have been for so long.
(Though, sure, it should be a 3"...)
(Though, sure, it should be a 3"...)
Panzerschwein
member
Good on ya! I really like the new M69, as well as the new M66 (which I plan to buy). I'm not sure why S&W decided to use the "Combat Magnum" label for the M69, but it makes sense as the old M19 (M66 is stainless version of that) was refered to as the "Combat Magnum" which makes sense of the designation on the M66. I think with hottish .44 specials and proper shot placement, the M69 would be more than capable of dealing with most any defensive situation the average civillian might face.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
I know it's a preferance thing but it's not like it says "Fuzzy Bunny" on the side...... or "Cupcake Magnum", so is it really a problem for some people?
I'm actually asking, not playing devil's advocate. I mean would it seriously stop someone from buying one?
I'm actually asking, not playing devil's advocate. I mean would it seriously stop someone from buying one?
I actually really like the .44 Magnum/Combat Magnum label. It might have made more sense to call it a continuation of the Mountain Gun series. That would be more where I could see something like this really shining. A lighter, easier-carrying woods gun with the power for defense or opportunistic hunting.
Desertrat357
Member
Eldon519,
Exactly my thoughts. I wouldn't necessarily carry this revolver in the urban jungle. But I spend a lot of time out in the sticks, and I love the 44 Mag caliber. My 4" Redhawk is my main carry gun. But how enticing is this revolver! I mean the same power minus one cartridge and almost 10 ounces less? Yes please! I'll be keeping an eye out for when one shows up at my LGS. My main question is the revolvers strength. The 44 Mag handloads I shoot 90% of the time are plinking loads. From the pictures I've looked at cylinder walls look plenty thick, the top strap of the frame is decent. I guess I am curious how it would hold up to say a box of buffalo bore "heavy" loads?
Exactly my thoughts. I wouldn't necessarily carry this revolver in the urban jungle. But I spend a lot of time out in the sticks, and I love the 44 Mag caliber. My 4" Redhawk is my main carry gun. But how enticing is this revolver! I mean the same power minus one cartridge and almost 10 ounces less? Yes please! I'll be keeping an eye out for when one shows up at my LGS. My main question is the revolvers strength. The 44 Mag handloads I shoot 90% of the time are plinking loads. From the pictures I've looked at cylinder walls look plenty thick, the top strap of the frame is decent. I guess I am curious how it would hold up to say a box of buffalo bore "heavy" loads?
Question on dimensions to Paul105
Paul,
One thing if am curious is what is the width of the front of frame at the center of the barrel? If it is the same as a 696 then it should be possible, if someone made them, to fit a barrel with a larger shank into a drilled out frame to alleviate forcing cone issues.
Paul,
One thing if am curious is what is the width of the front of frame at the center of the barrel? If it is the same as a 696 then it should be possible, if someone made them, to fit a barrel with a larger shank into a drilled out frame to alleviate forcing cone issues.
Dframe
Member
The lock is completely irrelevant, and would NEVER stop me from buying a gun in the configuration and calibre I wanted. If you don't like it, remove it!
W.E.G.
Member
C'mon guys.
Don't let this thread turn into a p-contest about "the lock."
That's been done and done.
I would be very interested in a range report.
Don't let this thread turn into a p-contest about "the lock."
That's been done and done.
I would be very interested in a range report.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
More like finding out she's left handed.
No more lock nonsense.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Agreed
Ummmmm.....................
I'd really love a .41 magnum, 5 shot, 3" gun too.
Pablo, Since when is an L frame considered "Full Size"?
The S&W L frame is a mid size frame, which is part of the appeal of this revolver.
Personally, I find the 9x19 cartridge a bit boring.
As a someone who loads my own I find the 44 a much more interesting cartridge with a lot of versatility that the 9x19 simply doesn't have.
Again, speaking for myself.. a 7 shot 9x19 (while I'm sure is a fine revolver) is of little interest to me. The new L frame 44 has renewed my interest in Smith & Wesson.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RugRev:
Question on dimensions to Paul105
Paul,
One thing if am curious is what is the width of the front of frame at the center of the barrel? If it is the same as a 696 then it should be possible, if someone made them, to fit a barrel with a larger shank into a drilled out frame to alleviate forcing cone issues.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per my calipers
M69 .880
M695 .870
Paul
RugRev:
Question on dimensions to Paul105
Paul,
One thing if am curious is what is the width of the front of frame at the center of the barrel? If it is the same as a 696 then it should be possible, if someone made them, to fit a barrel with a larger shank into a drilled out frame to alleviate forcing cone issues.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per my calipers
M69 .880
M695 .870
Paul
Last edited:
Blade First
Member
"No more lock nonsense."
How about actual failures that were documented?
Simply stated, any additional component of a mechanical device increases, for a variety of reasons, the likelihood of failure of that device.
I don't consider that nonsense; rather, sound engineering protocol.
There is a significant history of 'lock' failures in S&W revolvers, especially those in higher-powered cartridges, and the history is real and documented.
You may choose to ignore that history [pick your reason] but it exists.
It has been a long time since the Brits nearly drove the revered name of S&W into oblivion. Let's not repeat any of their mistakes.
How about actual failures that were documented?
Simply stated, any additional component of a mechanical device increases, for a variety of reasons, the likelihood of failure of that device.
I don't consider that nonsense; rather, sound engineering protocol.
There is a significant history of 'lock' failures in S&W revolvers, especially those in higher-powered cartridges, and the history is real and documented.
You may choose to ignore that history [pick your reason] but it exists.
It has been a long time since the Brits nearly drove the revered name of S&W into oblivion. Let's not repeat any of their mistakes.
Desertrat357
Member
Like it or leave it, the lock is here to stay, but I am sure that Smith and Wesson put a lot of R&D into it, and seeing how it's been around for a little while now, I imagine any problems that have come from it have been eradicated.
Geez, missed that one at the PA Outdoor Show. Oh well. I am still interested in getting a Model 69.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
How about not. The point of this thread is that eldon wanted to share that he got a new gun, and to share information about a model that a lot of individuals have interest in, and possible variants of that model. It is not meant for folkes to sit around and discuss/complain/argue about a design item common to most new S&W revolvers. However, if you want to do that, you can certainly start a new thread that has that as the topic of discussion. Many many folkes agree with you and will take part. The unfortunate part is that it has been discussed to death on this forum.
One thing to note.... you will find on this forum that if you make a statement that something/anything is documented, someone (often the mods) will ask for a link to that documentation, if that is in fact the topic of the thread............... which in this case it isn't.
- Status
