S&W 296. A few questions

[Balog]

OK, now that I've started working at a gun store, I've begun planning a purchase in earnest. I was looking through the cases today, and I came across a S&W 296. Light, smallish, no lawyer-lock, and .44 special. What's not to love? I've got a few questions, however.

Anyone have any experience with 'em? Are they tough to control with their small grips and low weight? How would the muzzle blast and recoil compare to a SP101 with moderate to full house .357's? Why don't they have a lock? I'm still withholding business until Smith rescinds their HUD agreement, but it seems that these were pre-agreement, right?

 

[Majic]

The M296 first came out in 1999 so there was no internal lock, but there should have been a Master trigger lock with it.
Also don't forget you are limited to using bullets of no more than 200 grains in weight. That was the major complaint most seemed to have with it. At 19 ounces and light bullets it shouldn't be that bad to shoot. S&W did put a sever handicap on the revolver by requiring it to restrict the ammo available for it.

 

[patentnonsense]

I've been lusting after a 696 for years - gotta check this out. 44 special is way lighter than 44M, and shoots comfortably enough in my derringer.

Some people will tell you that muzzle diameter alone can be helpful in getting the attention of a bad guy who is looking at it. If you draw you have to be ready to fire, but the ideal defensive use (to my thinking) is one where the confrontation ends without a shot.

 

[Stainz]

I was fortunate enough to obtain both a 696 & 296 new just over a year ago. The 696, all SS, is considerably heavier than it's enclosed hammer lite weight sibling. It comes with an Uncle Mike's rounded backstrap-enclosing combat grip, like the standard equipment grip on current 10's. I replaced it with a squared version, a la the current 66's. I then put the 696's UM's grips on my 296 - making all of the difference, grip and recoil wise, to the 296. Both grips are available from S&W Accessories for ~$30.

The 696 was dropped in the fall of '02, well over a year after the 296. Although new 696's are long gone, new 296's still persist. It originally sold for $789 - and I know at least CDNN Investments still list them for $370 new. They came in a metal box within an outer sleeve and should have a massive Masterlock with them. They are indeed ammo-restrictive - 200gr or less and clad-only. I have used PMC 180gr and CCI Blazer 200gr Gold Dot HP's, it's apparent favorites. With those rounds, mine hits point-of-aim at 12-15yd reliably enought to consistently knock five out of five 4-6" plates. The recoil is more abrupt than hard - covering the backstrap, as the UM's Combat grips do, is a 'good thing'... albeit at a slight increase in size. Those aluminum Blazers are a bargain locally - $13/50 - and the only .44 Specials I can find outside of a gun store (Academy Sports/Outdoors stores carry them at that price.). Speer designed that bullet (#4427) to open by 800fps - and I chrono-ed those Blazers at 805fps from my 296. Heavier bullets - and poorly crimped lead - can unseat in the other cylinders as you fire - making the revolver 'jam'. This, and the alloy topstrap's erosion, are mainly responsible for the ammo restrictions.

After ~1,500 rounds through mine, mostly those Blazers, I have only found one possible problem area to watch. The cast-in-place cylinder stop on the frame barely overlaps the cylinder when it is swung out for loading/unloading. Mine is showing wear - avoid hard 'hits' on the extractor rod, or that harder-than-steel Titanium cylinder edge will shear said cylinder stop from the frame - and you will have the cylinder in your lap! The Ti cylinder does require care in cleaning, too. Problems... but still, at 21+ oz loaded with those Blazers, a very good CCW. Mine has a home.

Stainz

 

[Tamara]

I really enjoy mine.

The 200gr limit is no real handicap, as the only readily available defense ammo all falls at or below this threshhold. (Winchester, CCI-Blazer, Federal...) It's been my experience with other small and lightish .44 Specials (Charco Bulldog Pug and Rossi 720 Covert) that they really aren't too fond of 240+grain loads, anyway.

As far as recoil goes, to use the old saw: "It's brisk, but manageable." I wouldn't want to spend all day shooting it with the factory grips, but neither was I willing to compromise concealability by using larger ones. A few boxes at a sitting seems about right for the factory grips (which expose the grooved backstrap.)

 

[Balog]

Excellent information. Thank you.
I'm wondering tho, what's involved in changing the grips on this? Is it just unscrew the old, put on the new or is it more involved?

 

[Stainz]

Only one screw, as the boot grips and the replacement round-butt Uncle Mike's combat grips are both two piece. The only caveat is look out for that little pin meant to hold a strap at the front base of the grip frame - it will probably fall out as you remove the original boot grips. It is covered by the larger grips anyway. It has taken me as much as five minutes to change mine - but that included the four minutes of feeling through the carpet for that pin!

Stainz

 

[VictorLouis]

Well, the muzzle blast is already lesser with Specials over magnums. So, it would be considerably less than a snubby SP101. Recoil 'may' approximate moderate mags through the Ruger, though I'd say it might even be a bit less.

SPs have excellent cushioning rubber grips, and the backstrap is exposed on the 296. If you can keep five on-target fast with the Ruger, you should be able to do so with the Smith.

There's no lock because they were made prior to locks going full-scale. Heck, they might have even been discontinued by that time. Smith's not going to make any money off of you purchasing that gun. You'd be helping out your new employer in taking a niche gun off of his hands that he may regret ever ordering.

 

[W Turner]

I bought one about a month ago and have been very pleased. .45acp ballistics in a ~20oz. package with 5 shots on tap is a very good thing to me.

As far as the recoil goes, it is noticeable, but it is not any worse than shooting a 16oz. model 642 to me. The best way for me to describe it is to use the analogy of 9mm versus .45acp. The 9mm (.38spl) is snappy-er and is more of a quick smack against your hand. The .45acp (.44spl.) is more of a hard push.

Not any less controllable than the .38 for me with the factory grips, but I will probably replace them with a set that leaves the backstrap exposed, but will allow me to get all of my fingers on them.

EDITED TO ADD: The restriction on using jacketed-only ammo only applies to the .38spl. ti/scan models, the 200gr. restriction still applies. This is per SW literature included with my 296. I also bought a box of Federal 200LSWCHP and shot them thru mine with no ill effects.

Mino