Smith 696
- Thread starter Bullet
- Start date
- Status
I have no clue ... but I'd like to venture a guess ... 
Unless I'm mistaken (which I may very well be), the 696 is a .44spl. Most people are quite comfortable shooting .44spl from a .44mag ... sooooo, why buy a .44spl when you can buy a .44mag? Anyhow, I just bought a Taurus .45lc snub ultra-lite (~20oz) and shooting cowboy loads is no big deal at all (and I unloaded my 340 and 360 'cause I just couldn't take it anymore). So, the 396 (~18oz), IMO, is all the .44spl anyone would ever need. Load the first 3 with shotshell and the last two with heavy pills and pray you never have to use the last two (I've scared off a big black camp bear just shooting my Commander over his head). BTW, if you check out my other post, you'd know I really dig that Hi-Viz they got on there. While I think the 396 is probably billed as more of a "mountain" gun, I'd think some big-bore revo die-hards might find that particular model an ideal CCW piece.
Why do you ask?
Unless I'm mistaken (which I may very well be), the 696 is a .44spl. Most people are quite comfortable shooting .44spl from a .44mag ... sooooo, why buy a .44spl when you can buy a .44mag? Anyhow, I just bought a Taurus .45lc snub ultra-lite (~20oz) and shooting cowboy loads is no big deal at all (and I unloaded my 340 and 360 'cause I just couldn't take it anymore). So, the 396 (~18oz), IMO, is all the .44spl anyone would ever need. Load the first 3 with shotshell and the last two with heavy pills and pray you never have to use the last two (I've scared off a big black camp bear just shooting my Commander over his head). BTW, if you check out my other post, you'd know I really dig that Hi-Viz they got on there. While I think the 396 is probably billed as more of a "mountain" gun, I'd think some big-bore revo die-hards might find that particular model an ideal CCW piece.
Why do you ask?
I don't have any 44 Special revolvers. So I'm thinking about purchasing one or two. I like the Smith L frame grip size. I just wondered if there was something wrong with the 696's. I bet your right about people buying 44 Mags instead. Probably wasn't enough demand for 44 specials. Do the 696's have the ugly locks on them? If they do I might look for something else.
Although S&W made a fortune on the .44sp when the .44mag came out it nailed the .44sp coffin shut.
The M696 just didn't sell very well. It's highly sought after today and prices are rising on those you can find. It is a great little revolver. Mine has been suprisingly accurate and most others say the same about theirs (the .44sp is an accurate cartridge).
The very last M696s made, the M696-2, has the lock on it. The first M696 is the best IMO. The second generation, M696-1, has the MIM parts in it. Finding the original M696 (no dash) will probably be the toughest hunt as those are the ones people tend to hold on to, but they do pop up for sale every now and then (be prepared to jump on it as they don't sit for long). The M696-1 models seem to be the ones I see for sale the most. They only made the M696-2 (with the lock) for a short time before they discontinued the revolver.
The M696 just didn't sell very well. It's highly sought after today and prices are rising on those you can find. It is a great little revolver. Mine has been suprisingly accurate and most others say the same about theirs (the .44sp is an accurate cartridge).
The very last M696s made, the M696-2, has the lock on it. The first M696 is the best IMO. The second generation, M696-1, has the MIM parts in it. Finding the original M696 (no dash) will probably be the toughest hunt as those are the ones people tend to hold on to, but they do pop up for sale every now and then (be prepared to jump on it as they don't sit for long). The M696-1 models seem to be the ones I see for sale the most. They only made the M696-2 (with the lock) for a short time before they discontinued the revolver.
Stainz
Member
I bought my 296 & 696, both new, over a year and half ago for <$830 total inc sales tax. The 296 was axed the year before the 696, .44 Specials just weren't popular. I love them... I also bought a safe-queen LNIB '83 vintage 6.5" 24 as well as my last new S&W, another .44 Special - a Heritage Series ('02) 6.5" 24 (CDNN still has them ~$600). I like that round...
My most frequent range-mate is my 696, a -1 version. It will launch anything in a .44 Special or Russian case, it's 36 oz SS construction really absorbing the recoil. It is uncanny how accurate that 3" barrel can be. I did swap grips - it came with the rounded bottom backstrap-enclosing UM's combat grips... I replaced them with the squared version, like the 66's, etc come with. Those rounded UM's, recycled to the 296, were a great aid there. An HKS CA-44 speedloader works great with both the 296 & 696 (and 396). The 696 may be my last to be parted with S&W...
Now... the lite weight 296 (& 396!). They are ammo restrictive - no short cases (.44 Russians). The lite weight comes from an alloy frame with a SS barrel liner and a titanium cylinder. No lead bullets (clad only). Nothing over 200gr (Check the right side of the lug...). I carry CCI Blazer 200gr Gold Dot JHP for CC - and shoot the same/similar loads from Georgia Arms in Starline brass (... or my own same-bullet reloads.). Careful use of the ejector is mandatory... the frame cast cylinder stop will shear off if you 'Hollywood' the unloading action... leaving you with a separate cylinder and frame! And... the little guy, actually not a pocket gun in anyone's definition, kicks fairly abruptly with those Blazers.
If you want a real N-frame .44 Special, see if you can get one of the Heritage 24's.... they are probably the prettiest - and best quality - S&W's I have seen. Sadly, they liked small grips back then... so, the current styled round butt grip, actually a nicely made walnut boot grip, had to go on mine... a cocobolo Ahrend's resides there now - great look and feel. I cringed on spending $600 for a new revolver... especially blued - but, it was a steal! That 396 would cost you that much...
Stainz
My most frequent range-mate is my 696, a -1 version. It will launch anything in a .44 Special or Russian case, it's 36 oz SS construction really absorbing the recoil. It is uncanny how accurate that 3" barrel can be. I did swap grips - it came with the rounded bottom backstrap-enclosing UM's combat grips... I replaced them with the squared version, like the 66's, etc come with. Those rounded UM's, recycled to the 296, were a great aid there. An HKS CA-44 speedloader works great with both the 296 & 696 (and 396). The 696 may be my last to be parted with S&W...
Now... the lite weight 296 (& 396!). They are ammo restrictive - no short cases (.44 Russians). The lite weight comes from an alloy frame with a SS barrel liner and a titanium cylinder. No lead bullets (clad only). Nothing over 200gr (Check the right side of the lug...). I carry CCI Blazer 200gr Gold Dot JHP for CC - and shoot the same/similar loads from Georgia Arms in Starline brass (... or my own same-bullet reloads.). Careful use of the ejector is mandatory... the frame cast cylinder stop will shear off if you 'Hollywood' the unloading action... leaving you with a separate cylinder and frame! And... the little guy, actually not a pocket gun in anyone's definition, kicks fairly abruptly with those Blazers.
If you want a real N-frame .44 Special, see if you can get one of the Heritage 24's.... they are probably the prettiest - and best quality - S&W's I have seen. Sadly, they liked small grips back then... so, the current styled round butt grip, actually a nicely made walnut boot grip, had to go on mine... a cocobolo Ahrend's resides there now - great look and feel. I cringed on spending $600 for a new revolver... especially blued - but, it was a steal! That 396 would cost you that much...
Stainz
i traded into a 696 (no dash) awhile back and it is a great shooter. the L-frame is a very handy size and the old compact grips i put on it gives me great control without additional bulk.
my only complaints have to do with it's unique features:
1. unless you go the custom route, most L-frame holsters will be sized for the 6" barrel.
2. speedloader choices are limited to the HKS
3. no speed strips available in .44
my only complaints have to do with it's unique features:
1. unless you go the custom route, most L-frame holsters will be sized for the 6" barrel.
2. speedloader choices are limited to the HKS
3. no speed strips available in .44
Now... the lite weight 296 (& 396!). They are ammo restrictive
Maybe the 296 -- but not the 396. I emailed S&W about 250gr LSWC loads in the 1,000 fps range (read Buffalo Bore). They replyed that the 250gr LSWCs would be ok.
Maybe S&W has changed their mind, I don't know.
Maybe the 296 -- but not the 396. I emailed S&W about 250gr LSWC loads in the 1,000 fps range (read Buffalo Bore). They replyed that the 250gr LSWCs would be ok.
Maybe S&W has changed their mind, I don't know.
Stainz
Member
The odd thing about the 296/396 ammo difference is that the 200gr maximum requirement is printed on the lug of the 296, while it's 2.5" barrel has the .44 Special chambering there. The frames, cylinders, etc look identical (except for the hammer/hammerless hump). I didn't see a SS sheet metal piece inserted in the topstrap above the b/c gap in the 396, a la the .357M Ti models. It's function is to prevent topstrap erosion in the alloy frame due mostly to high temp/velocity gases from lite weight magnum rounds. A secondary problem, which I assumed to be causal here, may be lead-caused erosion.
The 296 actually weighs in - with it's smaller grips - at .9 oz heavier than the longer barreled 396. They must be nearly identical in construction. Perhaps the 296's dimunitive UM's boot grips are the culprit, permitting poorer recoil control than the larger Hoque Bantams on the 396. Actually, as I stated earlier, I replaced the rounded Uncle Mike's combat grips that came on my 696 with the squared versions, making those round ones available for my 296. That was a great improvement in it's shootability and accuracy, albeit at a concealment cost (I don't have pockets that big anyway!). They would be an improvement for the 396, too, as both rounded and squared UM's combats enclose the backstrap... and feel better than that alloy backstrap under recoil.
Perhaps it is time for me to write those folks re my 296's ammo... I know they were concerned about the lead, particularly the heavier rounds, easing out of it's crimp under heavy recoil, resulting in a drag or jam. Heck, the 696 is the fun piece anyway!
Stainz
The 296 actually weighs in - with it's smaller grips - at .9 oz heavier than the longer barreled 396. They must be nearly identical in construction. Perhaps the 296's dimunitive UM's boot grips are the culprit, permitting poorer recoil control than the larger Hoque Bantams on the 396. Actually, as I stated earlier, I replaced the rounded Uncle Mike's combat grips that came on my 696 with the squared versions, making those round ones available for my 296. That was a great improvement in it's shootability and accuracy, albeit at a concealment cost (I don't have pockets that big anyway!). They would be an improvement for the 396, too, as both rounded and squared UM's combats enclose the backstrap... and feel better than that alloy backstrap under recoil.
Perhaps it is time for me to write those folks re my 296's ammo... I know they were concerned about the lead, particularly the heavier rounds, easing out of it's crimp under heavy recoil, resulting in a drag or jam. Heck, the 696 is the fun piece anyway!
Stainz
I had one of the very early ones, and it was a good revolver, but it was overly large for a five shot weapon. The old three-inch Lew Horton 24s and 624s are much better choices as far as I'm concerned. The problem with the 696 is, of course, it is .44 Special. Good self-defence ammo is very difficult to find (and expensive). Most factory loads are really anemic (and expensive). The .44 Magnum revolvers offer a great deal more verstility than the .44 Special.
I'm curious about that 200gr "maximum". I had a S&W 340 and 360 and both had an engraving on the lug kinda like "no less than 125gr". Seems to me I got into this with someone before as I recall calling S&W and asking about it. The lighter bullets are usually loaded with more powder to move it faster to achieve similar power to the heavier bullets. As such, according to S&W, it was the increase in powder (read "blast") that would more readily erode the cylinder face.
Could it be the same in your 296?
Thanks.
Could it be the same in your 296?
Thanks.
jc2, if the L-frame is overly large then how is the N-frame better? There just isn't enough room in the L-frame's cylinder to safely fire 6 large bore cartridges.
That same situation should apply to the J-frames vs the K-frames, but the J-frames are highly successful. You have to give up one round to save on weight and bulk.
Versatility is not always the name of the game. If you never plan on shooting the magnum round then why must you pay for the extra engineering put into a magnum handgun? Not everyone wants the flash and recoil of the high horsepower magnum. Some people actually get along quite well using the special cartridges and they still perform just as well as they did in times gone past.
That same situation should apply to the J-frames vs the K-frames, but the J-frames are highly successful. You have to give up one round to save on weight and bulk.
Versatility is not always the name of the game. If you never plan on shooting the magnum round then why must you pay for the extra engineering put into a magnum handgun? Not everyone wants the flash and recoil of the high horsepower magnum. Some people actually get along quite well using the special cartridges and they still perform just as well as they did in times gone past.
I believe the reason for the bullet weight restriction on these lightweight revolvers is mainly because of the fear of the bullet jumping crimp. With reasonable handloads and a very heavy roll crimp it may not be that much of a problem even with heavy bullets.
Majic -
It's just my personal observations from owning both the 696 (three-inch L-frame) and the Model 24 (three-inch N-frame). I think the three-inch N-frame is a better package.
For me, there is a significant difference between the K-frame and J-frame--I can stuff a Chiefs Special in pocket. I cannot do that with a two-inch K-frame. The size difference between the J and K frames is worth sacrifing 20% of the ammo capacity.
I cannot tell enough difference between the three-inch L-frame and the three-inch N-frame to justifying sacrifcing 20% of my ammo capacity. Matter of fact, I think it (the 696) even weighs more than the three-inch Model 24. The 696 is just plain overly large for a five shot revolver--particularly when there is better alternative available in the three-inch Model 24.
As to the .44 Magnum, I pretty much agree. I'd much rather have a Model 24 than a Model 29, and I have always shot the equivalents of hot .44 Specials out of my .44 Magnums. Unfortunately, it seems most people who purchase handguns don't see it that way, and of course, it helps you can generally go to Wal-Mart or you local sporting good store and buy .44 Magnums--that's generally not the case with the .44 Special. As for "pay[ing] for the extra engineering put into a magnum handgun," I don't recall any big difference in price between .44 Special and .44 Magnum handguns so maybe you're not really "paying" for any extra engineering.
Again, I really have nothing against the 696, I just the three-inch Model 24 is a better package. YMMV--that's what makes the world go round (and the marketers happy).
It's just my personal observations from owning both the 696 (three-inch L-frame) and the Model 24 (three-inch N-frame). I think the three-inch N-frame is a better package.
For me, there is a significant difference between the K-frame and J-frame--I can stuff a Chiefs Special in pocket. I cannot do that with a two-inch K-frame. The size difference between the J and K frames is worth sacrifing 20% of the ammo capacity.
I cannot tell enough difference between the three-inch L-frame and the three-inch N-frame to justifying sacrifcing 20% of my ammo capacity. Matter of fact, I think it (the 696) even weighs more than the three-inch Model 24. The 696 is just plain overly large for a five shot revolver--particularly when there is better alternative available in the three-inch Model 24.
As to the .44 Magnum, I pretty much agree. I'd much rather have a Model 24 than a Model 29, and I have always shot the equivalents of hot .44 Specials out of my .44 Magnums. Unfortunately, it seems most people who purchase handguns don't see it that way, and of course, it helps you can generally go to Wal-Mart or you local sporting good store and buy .44 Magnums--that's generally not the case with the .44 Special. As for "pay[ing] for the extra engineering put into a magnum handgun," I don't recall any big difference in price between .44 Special and .44 Magnum handguns so maybe you're not really "paying" for any extra engineering.
Again, I really have nothing against the 696, I just the three-inch Model 24 is a better package. YMMV--that's what makes the world go round (and the marketers happy).
Stainz
Member
I must carry the flag for the .44 Special for personal protection. The Speer 200gr Gold Dot designed for the .44 Special, their # 4427, will actually open by 800fps - and is not intended for the 'Magnum' velocities. They load that bullet in the CCI Blazer (Al-cased) .44 Special round. I don't know what, if anything, has happened to that round. My local source - the 'Academy Sports/Outdoors' chain - no longer carries them (... or the Charter Arms .44 Bulldog.). I bragged too much on those folks... they had them @ $12.99/50! Well, Georgia Arms loads them in Starline brass for $18/50. I have gotten similar velocities with a mid-range load of 5.7gr of TiteGroup (Speer's suggestion) under that 4427 bullet. That is the only round my 296 uses.
My 696 is accurate and fun with 4.6gr TiteGroup and a 240gr LRNFP yielding 745fps. It looks proper in it's current Ahrend's squared cocobola wood grips, which it shares for 'dress-up' with my 6" 66. An even milder load, 3.8gr of TiteGroup in .44 Russian cases under that same 240gr LRNFP, gives 710fps. Oddly, the Russians just seem a lot milder... Of course, they do leave that carbon ring a la a Special in a Magnum chamber. Neat little round, however. I had to grind a separate Lee .44 seat/crimp die to get it down far enough to crimp the Russian cases - and ease the opening a bit, too. Still, .44 Russians are fun - especially in that 696.
I still find it hard to believe the 696 is heavier than a 3" 624. I know it is slightly smaller (L vs N frame). The six vs five arguement may have merit in some areas, but most encounters require fewer than three rounds. Of course, if I could find a 3" 624 in nice condition for sale, it'd have a new home...
Stainz
My 696 is accurate and fun with 4.6gr TiteGroup and a 240gr LRNFP yielding 745fps. It looks proper in it's current Ahrend's squared cocobola wood grips, which it shares for 'dress-up' with my 6" 66. An even milder load, 3.8gr of TiteGroup in .44 Russian cases under that same 240gr LRNFP, gives 710fps. Oddly, the Russians just seem a lot milder... Of course, they do leave that carbon ring a la a Special in a Magnum chamber. Neat little round, however. I had to grind a separate Lee .44 seat/crimp die to get it down far enough to crimp the Russian cases - and ease the opening a bit, too. Still, .44 Russians are fun - especially in that 696.
I still find it hard to believe the 696 is heavier than a 3" 624. I know it is slightly smaller (L vs N frame). The six vs five arguement may have merit in some areas, but most encounters require fewer than three rounds. Of course, if I could find a 3" 624 in nice condition for sale, it'd have a new home...
Stainz
Pappy John
Member
I can see where that weight observation might be right, considering the 24's tapered barrel and abbreviated underlug versus the heavy barrel/full underlug of the 696. Heck, my 4" Mountain Gun only weighs 3 oz. more than my 696, and that's with a longer cylinder and barrel than the 24. I like that little extra weight on the front end of the 696 though. It makes for a very comfortable shooter.
I REALLY, REALLY wish I had a 24 so I could weigh them side by side, don't you know, but we don't see many at shows around here for some reason. The only one I've seen in the past year had the blueing really messed up on the cylinder by either rust or an improper solvent, but it was priced like a NIB so I passed on it.
I can hide the L-frame pretty well, even in this season's T-shirt and shorts weather. I've tried it with the N-frame MG and it's a lot less comfortable and a lot lumpier, so I keep that for open carry in the woods.
I REALLY, REALLY wish I had a 24 so I could weigh them side by side, don't you know, but we don't see many at shows around here for some reason. The only one I've seen in the past year had the blueing really messed up on the cylinder by either rust or an improper solvent, but it was priced like a NIB so I passed on it.
I can hide the L-frame pretty well, even in this season's T-shirt and shorts weather. I've tried it with the N-frame MG and it's a lot less comfortable and a lot lumpier, so I keep that for open carry in the woods.
Stainz
Member
I forgot about the Mountain Guns... I'll bet my 625MG in .45 Colt is a tad lighter than my 629MG! I was shocked at the 5-6 oz difference between my .357 and .45 BHG 4.625" Vaquero's. Still, even the more-snag-free 296 needs a large coat!
Stainz
Stainz
Pappy John
Member
Majic
Is that the 3" tapered barrel version of M24?
Is that the 3" tapered barrel version of M24?
- Status