Yup. The forcing cone will be the main problem if you try to use existing frames designed to accept a barrel for .357. Stick a barrel requiring a .429 bore into that same frame and you start running out of material around the extension and the forcing cone. Add in the fact that some handloaders will try to run "stupid" loads into that thin cone and you'll see why the S&W 696 didn't last too long. I have seen several 696s with terribly damaged forcing cones from handloads. I still have a 696 from the first production batch and it looks perfect. No stupid loads, just 200 gr. bullets @ 900 fps. Plenty of cowbell. Ruger won't build a revolver without "over building" it. But S&W will. (and has - and then had to redesign it when people abused them) S&W has chosen to use a 2 piece barrel on the new Model 69. The forcing cone on that gun looks much more sufficient than the cone on the 696. I haven't seen one taken apart yet to see just how they did that. We will have to wait and see how they hold up to "extreme" handloading and heavy use of very light and very fast Magnum loads (Buffalo Bore/Corbon, etc). Maybe it will work and maybe not. Maybe they will replace them when some fool tears them up (or maybe not). Maybe the customer is the biggest problem here. If people would stop trying to "hot rod" guns with high velocity loads they would hold up much better.
