Thoughts on Smith and Wesson model 69 Combat Magnum.

[Arkansas Paul]

So in my research of .44 revolvers I watched a couple of Youtube videos on the Smith model 69, which is a .44 magnum, but on the L frame and weighs in at only 37 oz with the 4.25" barrel.

I've been debating between .44 Special and .44 magnum, and this gun seems to be a great middle ground. The smaller frame would pack really well, and likely see a steady diet of .44 specials, with the option to shoot full throttle stuff if desired. And the price on these is pretty darn good for a new Smith. It just seems like a great little package.

However, I have no experience with Smiths. I know this one is a 5 shot, which some would see as a negative.
Also, the barrel is sleeved, and I'm not sure how that would effect things. I know some folks hate it, but don't know why.

I have read horror stories of .44 mag Smiths shooting the barrels loose, though I don't know how much truth there is to that. I don't think that would be an issue however, as I said it would see more Specials than anything.

So, do any of you guys have one?
If so, what do you think?

Here it is, if anyone is unfamiliar.
It's fairly new.

www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/90976

 

[Panzerschwein]

Not sure why it's called a "combat magnum"?

But regardless, what a dandy piece. Big-bore .44 mangle 'em displacement with the option for milder specials, all in an L-frame lightweight half-lug option? YES PLEASE!!!

PS: There is the Ruger's .44 special L-frame style GP100, but it isn't available in mangle 'em flavor.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Not sure why it's called a "combat magnum"?

But regardless, what a dandy piece. Big-bore .44 mangle 'em displacement with the option for milder specials, all in an L-frame lightweight half-lug option? YES PLEASE!!!

PS: There is the Ruger's .44 special L-frame style GP100, but it isn't available in mangle 'em flavor.

Yeah, I love the GP100, but really would like magnum capability to be an option, even if it is one that is not exercised often.
If I get a .44 special only, it will likely be a Bisley Blackhawk flattop.
But that new 5" Ruger with the Roper grips is an amazing looking firearm for certain.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Yeah, I love the GP100, but really would like magnum capability to be an option, even if it is one that is not exercised often.
If I get a .44 special only, it will likely be a Bisley Blackhawk flattop.
But that new 5" Ruger with the Roper grips is an amazing looking firearm for certain.

Perhaps. I purchased the .357 version of that gun and wasn't overtly impressed with it frankly speaking. The grips, while good looking, are not well contoured and taper down at the top sharplu. This allows the hand to creep up during recoil especially since they lack checkering. Also Ruger has gone with a dovetail only front sight for the GP100, a huge blunder IMHO. For cost cutting reasons, they no longer offer the quick-change plunger mounted front sights. Consequently, you will be stuck with the factory gold bead sight until or if Ruger comes out with more front sight options for the dovetailed guns. Also, while some like the 5" barreled guns, finding holsters is a pain (you'll have to have one custom made) and they are a bit too long to comfortably wear strong side while in a vehicle or when sitting down at camp etc.

So if all that sounds good to you, by all means get the Ruger. Or get the Smith & Wesson and have much better factory sights, the capability to fire magnums, and a smoother action with more options in aftermarket grips.

A Model 69 with Pachmayr Presentation grips would be an AWESOME all around .44 caliber revolver that would carry beautifully on the belt, will be handy, has enough barrel length to accomplish any task, won't get in the way, will have the better trigger, be more corrosion resistant and require less maintenance, and overall be fantastic.

But that's just my $0.02.

 

[km101]

I have the 2.75" barrel model 69, rather than the 4.25" barrel. With the Pachmayr Diamond Pro grips it is not at all uncomfortable shooting full charge .44 mag loads. In fact, recoil seems milder with the 69 than the same load in my 6" model 629.

Other than a really heavy double action trigger pull, and a broken firing pin (which S&W replaced) the gun is great. It locks up tight, the action is crisp and smooth. I have not shot it at more than 25 yds. so far but accuracy has been great.

It has become my favorite EDC loaded with .44 spls. I am testing LSW and JHP loads for EDC.

 

[ray15]

If I get a .44 special only, it will likely be a Bisley Blackhawk flattop.

There's a 75 year old ex-marine that shoots at the range I frequent who has one in 44 special. I've shot it and it's quite the nice gun. If I buy a single action to go with my GP100 it may well be one of these.

 

[cfullgraf]

I like my S&W Model 69. It shoots well and I prefer handling a bit smaller gun than an N frame or a Ruger Redhawk.

I have read horror stories of .44 mag Smiths shooting the barrels loose, though I don't know how much truth there is to that. I don't think that would be an issue however, as I said it would see more Specials than anything.

The Model 29 family has a reputation of shooting loose on a steady diet of full power 44 Magnum ammunition. I do not remember the round count folks experienced but it is a fair amount. If I remember correctly, it first started getting noticed with the handgun silhouette shooters who would put a good number of rounds down range in practice and matches.

The Model 69 is fairly new and I have not heard of any strength issues with the gun but I have not gone looking either. To be on the safe side, I'd limit the number of full power 44 magnum rounds that I shot through the gun. Practice/plink mostly with reduced loads and run a box or two of full power magnum rounds once in a while.

In mine, I shoot reloads that generate 950-1000 fps with 240 grain bullets in 44 Magnum cases. I'm not into wrist snapping recoil at the range anymore so I'm happy with that level of load. Plenty powerful for any perceived need I might have off the range at this time. I would not hesitate to practice some with full power loads if the needs changed.

Besides, if I really want wrist snapping recoil, I'll drag out the 460 Magnum.

 

[Mike C2]

Not sure why it's called a "combat magnum"?

Because before you had a Model 15 it was called the Combat Masterpiece. Then when the Model 19 came out they called it the Combat Magnum since the .357 Magnum was a different gun (pre-Model 27). This is before model #’s. So Smith is making reference back to the original smaller frame Magnum handgun which is what a Model 69 would be compared to a Model 29.

 

[cfullgraf]

A Model 69 with Pachmayr Presentation grips would be an AWESOME all around .44 caliber revolver...

I agree, I'm a big fan of Presentation grips. Unfortunately, Pachmayr does not catalog Presentation grips for S&W round butt frames anymore. So, finding them used is about the only option.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I agree, I'm a big fan of Presentation grips. Unfortunately, Pachmayr does not catalog Presentation grips for S&W round butt frames anymore. So, finding them used is about the only option.

The squared-butt Presentations fit the rounded butts perfectly.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Because before you had a Model 15 it was called the Combat Masterpiece. Then when the Model 19 came out they called it the Combat Magnum since the .357 Magnum was a different gun (pre-Model 27). This is before model #’s. So Smith is making reference back to the original smaller frame Magnum handgun which is what a Model 69 would be compared to a Model 29.

The Model 19 was the Combat Magnum. I'm not sure of many who would want to use a 5-shot .44 magnum for combat/defense (against humans) but I'm sure there are some.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

My thoughts are that it's more cartridge then is a good idea for an L frame. It also limits the potential of the cartridge due to a shorter than desired cylinder.

I'd go with an N frame sized gun.

But if it'll do what you want, go for it.

 

[Jonesy814]

Since S&W has a lifetime warranty on their guns, I would bet they have tested the model 69 with many thousands of rounds of 44 magnum ammo to ensure that they hold up. Not saying that an extreme shooter couldn't shoot one until it needed service, but I bet the average shooter won't.

 

[paul105]

I’ve posted a lot of this before, so for those that have seen it before, bear with me as there are probably some that haven’t.



I waited 50 + years for what is essentially a .44 Combat Magnum. Never thought I’d see the day that gun would materialize as an L Frame .44 magnum. Several K Frame .44 specials were produced by custom gunsmiths over those years, but I never saw one, only heard about them. Tarus/Rossi and S&W all produced medium framed .44s. I had the S&W version (M696) but never could make it shoot and was uncomfortable with heavy .44 specials because of the thin barrel shank. Never trusted the quality of the others.



The current M69 was built and tested to handle continuous use of .44 Magnum ammunition according to an article written by Brian Pearce for Handloader Magazine. In the article he tested some 2,700 rounds of .44 Mag ammo including 300gr loads without any problems.



With that in mind and given that S&W has a Lifetime Warranty, I don’t see any need to worry about long term use of Magnum ammo in the M69. It was built to take it and if, for some reason, it doesn’t, S&W will fix it free of charge (including shipping on their dime both ways).



Granted, it certainly isn’t as strong as the Ruger Redhawk, or Super Redhawk, but then again, it isn’t as heavy or as bulky. Vs the GP series .44s, it isn’t as pretty and probably not as strong (action wise). However, its compact package that can be easily scoped for hunting if one is so inclined.



It makes for a reasonably powerful, compact, carry gun with a lot of flexibility. I’ve had one since early 2014 and have added several others since (three 4 ¼” and one 2 ¾”). After waiting over 50 years, I wasn’t taking any chances them being continuously available. I will never hunt anything larger than elk, and would be perfectly comfortable taking a shot if the opportunity were to present itself.



Velocity. Here are some actual chronograph results from two of my M69s – a 2 3/4” and a 4 1/4”



Chronoed these from the 2.75” M69. Three rounds at 5 Long paces from muzzle and 68 deg F. Larger sample could change the results a bit. Largest ES was 42 fps.

260 WFNGC w/23.0gr H110 avg 1,125 fps
240 Zero JSP with 23.5gr H110 avg 1,126 fps
240gr Fed Factory avg 1,125 fps
265gr CSWCGC (Lyman Thompson) with 17.5gr A2400 (Deep Seat) 1,119 fps avg
325gr WLNGC (BTB) with 22.0gr H110 avg 1,104 fps

For comparison purposes these were shot a while back from my 4 ¼” M69: Same temp, distance from the muzzle.

260 WFNGC w/23.0gr H110 avg 1,224 fps
240 Zero JSP with 23.5gr H110 avg 1,230 fps
240gr Fed Factory avg 1,220 fps
265gr CSWCGC (Lyman Thompson) with 17.5gr A2400 (deep seat) 1,140 fps avg
325gr WLNGC (BTB) with 22.0gr H110 avg 1,182 fps


If you haven’t already figured it out, the M69 is one of my favorite handgun packages.



FWIW,



Paul

 

[GooseGestapo]

I too have a M69.
I'll just second what Paul105 wrote, as it and Brian Pierce's experience mirrors mine.
It's more accurate than any of 4 Ruger BlackHawks and a Single-7 I own. Only a Ruger RedHawk in .45colt would stay with it. I vastly prefer it to a M329PD I had, and since aquiring it, I haven't carried my M625MG in .45colt.

My current carry load is a 240gr SWC loaded over 5.7gr of HP38 in a .44spl case. The only criticism I have is the ejector rod isn't long enough to fully clear the cylinder with magnum cases.
I consider it a SPLENDID .44spl that will also shoot magnums. A Nosler or Hornady 240 over 23.5gr of H110 shoots as good as anything I've put through it and it (or 21.5gr #2400) are my deer load.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Thank you guys.
It certainly looks like a great option, and exactly what I'm looking for.

How was the trigger out of the box?

 

[GooseGestapo]

Typical. I resisted doing a competition trigger job on mine.
I did stone/lap it a tad, swapped out the trigger rebound spring. But left everything else stock.
Still a little heavy, but the way they came from S&W a LOOONG time ago, in another century.
But, it would have added $150-200 to cost of gun today.

 

[paul105]

It's a bit of a crap shoot, all will be different.

Mine are all stock, no modifications.

Single action pulls measure with RCBS premium trigger pull scale.

1. 3.2 Lbs (close to 3,000 rounds)
2. 3.5 Lbs (almost 6,000 rounds)
3. 3.8 Lbs (less than 100 rounds -- function checked, sighted in and put in safe)

4. 4.7 Lbs (2.75" gun with over 1,200 rnds down the pipe). Trigger is very crisp and doesn't feel this heavy

My trigger gage won't measure the double action pulls. These also vary with some noticably better than others, but none terrible.

Both single and double action tend to improve a bit with usage.

FWIW,

Paul

 

[fallout mike]

Buy it bro. I'm sure the Ruger is a fine gun as well but you were wanting a Smith. If you are mainly going to be shooting .44spl loads anyway, longevity of prolonged full bore magnum loads won't even matter.

 

[km101]

The trigger on mine is fairly smooth, but heavy. SA is 4 lbs and crisp, no creep. Da is fairly smooth, but really heavy. My gage only goes to 15 pounds so I don't know exactly what the pull weight is, but it's over 15 pounds.

I have only put 550 - 600 rounds thru it so I am hoping it will improve with use. After I get through moving and I can get my shop set up I will either work on the DA pull or send it to the Performance Center for an action job.

 

[cfullgraf]

The squared-butt Presentations fit the rounded butts perfectly.

I respectfully disagree. Yes, the square butt Presentation grips can be mounted on a round butt frame but they wiggle too much. The grips should be tight to the frame and not move, in my opinion.

I tried mounting square butt grips in the past with no joy. But just to make sure, I spent this evening trying again even to the point of making some spacers to fill the gaps between the round grip and where the square butt would be. The fit at the top of the grip is just not tight enough, at least for my liking and the grip can wiggle on the gun.

So, I stand by my statement that it is too bad that Lyman has discontinued the round butt Presentation grips. Also, I am disappointed that the N frame Presentation grips have also been discontinued.

Great if the square butt Presentation grips on a round butt frame works for you.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I respectfully disagree. Yes, the square butt Presentation grips can be mounted on a round butt frame but they wiggle too much. The grips should be tight to the frame and not move, in my opinion.

I tried mounting square butt grips in the past with no joy. But just to make sure, I spent this evening trying again even to the point of making some spacers to fill the gaps between the round grip and where the square butt would be. The fit at the top of the grip is just not tight enough, at least for my liking and the grip can wiggle on the gun.

So, I stand by my statement that it is too bad that Lyman has discontinued the round butt Presentation grips. Also, I am disappointed that the N frame Presentation grips have also been discontinued.

Great if the square butt Presentation grips on a round butt frame works for you.

Then get a square butt!

You can never have too many butts, round OR square!!

 

[ShootAgain]

I own a S&W Model 69 in 4.25" and I'm very pleased with it. In my experience, recoil is not too stout with magnum loads. I've not experienced any issues or problems with it after a few hundred rounds down the pipe. The two-piece barrel has not caused any issues for me thus far and accuracy seems great. The trigger pull, especially in DA, feels decent though quite heavy. (I have not measured it with a trigger pull scale.)

I replaced the factory S&W grips with smooth rosewood with medallions (not sure of the brand.) I'm happy with the grips I'm using. I have large hands and these fit me well.

I have not used Pachmayr grips so I cannot comment on them specifically, however Pachmayr Gripper Grips for for K & L Frame Round Butt are offered for sale through various websites (including a really big one that starts with "A".) I realize this is not the Pachmayr Presentation grips, but at least they are the same brand and for Round Butt. A few of the product reviews seem to indicate current Pachmayr grips might not have as good of fit and finish as they had back in the day.

 

[CraigC]

N-frame .44Mag's are notorious for shooting loose in a few thousand rounds. I see no reason to expect an L-frame in the same chambering to do any better. I treat my N-frame .44Mag's as slightly stronger .44Spl's. If treated the same way, I see no reason not to expect the 69 to hold up if treated similarly.

That said, I don't agree with some of the above comments about the .44Spl GP. I find the grips to be the most comfortable factory DA grips Ruger (or S&W since the Cokes) has ever offered and a close second to a custom Roper. Of course, it is much easier for me to procure proper stocks for a S&W, as a custom Roper is more easily procured. That said, I'm already in contact with a custom gripmaker who's going to be building Roper style grips for the GP. As for the front sight, while not as convenient as the old plunger (for which options were limited anyway), a dovetail sight is easily replaced and as a bonus, they are also adjustable for windage. I'd much rather have to replace the dovetail Ruger front sight than the pinned S&W front sight. The side blades are also made by Novak so the fiber optic sight onmy 3" has already been replaced with their brass bead post. There is no reason to believe that more styles won't become available. The factory sights are not my favorite but give me a post with brass bead over S&W's orange insert front sight any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I consider it a SPLENDID .44spl that will also shoot magnums.

I think that's the best way to approach it.

I would bet they have tested the model 69 with many thousands of rounds of 44 magnum ammo to ensure that they hold up.

Knowing what Ruger did with the .454 and .480 Bisleys, I'd take that bet. Let us also not forget that one could test with a few thousand rounds of "factory" Winchester White Box or American Eagle and the results would be misleading. A 240gr at 1180fps is not a full pressure load and would be a good 10,000psi under SAAMI maximum.

The current M69 was built and tested to handle continuous use of .44 Magnum ammunition according to an article written by Brian Pearce for Handloader Magazine. In the article he tested some 2,700 rounds of .44 Mag ammo including 300gr loads without any problems.

In the 62 yrs, since their invention of the cartridge, S&W has yet to build a sixgun that can continuous use of full pressure loads. I don't think enlarging the barrel shank of an L-frame is going to change that. Until they abandon their +100yr old sideplate design, their "magnums' will always have limitations. This may be moot because if I'm going to be shooting full pressure .44Mag, I want to do it in a more substantial sixgun than an L-frame.

 

[mnrivrat]

For what it's worth my brother owns a M69 and outside of having to return it to S&W for extensive work after his first time shooting it, he now is fond of it, for it's accuracy and for the ability to shoot .44mag from a smaller than N frame gun. If you think you would like one I see no reason not to go for it.
My personal experience with a smaller than N frame .44mag is with the Taurus Tracker. I have had no issues with this gun and it came with a great trigger out of the box. I also consider the gun a real nice .44spl that is capable of shooting the .44mag cartridge when called for. It is size compatible to the L frame S&W M69 and I would recommend either one.