180gr trouble in my Model 69 .44mag

OzzieMan said:
One thing I would disagree with is that the 69 was originally built for 44 special. The 696 was built as a 44 special.
Click to expand...

I knew that the 69 was designed for .44mag. But I thought that the 696 was the original L-Frame. Apparently it wasn't.

Thanks for confirming that the 629 won't fully eject .44mag (or even .44Special). It's amazing to me that that wasn't a design requirement for the 29 and the 629.
 
Thanks for confirming that the 629 won't fully eject .44mag (or even .44Special). It's amazing to me that that wasn't a design requirement for the 29 and the 629.
Click to expand...

That half lug idea might look a little strange with a full length ejector. Personally, I would rather have the full length ejector, possibly a longer barrel, if necessary.

Here is the 5" 629 Classic for comparison (Diamond Pro Pachmayrs):

699e5fad-b65a-4f9d-b5ee-e4d3a9a2cf7e.jpg
 
Real_Gun said:
That half lug idea might look a little strange with a full length ejector. Personally, I would rather have the full length ejector, possibly a longer barrel, if necessary.

Here is the 5" 629 Classic for comparison (Diamond Pro Pachmayrs):
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I understand your post ... are you saying that the 629 with longer barrels (and/or longer "under lugs") DO fully eject .44mag cases? That would imply (I think) that the cylinder itself it different, which seems unlikely to me. I.e., on my 69, the inability to fully eject a .44mag casing has nothing to do with the length of the ejector rod ... it is limited by something inside the cylinder itself.
 
My 629-1 and 629-8 both eject 1", leaving 1/4" of case length in the cylinder. At that, the cases usually fall out or will fly out, given some momentum when in a hurry to reload (never happen).
 
180 grain

Regards the OP comment of "other" 180 grain .44 mag loads. Remington, and I do believe Winchester as well, market 180 grain loads, the Rems are soft points. I have seen the Rems recently at a local Gander Mtn, I believe as a "white box" load.
 
While I don't have any personal experience with the models in question, I do believe that it has been a practice that shorter barrel versions of some models do have a shorter ejector rods & travel.

I'll check with a friend next time I can, who has both an extensive collection, and an extensive library.

As to the 180gr load, it doesn't matter what the rated pressure is, if it sticks in your gun, its too hot. Different combinations of things can make a load too hot for your gun, and still be within rated specs, and fine in a different gun. It is possible, if not common.
 
Here is the 5" 629 Classic for comparison (Diamond Pro Pachmayrs):

Real Gun, where is the world did you find that 5 inch?????
I want it!!!
Click to expand...

Pretty nice, huh? Shoots amazingly well. I bought it like new off GB about a year and a half ago after a long thread on 45 Colt versus 44 Magnum. I now have 4 of the 44 Magnums, 2 of which are Smiths, all 6 inch except this fiver. It has since had an action job, throat check, forcing cone recut, etc. I also had the ILS removed and plugged.
 
Mobuck said:
Have you been shooting 44 SP in this revolver lately?
Click to expand...

Probably fewer than 10 .44Specials through it, at that point. And when I insert the swollen .44mag casing now, it starts to get VERY tight when the casing is still protruding about a quarter of an inch. Also, lots of other near or at full spec .44mag cases were either falling out, or were at least very easy to eject, including some Underwood 240gr XTP rounds, and some DoubleTap 240gr Gold Dots.
 
Mike,

I think I would lean towards that particular box or lot of ammo having some issues. The other cases you refer to were also fired in your Smith?
 
Sounds like the ammunition company owner had a fair response as to giving the other lot a try and going from there, is the 69 your only 44magnum? The worst double action revolver I ever had with this kind of issue was a very pretty 6" Trooper MkIII 22mag. That gun was very hard to push the 6 empties out of, I reluctantly traded it off for something else. I really wish I still had it, back then there weren't nearly as many 22mag loadings to pick from. And your welcome Mike.
 
Guv said:
is the 69 your only 44magnum?
Click to expand...

Yeah. For many years, I had a U.S. Arms Abilene single-action 7-1/2" .44mag, that I open-carried on backpack trips in the wilderness areas (forest service land) around here, but I sold it when (about 15 years ago) I got my concealed-carry permit (a "bit" too big to conceal(!)). Somewhat surprisingly, my 4-1/4" S&W69 conceals and carries almost as well as my 10mm 1911 (both in homemade under-the-shirt vertical shoulder holsters). The two guns weigh almost the same (around 37-38oz), and the 69 is just slightly larger, even with the S&W #500 recoil-absorbing grips I put on it.
 
On my 629 when the ejector is pushed it will go in flush with the crane.
On a 4 inch 25 (45 LC) it bottoms out with 0.295 inches this is about the same with the 96.
With the ejector rod bottomed out on the 25 the distance from the cylinder end to the ejector face is 1.140 inches

Pretty nice, huh? Shoots amazingly well.
Click to expand...
In my own humble opinion, for the N frame S&W no matter what caliber the 5 inch has the best balance of them all. I had a 5 inch 27 that proved that I was stupid in my younger years by selling it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top