S&W 69, L frame 5 shot 44 mag

[Ozzieman]

Anyone see the new S&W 69, L frame 5 shot 44 mag at the shot show?
Wish it didn’t have a lock and had a full lug but I will buy one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs8wGQ3cnvw

 

[Noreaster]

Id prefer a 5 inch barrel but I like. In my State, while hunting, we're only allowed to load 5 cylinders.

 

[Ozzieman]

I would like a 3 inch

 

[Hal]

I would like a 3 inch

+1
or even a 2.5".

I've always wanted a S&W version of the Charter Arms Bulldog.
Having magnum capability is just a plus.

 

[WESHOOT2]

I predict warranty service backlog

Too much cartridge in too little gun.

 

[Colt46]

They tried the .44 special in the L-frame

Wasn't a raging success(the few that have them love them) commercially. The forcing cone was a weak point. I hope smith learned from that enterprise and made the critical parts beefier.

 

[bigghoss]

I'm holding out for a 2-3" snubby but I like the idea. I want one in .45acp too.

 

[Elerius]

This is actually the only gun I was interested in from the Shot Show. I already have a 5.5" blue Ruger Redhawk in .44 Mag and wanted to balance it with a stainless S&W 44 but the only option was a variation on the M29, until this. I like the barrel length but I wouldn't be carrying it and I think the L-frame will fit the hand better. Haven't seen one in person (don't know if they're even available yet) so I will reserve judgment.

As for the lock, I don't buy Smiths when there are earlier pre-lock versions available just on principle, but in this case where it is brand new and there aren't older versions to be had, I don't think I'll mind since I'm not carrying. I do like the half lug, very M66-ish which I'm partial to

 

[salvadore]

Just like my Mountain Lite only in stainless.

 

[Tom Servo]

We'll see how they hold up. I had a 696, and there were two concerns running hot ammunition through it. The first was the razor-thin forcing cone. The second is the fact that the chambers are bored very close together.

 

[Bob Wright]

This, in my opinion, is the ultimate .44 Magnum DA revolver:




Five inch, full lug, Model 29, BLUED STEEL.

Bob Wright

 

[Ozzieman]

I totally agree Bob. Never seen one in real life but the full lug makes the gun look smaller but man that is nice looking.
I wish mine were blued instead of shiny.
One comment I will make on the 69. I will NEVER NOT ONCE EVER shoot magnums in the gun.
Now if Ruger would get off their buts and build a 44 special in the SP101,,,,,,,

 

[bigghoss]

Now if Ruger would get off their buts and build a 44 special in the SP101

Not sure that would work. On the GP100 frame would work.

 

[Roughedge]

I held one at the shot show and it felt good. I'd rather have one that will last so I got the Ruger Alaskan this week.

 

[tlm225]

I became very interested in this gun as soon as I learned of it. While the 29/629 series are excellent guns, (I've owned one of each) the "N" frame grip just doesn't work with my hand size. The "L" frame does. I have already made inquiries at two shops to order one with no success. I foresee loading up 240-250 grain LSWC at 900-1000 FPS as my working load.

 

[WESHOOT2]

if you can do THIS

240-250 grain LSWC at 900-1000 FPS as my working load

THIS; this will work.

But if your load might make a 29's cylinder rotate backward, then this ain't the right gun

 

[BOI]

If they make one with a 3 inch barrel and it is mine. I like the idea of a ruger gp100 in 44 mag also. Hope the people at S&W and ruger are listening.

 

[Mannlicher]

an expensive make over of a Charter Arms Bulldog.

 

[P5 Guy]

How does the forcing cone stand up to Magnum loads?
The last 44 in an 'L' frame had forcing cone concerns.

 

[Nick_C_S]

I'm good with the barrel length - 4.25" seems about right. The show-stopper for me is that the barrel isn't fully lugged - like a 686. With 44 Mag, I would like the front weight.

Also, I'm sure this gun isn't meant to be fired extensively with hot rounds - just like the M66 - and for the same reason. I'm okay with that.