S&W model 69

W

Wheelie_Fan

New member
Hi Gang,

I'vey never owned a big bore revolver, I'm a .38 special fan in the revolver arena ( I don't even own a .357 Mag. ), and .22 LR fan in small bore rifle. Too pedestrian for many? Perhaps.... but no apologies.

That said, I am TOTALLY smitten with the new S&W model 69.

Being a wannabe sailor, there's a belief that (in hull shape) "if it looks right, it is right"

This revolver looks VERY right to me. This could also be the reason I get into loading my own.... Probably .44 Spl. in this frame.

Just looking for pro and con for my own edification.... (If you're a fan, or a hater, by all means chime in). Thanks to all for your input!

Cheers guys and girls.
Fair winds and following seas.

-WF

PS- not necessarily a carry gun, but i can see this in a tanker holster...
 
Last edited:
This revolver looks VERY right to me. This could also be the reason I get into loading my own.... Probably .44 Spl. in this frame.
Click to expand...

I agree. The model 69 does look "right."
I also agree. The 69's main diet should probably be Specials. I could easily picture a steady diet of full-house mag ammo being harsh on the gun - much like full power 357 ammo was harsh on the model 19/66.

I don't own a 69. I'm turned off by 5-shot revolvers for reasons I don't understand. But I shun them - I just do. There's something about that sixth round that makes all the difference in the world to me. At any rate, if I did own one, I would shoot 44 Special ammo through it almost entirely.

You would enjoy reloading for the model 69. 44 ammo (Mag & Special) is fun and easy to load. I don't shoot 44 much (I own a model 629), but when it comes time to load for it, it's a real treat.
 
I don't own .44 mag but do have 3 .44 spec. My 396 is the same frame size as the 69. IMHO if the price is the same I'd buy .44 mag brass to decrease bullet jump, you can load it to whatever pressure you like.
 
For .44 fans, this looks like a real winner.
It must be a brand new addition, as their web site doesn't show it, yet.
For those, like me, who aren't always up on all the makes and models, the 69 is an L frame .44 mag.
This is the same size as the 686 357, and quite a bit less of a handful than the standard N frame .44 mag.
For range use, downloading the .44 mag cases would probably be the way to go with it.
 
My buddy has one and has elected to not shoot it just yet. Just a couple weeks after buying the Model 69, he came across a Performance Center 629 with the snub barrel and he's been playing with that. So the Model 69 has been sitting in reserve. The way he figures, if it catches on and becomes popular, he'll likely end up shooting it. And if it does not catch on, or if guys pounding it with full bore .44 Mag end up beating them senselessly so that Smith & Wesson elects to discontinue them, he'll have a rare(ish) curiosity that's never been fired outside the factory.

Here's what's neat about that "never been fired" bit...
Smith & Wesson does test fire proof loads through their revolvers, and this one being a matte stainless has a silvery face to the cylinder, and you can see exactly which two chambers of the five that Smith & Wesson used for the test fire, while the others are untouched. :p Kinda neat, I think.

Another reason to maybe buy a Model 69? It's one of the newest S&W revolvers with the two-piece barrel and this setup is already being lauded for very nice accuracy which may be inherent in the design. For those of us who constantly say things like "man, I wish they'd still _______ like they used to...", this new barrel design seems to be quite an improvement on the basic Smith & Wesson revolver that hasn't changed for over a hundred years.
 
I'm warming up to the concept

At first I hated it, but now I'm thinking it might be able to fit gaps in current lineups.
 
I bought a S&W69 about two months ago. Trigger was heavier than on my J-Frames, but I got a trigger job and it's very nice now ... about a 2-3/4lb SA trigger, and about a 9lb DA trigger ... the lightness of the DA trigger is limited by the possibility of light primer strikes ... something that became a problem after S&W started using their firing-pin-safety design. The gunsmith originally got my DA trigger down to 7lb, but it produced a lot of light strikes, so he upped it to 9lb, and it seems to work fine at that level.

I just did my 2nd range trip, and fired 2 or 3 rounds of 7 different types of ammo, from DoubleTap .44Sp+P 200gr (537 ft-lb) to DoubleTap .44mag 240gr (1199 ft-lb) . (Also shot a few PPU .44mag that claim 1272 ft-lb, but they didn't feel as heavy as the DT). No problem with any of them. I don't think that gun needs to be babied at all. It's 37oz, versus probably low 40's for a steel 4" N-Frame. I don't have an N-Frame, but I've held a 329PD (the scandium/titanium .44mag N-Frame), and it didn't feel much larger than the 69 to me. The L-Frame is MUCH closer to an N-Frame than it is to a J-Frame ... a little shorter in height (because it's only 5 rounds, rather than 6), but close to the same in length, I think. When I first saw it on the webpage, it looked like a scaled-up version of my S&W60-15Pro (3" .357 J_Frame) ... I imagined it to be about mid-way between the J-Frame and an N-Frame, but when I actually held the 69, it was much larger than I had expected ... very close to an N-Frame. I think the 4" S&W629's are only slightly heavier than the 69 ... I'd guess low 40's.

So far, I REALLY like it. In fact, I've found that I can conceal-carry it (in a homemade under-the-shirt vertical shoulder holster like the one I've used successfully for several years for my 10mm 1911). The grip is longer than my 1911's grip, and that bulges my shirt more than the 1911's grip does, but I can disguise either of those bulges with all the stuff I carry in my shirt pocket ... maybe not an acceptable solution for most people, but I did that even before I started carrying in an under-the-shirt shoulder holster.

My main motivation for buying the 69 was a close-up eye-to-eye encounter with a black bear, that made my 10mm 1911 seem less powerful than it usually does ...fortunately I didn't need to find out if my 1911 was powerful enough. But the 69 might become my EDC, especially if I'm not able to get my 1911 to be more reliable. Not as many shots, and not a fast a reload as the 1911, but having .44mag power available all the time (together with the simplicity of a revolver) has a lot of appeal for me ... I'm kind of a slow-thinking and slow-shooting sort of guy.
 
Last edited:
I have two M69s, bought the 1st one in late January and liked it so much added a backup in early March. To date, I have shot 830 rnds thru the first and 2,730 in the second. Everything from 240gr at 750 fps to 325gr at 1,180fps (all actual chrono results).

1,078 of the 2,730 rnds thru gun #2 were mostly 240gr Fed Factory chronoed at 1,217 fps and 265gr SWCGC at a chronoed 1,140 fps. Chono at 65 deg F and five long paces. Recoil with the 265gr SWCGC handload and the 240gr Fed Factory load were the same and are not be abusive. I have the S&W X Frame 500 Hogues on mine.

The Hogue 500s work great making this gun comfortable to shoot with the heavier loads. I have a problem with grips that are hard or narrow at the top (or both) -- recoil just hammers the bone at the base of my thumb -- the Hogue 500s pretty much solve this problem for me.

Fitted with the Hogue 500s, FOR ME, it is comfortable to shoot with any and all loads likely to be used. Again, FOR ME, it is the ideal handgun - reasonable weight, portable size, good balance, good accuracy (so far), and sufficient/versatile caliber.

I took the 329, 629 Mtn Gun and the M69 to the range one afternoon. Ammo was the aforementioned Federal Factory .44 Mag 240gr JHP (No. 44A). My perception was that recoil of the 329 is definitely snappier/faster, and the Mtn Gun has a bit more muzzle rise vs. the M69. Only thing I can think of is that the barrel is skinnier and the bore to grip relationship is higher on the 629 vs. the M69 (which rides lower in the hand and has a bit more weight forward). Could also just be my imagination. As should be expected, the Mtn Gun feels a bit bulky compared to the M69 – subtle, but noticeable to me.

In addition to the loads mentioned above, here are some other loads that I chronographed. Chronograp 5 long paces from the muzzle and 65 deg F.

Load Data for REFERENCE ONLY -- NOT A RECOMMENDATION.

240gr Horn JHP XTP at 1,323 fps (Hodgdon says 1,522 fps from 8.275” Bbl)

270gr Speer JSP at 1,153 fps (My 6” 629 gives 1,207 fps -- Hodgdon says 1,421 fps from 8.275” Bbl)

260gr LBT WFNGC at 1,224 fps

240gr lasercast CSWCs at 880 fps (6.5gr HP38 seated deep – 44 spcl OAL).


300gr WFNPB 1.651" OAL - LBT type - source unknown.
20.0gr H110.
Fed 155 (Mag)
New Top Brass (Scharch.com).
1,102 fps avg, 37 fps ES

310gr RNFPGC DC 1.605" OAL (top crimp grove) - LEE mold.
20.0gr H110.
Fed 155 (Mag)
New Top Brass (Scharch.com).
1,141 fps avg, 23 fps ES

325gr WLNGC 1.711" OAL - Beartooth Bullets.
22.0gr H110.
Fed 155 (Mag)
New Top Brass (Scharch.com).
1,182 fps avg, 13 fps ES (3 shots only) (Hogdon says 1,368 FPS fr 8.275” Bbl)

Load Data for REFERENCE ONLY -- NOT A RECOMMENDATION.



Here are a couple of targets showing accuracy potential:

Mounted a 4x Leupold on the M69 to do some load development. It was windy, and even though I had a good rest, it was not perfectly stable.

Loads are marked on the targets. The 265 SWCGC crimped over the front drive band chronoed 1,142 fps and the 310gr Lee FPGC chronoed 1,141 fps (not a typo) seated and crimped in the top grove (short OAL). Both at 50 - 60 deg F and 5 long paces from the muzzle.

The 240gr/6.5gr HP38 is seated deep (1.502 OAL) and runs 883 fps on the chrono.

As most know and the targets show, it pays to test various loads to determine best potential accuracy.
.
P4100018_zpsf5ba9c6d.jpg

.
P4100016_zps96024e17.jpg

.


Target showing point of impact with rear sight bottomed out.
.
79cf3682-14c8-463f-b020-3fb50c9d3ea6_zps20b8a2ae.jpg

.


I’ve been carrying the M69 while walking the dogs for a while now. It is narrower than the 329/629 and sits deeper in the Simply Rugged pancake. The m69 is very comfortable for belt/hip carry in the SR pancake, but I did notice the extra weight vs the 329.

I picked up a M66 (New K Frame .357 Magnum) as an understudy to the M69 for cheaper practice and “just because”. The two guns feel exactly the same to me. In fact I was out shooting both today, and tried to drop a .44 Mag round in the .357 – took me a minute to figure out why it wouldn’t fit.

Couple of downsides (other than aesthetics).

Sights don’t appear to regulated for .44 Mag ammo (see above target).

Holsters made for existing L Frames may or may not work with the M69.

You should really be a reloader to properly enjoy the versatility and benefit from the cost savings of the .44 (either special or mag).

Proper speedloader not available.

The more I shoot the m69, the better I like it – it just works for me – YMMV.

FWIW,

Paul
 
Paul105 has the best write ups on the web about the 69.

All I can add is a picture of mine...

13320038505_d77d22792a_z.jpg


I shoot "medium" 44 mag loads in mine. It handles the recoil well. Special loads are like shooting low level target loads in a heavy 357.

I want a 2 1/2, 3 or 4 inch option.
 
Paul105 said:
I have the S&W X Frame 500 Hogues on mine.
Click to expand...

Where did you get them?

The stock grips ARE pretty hard. But I doubt that my method of concealed-carry will tolerate any larger grips (and my hand-size might not either ... already, when I'm wearing shooting gloves, and with a low grip, I can't cock the hammer with my strong thumb ... I have to use my weak thumb, which isn't what I'm accustomed to doing (even though it's recommended now, I think)).

The low grip that I tried on my last range trip (motivated by the fact that the first range trip (where I used a high grip) produced bruising and a small tear and a little bleeding in the web between my index finger and thumb) seemed to work well with my preferred relaxed grip/wrist/elbow/shoulder joints ... seemed to soak up the recoil of the heavy loads better, and also produced more muzzle-rise which (I think) makes it less likely that I'll get smacked in the face by the gun. (I know that, for people who are trying to get off multiple shots very quickly, muzzle-rise is considered a bad thing, and the higher and firmer the shooter's grip, the better. But for my slow-shooting style, I think muzzle-rise and a low relaxed grip might be advantageous.

If I get the opportunity, I might try the S&W X 500 grips, just in case they might be concealable with my carry method. Are they easy to get on and off?
 
Mike,

Here's where you get the X Frame 500 Hogues

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...58003_757843_757837_ProductDisplayErrorView_N


I have a 696 that I mounted the M69 grips on and compared them to the X Frame 500 Hogues. The 500s are a not quite a 1/4" longer, the heel sticks out a bit more (maybe a 1/8") and they are "fuller" all around vs. the factory grips.

Here's picture of a 4" 629 Mtn Gun w/500s, the M69 w/factory, and a 696 w/500s.

Don't know if they will work for your intended use.

]
62969696-1_zps3466053b.jpg


Paul
 
Thanks, Paul ... that was very helpful.

By "heel" do you mean the rearmost part of the butt? I think you were saying that it extends the length of the gun (measured in the direction of the barrel) a bit.

Two things I notice when I just compare the shapes: the 500's are more angled wrt the vertical ... the stock grips are more nearly perpendicular to the bore. And secondly, it appears to me that the 500's force the grip to be low, whereas with the stock grips I could grip it a bit higher if I wanted to (but I've almost convinced myself that I'm better off going low on the stock grips, anyway).

Are the stock and 500 grips easy to take on and off of the 69? I remember seeing the instructions for removing the Hogue "bantums" that are stock on my 360sc, and it looked complicated and scary ... fortunately, I've never had to do it. The stock grips on the 69 LOOK like they are held on by a single screw, and perhaps just slip right off or on ... is it that simple?
 
Mike,

The Hogue’s are one piece grips that slide on and attach via a single screw thru the bottom of the grip. A stirrup fits over the locater pins at the bottom of the grip frame that is threaded to accept the screw thru the bottom of the grips. They are easy on/easy off once the stirrup is attached/detached. Not like the Bantams.

The factory grip is a two piece grip held together by a single allen head screw – just unscrew and the grips come off.

Yes, the heel is the bottom rear of the grip. It would make the butt of the gun protrude rear ward (length wise) a bit more vs the factory grip.

Yes, the Hogues are a bit more vertical and noticeably more “hand filling”. I grip them as high as possible (web of hand at very top, maybe over the top of the grip a bit), aiding in recoil recovery.

Because of the aforementioned problem with the bone at the base of my thumb, I have them on all my round butt S&W’s – they work for me, but as always, YMMV.

The only way you will really know is to order a set.

Installation instructions from Hogue:

http://www.getgrip.com/PDF files/Instruction PDF files/Rubber MonoGrip 1.pdf

Youtube video of grip installation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsDky85XT78



Paul
 
Thanks a lot for that info, and all your help. I may go to my local gun store, and see if they have anything that has those X-Frame grips as stock grips ... I think the Model 500 does (and maybe also the 460?). That would tell me a lot about how the extra "fatness" of the grip would feel.

Were you aware of the two grips "pointing" differently? The more slanted grip angle of the X-Frame 500 grips looks similar to my 1911's grip angle, whereas the stock M69 grip's angle is closer to perpendicular. The X500 grips might point more like the 1911 that I am used to carrying and shooting, which could be a good thing, for consistency, if I end up carrying both the M69 and the 1911 alternately. I DO remember that the 1911 originally seemed to point high for me, so the stock M69 grips might point more like I was used to before I started carrying the 1911.
 
Let me be the one to ask the stupid question here. Other than the obvious difference in the finish, what are the functional differences between the M69 and the M629?
 
Frame size. N (629) vs L (69)

Capacity 6 (629) vs 5 (69)

Design differences like two piece barrel.
 
Last edited:
Doyle said:
Let me be the one to ask the stupid question here. Other than the obvious difference in the finish, what are the functional differences between the M69 and the M629?
Click to expand...

Biggest functional difference is that the M69 is a 5-shot. All previous S&W .44mags have been 6-shots.

The M69 is an L-Frame, and all the other S&W .44mags have been N-Frames. The L-Frames are classified as "medium frames", and the N-Frames are classified as "large frames". That is a bit misleading, though ... the L-Frames are NOT about midway in size between an N-Frame and a J-Frame (which is classified as a "small frame"). To my eye, the L-Frame is the same length (in the direction of the bore) as the N-Frame, but is slightly smaller in height (in the direction perpendicular to be bore), because of the smaller cylinder diameter, due to the 5-shot versus 6-shot difference. I don't know if the width of the frame itself is any different (but the overall width of the M69 is of course a little smaller, because the 5-shot cylinder's diameter is smaller).

The M69 is 37oz, and I suspect that the 629 with similar barrel length is a little bit more, probably in the low 40's.
 
Last edited:
You guessed right Mike. The 5" 629 is just over 44oz (6" is over 48oz). I've got the 5". Although its weight is a little heavy on the belt, it comes in handy when shooting. I'm not sure I'd want to do a lot of shooting with a .44mag that was much lighter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top