S&W model 69

I just got back from the range, after shooting my S&W69 with the 500 grips for the first time. I was able to shoot all the way up to my DoubleTap .44mag carry rounds (close to full-spec .44mag, about 1200 ft-lb), without my shooting glove, and without any bruising or tearing in the web of my hand. On my first range trip, with the stock grips, I shot 3 rounds of .44mag American Eagle (fairly close to the bottom of the .44mag energy range), without a glove, and got bruising and a little tearing. So I put on the glove, and could then shoot all the way up to the DT's OK. I was using a high grip. Second range trip, I still had the stock grips, and I wore the gloves for all the shooting, but I used a low grip. No problems, but I didn't try it without the gloves. Third trip (today) was with the 500 grips and no gloves. Since I never used a low grip, without gloves, with the stock grips, I don't know whether they also would have not caused bruising and/or tearing. The main extra softness in the 500 grips is in the upper part of the grip, which might not actually come into play when using the low grip.

The 500 grips ARE slightly bigger (in all dimensions) than the stock grips, but surprisingly it looks like I AM going to be able to conceal it OK in my homemade under-the-shirt vertical shoulder holster, so I CAN, if I decide to, make it my EDC (instead of my 10mm 1911).
 
Great info MikeF
Thanks to you and all for your info and comments.

I put an order in for a Mod. 69 at my LGS, however they're on back order at the moment....

Waiting....waiting...waiting...
 
recently

Just recently read about the Model 69, was not aware that the creature existed!

I've hoped for some type of 5-shot .44 for some time, and was surprised that the 5 shot .44 spl's on the L-frame were not well received/discontinued from about 10 year ago.

I guess Smith thinks the .44 mag will be more popular, as ammo more common, huh?

Loaded to hot .44 special level, (240/1000 fps) the Model 69 looks like a dandy woods/GP revolver revolver.
 
I handled one this afternoon and one is now on order.
No idea when it will arrive but now the pain of waiting will take over my existence. So sad:D
Now if only Ruger wound get off there (*&(*% and build a 5 inch 44 special 101 or 100 then my life would be perfect. Guns that is.
 
Good luck Oz, I ordered mine on 8/20 and so far no estimate on delivery.... Still showing as back ordered. I think the wait just might drive me crazy.

Although.... It's giving me time to track down some factory ammo and consider getting into reloading....

Hope yours shows up soon!
 
Thanks Wheelie_Fan, Do yourself a favor, if you’re going to shoot 44's RELOAD.
With several thousand cases and lead bullets I can reload 50 for around 6 to 7$.
 
Hard to see any difference at all. I'm surprised that the cylinder doesn't have a noticeably smaller diameter (thereby allowing a frame that is shorted vertically (perpendicular to the bore axis)), because of the narrower cartridges of the .357 ... maybe they used the same cylinder diameter, and just drilled smaller holes in it (in which case, the cylinder would probably be heavier). I thought tat the K-Frame would be noticeably smaller than the L-Frame ... are you sure that the .357 is a K-Frame?
 
It's the same outside diameter as the earlier K frame 66 Mods. It may be the angle of my picture makes them appear somewhat similar to the L frame 69. I hope the OP doesn't mind a momentary hijack but below is a picture of a very early no-dash Mod 66 with a new 66-8.

Both the Mod 69 and the 66-8 are destined to become major successes in the S&W lineup..... And many collectors like myself hope a 41 Mag and additional barrel lengths will follow...

 
OK ... in your new picture, the cylinder does look smaller. What do you get if you measure vertically from the top of the frame to the bottom of the "crane" (I think that's what it's called), for both the K-Frame and the L-Frame? That's probably the only noticeable difference in the two frame dimensions ... the length of the cylinder, and the horizontal length of the frame is probably about the same, because the length of a .357 cartridge is about the same as the length of a .44mag cartridge, I think (it's their diameters that are very different).
 
You can easily see the difference in cylinder diameters in these two links:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_827561_-1_757767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_827559_-1_757767___ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

But also, I hadn't realized that the 66 is a 6-shot, not a 5-shot. So the 66's cylinder is larger in diameter (and closer to the 69's diameter) than it would be if they were both 5-shots.
 
I don't have those dimensions or have my guns handy to measure them. I can say the 69 is built on the basic L frame with the new addition of the two piece barrel and the ball lock up for the crane. The internet will be your best friend for technical size data info on the cylinder of the 5 shot 69.

Like with all the K and L frame guns the additional size of the L frame is very noticeable if viewed in person. The two piece barrel for the new 66 has substantially improved that gun both with its ball lock up and the elimination of the old cut on the bottom of the original barrels that was so susceptible to metal fatigue and occasional cracking, especially with 125 gr ammo.

On the issue of size differences -- viewing the various frames from the rear or the top, side by side, can sometimes reveal a difference if you look very carefully. Maybe the pictures below will help somewhat... These are earlier guns but the frame dimensions are much the same.



 
Thanks for those photos. It still looks to me like the biggest difference by far is the step up to the X-Frame, and the step down to the J-Frame. The middle three (N, L, and K Frames) are pretty similar ... cylinder diameters differ perceptibly, but not much else is noticeable.
 
Mike, in my experience, here is how the K-L-N frame revolvers feel different, to me:

The K-frame and L-frame use the same grip, they are completely interchangeable and Smith & Wesson specifically designed them that way. While the N-frame and K-frame each go back a hundred years, the L-frame is a youngster in comparison, arriving in 1980 with the 586/686 revolvers.

The L-frame showed up as a method of beefing up the durability of the K-frame for the purpose of .357 Magnum loads. One could argue (many have!) that Smith & Wesson never intended K-frame guns to run .357 Magnum ammo and that they were nudged that way by Bill Jordan and others who wanted a more service/duty friendly revolver size & weight with the ability to run the high pressure .357 Magnum.

Some folks may not realize... the .357 is not just a "bumped up" version of a .38 Special it. It runs fully twice the pressure of the .38 Special and S&W debuted the round in the large N-frame and went 20+ years before they ever considered putting the hot round in to a K-frame revolver.

Your grips & reach when holding an L-frame with similar grips to the K-frames you own should be very, VERY similar. The big difference I have found with the L-frame is that for the most part (and obviously, not including this new Model 69) is that the L-frame revolvers most all came with full barrel underlugs. That's a -LOT- of weight out front and it does help to tame the effects of .357 Magnum, but it radically changes the balance of the revolver.

So if a K-frame feels perfect, and an L-frame feels "less perfect", it may not be about your reach or grip. For me, this is exactly the case, and it's about balance.

The larger N-frame runs a different grip and a different "reach" but without the heavy mass hanging out front altering the balance. I absolutely love shooting my big 6-inch Model 28 N-frame...

...but there exists NO REVOLVER that feels more "RIGHT" in every single way (to ME, of course) than a 4-inch heavy barrel K-frame, like my Models 10 and 64.
 
Sevens said:
[...]
The larger N-frame runs a different grip and a different "reach"
[...]
Click to expand...

But the stock grips for the enormous S&W500 fit the S&W69 (I've got them on my 69 right now) ... apparently the part of the two frames that mount the grips must be close to the same size and shape. And I'm surprised that the "reach" is different between the L-Frames and N-Frames, because the cartridges (.44mag) are the same, and the cylinders at least LOOK like they have the same length in those pics. And the amount of material before and after the cylinder doesn't look much if any different to me in the pics. Is the fore-and-aft position of the trigger, wrt the cylinder, different? Doesn't look like it in those pics to me. I suspect that the trigger must be slightly lower in the N-Frame, because the 6-shot cylinder has a slightly larger diameter than the 5-shot cylinder, so maybe that gets perceived as a longer reach (at least for people who use a high grip position). Maybe if I had a 29 or a 629 here (I don't), that I could handle alternately with my 69, the differences would be more obvious.
 
Last edited:
Smith & Wesson very specifically designed the (then-new) monster X-frame revolvers to make use of the K-frame grip. They must also believe that the K-frame grip size is the best thing they've yet come up with. I can't exactly tell you from memory what the reach to an X-frame .460/.500 is like in comparison to a K-frame, but I do know the grip is 100% interchangeable.

Something else that occurs to me when I pick up my buddy's new Model 69 L-frame is that these rubber grips that S&W are shipping with the Models 66 and 69 are unlike any grip I've used. The shape and feel of each different grip you put on to any of them is certainly going to change the way it feels and fits.

The original magna grip that shipped with K-frames seems to be a lousy fit & feel for most, the Tyler T-Grip became a VERY good product on the market to address it. The goncalo alves target filled the hand better, it's what was shipped new on my 17-6 and 686-3 revolvers, both made 88-89. But I've long preferred the Pachmayr decelerator, SK-G, the rubber finger groove grip with the covered back strap. If you go to the Pachmayr with the back strap exposed, you get another feel and reach right there. And yet another if you go to the Pachmayr Presentation grip.

Lately on a K-frame, I've fallen in love with the fit & feel of the low-cost Uncle Mike's rubber grip. It looks very much like the Pachmayr SK-G but it fits my hand better, it's just a bit smaller. It's been my experience that my hand size runs large or a bit larger. Not HUGE, mind you, but I prefer an XL glove over a large for any application where I need gloves. (such as motorcycling)
 
The black grips on the S&W66 K-Frame in Red Ramp's post #30 look like the stock grips that came on my S&W69 L-Frame. I wonder if the "reach" would feel different, with the same grips, on those two guns ... I suspect that the longitudinal (bore-axis) dimensions on those two guns are essentially, the same, although the vertical dimensions are a bit different because of the slight difference in cylinder diameter. So the reach to the trigger, and/or to the hammer, might be perceptible because of that slight difference in the vertical dimensions.

I think I DID notice a little difference in the reach to the trigger when I swapped out the grips on my 69 ... I think I get a little less finger on the trigger when shooting DA with the new 500 grips, although it is still acceptable. I like to shoot SA MUCH more than DA, and in SA the trigger is very easy to reach with either of the two grips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top