Smith & Wesson 69?

[CountryGent]

The 69 is/was the only gun that I used a glove when I shot and the only handgun that made me bleed.

Ouch!

 

[OldBroad44]

I'm going to keep ALL my childish "dad jokes" to myself in this thread (for once) and only mention that @OldBroad44 is missing out on this thread!

Thanks @Stomper .
I have indeed been somewhat tempted by the 69, particularly the 4" version.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/model-69

For me the 69 represents a way of consolidating to .44 entirely in revolvers, as my edc, a 686-4 snubby, is now the only .357 I still have. And with both being L frame, I could just swap the grips and use the Crimson Trace grips now on my 686 on the 69. If the 69 became my edc I would get a 4" barrel .44sp for about the same weight as my 2.5" barrel edc. I wouldn't want to shoot the 69 with anything hotter than full power .44sp loads. But there isn't anything bigger than black bears on my turf. The loss of one round capacity doesn't bother me much. What does bother me is the fact that I love the muzzle-heavy balance of the 686 snubby. The 69 with no underlugging on its barrel is going to have the traditional balance. Meaning it will not be possible for me to shoot the 69 as accurately by just point shooting as my 686.

The other comparable option is the 629 Mountain Gun. These are 4" 6 shot N frame guns with very skinny barrels. Some of these are pre-lock. They weigh about 38 ounces, just 2 ounces more than my 686 snubby edc. They are difficult to find these days, even at gunbroker. And of course will not have the balance I prefer. It would be nice if SW made the 69 in a true L frame version, with full under lugged barrel and traditional one-piece barrel.

I would be interested in hearing what kind of recoil people experience and what kind of accuracy they get from 69s shot with full power .44 sp loads. One nice thing about my 686 snubby is it is accurate enough to do anything I can do or ever could do with an unscoped gun. I like that in an edc, as it would be the only gun I had if A SHTF caught me when I wasn't at home.

 

[OldBroad44]

Love my 686+, that said I've always been a fan of the Model 66, more of a .357 guy over .44 mag. You fancy the .44 more?

View attachment 1918693

Yes. A decade or so when I found out that full power .357 mag loads sometimes caused temporary or permanent damage to hearing when shot without hearing protection in confined spaces I turned away from using .357 mag full power loads in my 686 edc. I have extraordinarily good hearing, even at the age of 78. And want to keep it that way. So I switched to a .38 sp full wadcutter hardcast load from Buffalo Bore designed for short barrels as the load I carry in my edc. These will supposedly penetrate a foot through mammalian bone and tissue. So they could presumably penetrate into the skull of a black bear. The odds of my running into an impolite black bear in my yard are pretty good since the neighborhood is contiguous with MacDonald Forest, and its happen once already, and my back yard has the most glorious wild blackberry patch I've ever seen on the land downhill from where the ducks night pen used to be.

.38sp, 9mm, and .44sp all were about as loud in info I looked up once upon a time. There was no info on +P. The .357 was about twice as loud. Since concern over destroying my hearing if I have to shoot my edc in my home or in a car has essentially caused me to downgrade the capabilities of my .357 mag edc to .38sp, the obvious step is to upgrade to .44sp.

 

[OldBroad44]

Can't say I have any desire at all to shoot an L frame .44 Magnum. My J frame .357 is unpleasant enough.

Apples and oranges. I had a SS J frame 4" .38sp that I sold because I considered the recoil too unpleasant to enjoy shooting. But my L-frame 2.5" 686 edc is pleasant to shoot with full power .357 mag loads.

And should I ever get a small light 44mag, or one with a 4" or shorter barrel, I wouldn't shoot it with .44 mag. I'd stick to .44 sp. And maybe not even the hottest .44 sp loads.

When George Mallory was asked why he climbed Mt Everest he said "Because it is there. " However, I've never thought that the mere existence of an entity requires me to interact with it in any particular way. I've never felt any need to climb Everest. And I've seen plenty of mountains in the Cascades and coastal mountains and have left the tops of them peacefully unclimbed by me. And I feel no need to shoot any given gun with the hottest ammo it can handle . For example, even with heavy full size guns with 6" or 6.5" barrels like the 629 or the .44 Anaconda, I shoot them with midrange .44mag loads. Usually about 1000 -1100 ft lbs. That's enjoyable shooting for me. I can shoot those loads one handed with either hand. So they are better SD loads for me than anything hotter. I don't need a shooters glove given the rubber grips I use. And if I fire one shot without hearing protection outdoors it doesn't make my ears ring for half an hour afterwards. Not so with full loads closer to 1200 ft lbs. They are unpleasant for me to shoot. If I shoot them with one hand the recoil is sharp enough that wrist damage is clearly a threat. My hands sting--indicating nerve damage--if I don't wear shooting gloves. And if I let off even one round outdoors without hearing protection, such as when doing routine first-shot practice, my ears ring for half an hour, indicating temporary hearing damage.

 

[CountryGent]

I'm not recoil shy, even kinda, and routinely shoot the big boomers. (Did just that today, up to and including a .500.) But guns that are actually painful to shoot — no thanks. They may look neat, but if I don't look forward to shooting them, then it is kind of pointless. And it isn't always the cartridge, but rather the grips or other design factor. Based upon what has been said in this thread, it sounds like this particular offering from S&W may fall into that category, so will likely keep looking.

 

[Alexx1401]

Word. Though, admittedly, I'm all over the map tonight: beyond this one, looking at a nickeled 1980-vintage S&W 10-7, a Remington XP-100, a Taurus 500, and even an Astra A-80. (giggle) Variety is the spice of life.

I always liked the A-80's with the one downside being the damn mags. Almost bought one a few times as they tend to be all over in great shape at a great price. The only thing that always kept me from buying another was mags. For some reason every time I looked at one the cost of a handful of extra mags was as much as the damn pistol.

 

[TTSX]

Apples and oranges. I had a SS J frame 4" .38sp that I sold because I considered the recoil too unpleasant to enjoy shooting. But my L-frame 2.5" 686 edc is pleasant to shoot with full power .357 mag loads.

And should I ever get a small light 44mag, or one with a 4" or shorter barrel, I wouldn't shoot it with .44 mag. I'd stick to .44 sp. And maybe not even the hottest .44 sp loads.

When George Mallory was asked why he climbed Mt Everest he said "Because it is there. " However, I've never thought that the mere existence of an entity requires me to interact with it in any particular way. I've never felt any need to climb Everest. And I've seen plenty of mountains in the Cascades and coastal mountains and have left the tops of them peacefully unclimbed by me. And I feel no need to shoot any given gun with the hottest ammo it can handle . For example, even with heavy full size guns with 6" or 6.5" barrels like the 629 or the .44 Anaconda, I shoot them with midrange .44mag loads. Usually about 1000 -1100 ft lbs. That's enjoyable shooting for me. I can shoot those loads one handed with either hand. So they are better SD loads for me than anything hotter. I don't need a shooters glove given the rubber grips I use. And if I fire one shot without earing protection outdoors it doesn't make my ears ring for half an hour afterwards. Not so with full loads closer to 1200 ft lbs. They are unpleasant for me to shoot. If I shoot them with one hand the recoil is sharp enough that wrist damage is clearly a threat. My hands sting--indicating nerve damage--if I don't wear shooting gloves. And if I let off even one round outdoors without hearing protection, such as when doing routine first-shot practice, my ears ring for half an hour, indicating temporary hearing damage.

I would call it apples and pears but ok.

 

[Dirty-30_lever]

upgraded with hogue grips and a hogue speed cylinder release…. 44mag for me, 44sp for herlove it!

 

[OldBroad44]

Love my 686+, that said I've always been a fan of the Model 66, more of a .357 guy over .44 mag. You fancy the .44 more?

View attachment 1918693

If you are talking about hunting deer, either .357 mag or .44 mag can do the job. And all my deer hunting was done with .357 mag, since it was before my "discovering" .44 mag. However, you have a greater percent of shots you can take with 44 mag. With .357 mag, if you carry a jhp load, you're optimally equipped for a broadside shot but not for a frontal quartering shot, which may be stopped or deflected by the shoulder and leave an animal that can run on three legs for miles and dies later after days of suffering. In addition, the jhp is not a good black bear SD load, and your own kill or those of other hunters can attract black bears.

On the other hand, if you load with a minimally expanding bullet such as a .357 mag bear load, you are well prepared for bear as well as the front quartering shot on a deer. The bullet will crash through bones in the shoulder and pass, along with bone fragments, into the lungs. On the other hand, the broadside shot may go through the deer doing so little damage the deer runs for hundreds of yards and perhaps goes unrecovered.

If instead you do your handgun hunting with .44 mag, you can use an unexpanding or only moderately expanding bullet and have it be both fat enough to stop the deer from a broadside shot and penetrating enough to get through the shoulder in the front quartering shot.

 

[OldBroad44]

I'm not recoil shy, even kinda, and routinely shoot the big boomers. (Did just that today, up to and including a .500.) But guns that are actually painful to shoot — no thanks. They may look neat, but if I don't look forward to shooting them, then it is kind of pointless. And it isn't always the cartridge, but rather the grips or other design factor. Based upon what has been said in this thread, it sounds like this particular offering from S&W may fall into that category, so will likely keep looking.

Sounds like the 69 might be fine with 44sp however.

 

[OldBroad44]

I think the implications of recoil have changed a lot in the last 60 years. When I was a kid learning to shoot, we weren't using hearing protection. And the mag revolvers initially started out mostly as full size full weight guns. And of .44 mag or less. With most handguns the adversion to recoil was more from the noise than from the gun tearing or bruising the skin on our hands or damaging our wrists. Now everyone routinely uses hearing protection when practicing except maybe for .22. And many use shooting gloves. Manufacturers can and do push the lower limit of gun weights and upper limits of gun power to realms that can damage the wrists or tear and bruise the hands of some or most users. Its up to us to figure out how much recoil we are willing to tolerate.

 

[orygun]

The 69 with no underlugging on its barrel is going to have the traditional balance. Meaning it will not be possible for me to shoot the 69 as accurately by just point shooting as my 686.

"If" you have a chance to shoot a 4" 69, I think you will find it has equal, or more, of a front heavy balance than any L-Frame snubby.

Sounds like the 69 might be fine with 44sp however.

It is wonderful with 44 Specials. Damn near perfect. With 44 Mags? it's probably the harshest recoiling handgun I've ever shot. I'm no wuss. I've shot a lot of stuff that other people have said "will cause carpal tunnel". Whateve...

 

[Dirty-30_lever]

I don't have a lot of reference for 44mag other then the 69 4" . That said , I expected it to be heavy, go bang really loud, and it does just that. The muzzle flash is a lot and the first few clicks always get a butt pucker. I wouldn't fathom a soft 44mag exists…so I'll live with the fact I bought a well made gun and it isn't a Taurus . Recoil is just life with a 44magnum …

 

[TTSX]

I don't have a lot of reference for 44mag other then the 69 4" . That said , I expected it to go bang, and it does just that. A wouldn't fathom a soft 44mag exists…so I'll live with the fact I bought a well made gun and it isn't a Taurus . Recoil is just life with a 44magnum …

Believe it or not, my Ruger super Redhawk 7.5" barrel .44 Magnum recoils about as hard as my model 19 Smith in .357 Magnum. But it's a lot of gun.

 

[OldBroad44]

Believe it or not, my Ruger super Redhawk 7.5" barrel .44 Magnum recoils about as hard as my model 19 Smith in .357 Magnum. But it's a lot of gun.

Sure. Thats believable. The .44 mag ammo is about twice as powerful as the .357 if you are shooting a mid-range .44 mag load of 1000 ft lbs such as a commercial bear load and a full .357 load of about 500 ft lbs. The .44 mag gun probably weighs a bit under twice.as much as the .357 gun. However, the barrels on the Super Red Hawks are so thick and heavy they are similar in balance to the underlugged barrels on 629s. Weight in the barrel is better at countering recoil than weight in the rest of the frame. So this means the Ruger will recoil less relative to the smith model 19 than would be expected if both guns had the same design. And your model 19 smith probably has a 6" or under barrel, probably 4" or under, making it recoil harder compared to the Ruger than if they both had 7.5" barrels. So sure. Its easy to see how your Ruger Super Redhawk shot with full .44magloads might give you a recoil of about the same as the model 19.