Jump to content
Practically Shooting

Smith & Wesson 69


BarryinIN

Recommended Posts

I'm not real sure why, but I've wanted one of the S&W 69s since they came out. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_827559_-1_757769_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

I like the .44 Spl and really enjoy shooting my .44 Spl Ruger BlackHawk.   A huge part of the appeal is that it is sized appropriately to the cartridge, IMO.   The 69 is similar sized, and may be an even slimmer gun, that gives DA and swing-out cylinder convenience plus the Magnum option.   That's been my reasoning for liking it anyway.  

 

I have tried not to look for them.  If I don't see one, I won't want one. That has worked pretty well, and I don't think I've seen them anywhere except at NRA shows.  I know my regular gunshop has not had any new ones in the case when I've been there. 

 

No new ones. 

 

Last week they had a used one.  I tried not to look, but I couldn't help but see it appeared not to have been used at all.   Keep moving.  Nothing to see here. 

I escaped. 

 

For that week.   

Today I told myself if it was still there, I'd take a closer look.  Nothing good stays there more than a few days, and they sure don't last through a weekend. 

 

There it was.  Calling out.   Saying "Ask for me".  

So I did. 

And I scratched that itch. 

Shooting report soon, I hope. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

HaHaHaHa!!!!  Just could not stop thinking about it... Kept rolling around in your mind day after day. Tried to think of other things but, well, the thought just kept coming back... Those  69 Revolvers are real, real nice. I have a passion for the S&W 586 Revolvers. First time I shot one and looked at the target I was amazed at the accuracy. And to top it off, I was using my uncles 38 Special reloads from probably the early 1950's. Trigger break is perfect, great guns. I look forward to your review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured if it stayed in this shop for a week, it was supposed to be mine.   Right???

It didn't help that I kept seeing "signs" all week after I saw it there. I ran across a box of .44 Magnum ammo in the garage one day, found a set of K/L round butt grips another.  Signs. 

 

Early opinion is good.  Although I have several, and have had several more, I haven't had a brand new S&W revolver in a long time.  Not only was it my first with mim parts and two-piece barrel, I realized I've never had one with a lock before!  That's been a while. 

 

The trigger is OK in SA, but perhaps my heaviest S&W in that regard.  Not that it's bad.  It just isn't as good as the others.  It isn't really a problem shooting.   The DA pull feels like a ton to me.  I don't care much for that.

 

I know, most people don't go around cranking off cylinders full of DA shots from of an medium frame .44 Magnum, so why should it matter?   It matters to me because I've always had a rather special job in mind for the 69 since I saw them.  I thought it would be a good gun for vacations where bears might be seen.  Load it with carry ammo normally, but use the cast 310 WFN or 320 grain SSK design bullets when slipping off into the woods hiking or camping.  And I see that as a DA job. Point, then shoot it empty.   With the DA trigger it has now, those spots will likely get pulled off to the left or right from hauling that heavy trigger back. 

 

The other negative, and one that has an effect every time I shoot it, is the front sight height.  I've read from the start that S&W was using a front sight that was too low to get it zeroed, and it looks like they haven't changed.  I have the rear sight bottomed out, and common 240 grain full power loads hit about 4" high.   My 265 cast, 300 XTP, and 320 cast are all incrementally higher, as is typical.    I had some 200 XTPs and they were closer, but still high.   By my calculations, a front sight around .025 taller would bring it into line with the 240s, and I think S&W has one that height.   I'd still be high with heavier bullets, so I'd want higher yet.  If the front sight was tall enough to out the rear sigt in the middle of the adj range, is be in a pretty good spot not only for my .44 Magnum loads, but for my .44 Special ammo too.  

 

I had expected to be using this gun mostly as a handy .44 Special that happened to handle Magnums, but its seen a lot more of the fire blasters so far. Everybody wants to shoot it. 

 

I'm not going to be one of those guys who sits here telling you it's "comfortable" to shoot, but the heavier bullets are "noticeable" or "get your attention".

Its a .44 Magnum.  It jars the p out of me.  I haven't had one that didn't.   Yeah, yeah, eat my wheaties, hold it right, blah, blah, blah.  Physics is physics.  If you try to catch a major leaguer's line drive from two feet away  bare-handed, its more than "noticeable".  

But as .44 Mags go, the 69 isn't so bad, and better than I expected.  I'll even say I'd rather shoot it than a large frame gun.   Yeah, I said it. There are enough different K/L frame grips to fit anyone.  The bore sits lower to the hand than on a bigger gun.   There is a lot of weight out front.  

 

I haven't done a lot accuracy testing since the first day.   Then, I mostly shot the .44 Special loads my Blackhawk likes.  The 69 likes them too, and came close to the Ruger groups, which is a pretty high bar.  With Magnums, it seems to like the Hornady 240 XTP, like...oh...every other .44 I've had. The 265 cast WFN I use a lot in .44s was a little better than mediocre,  but the big 320 TC shot really well.  

 

I don't know how the holster search will end.  The 69 has a 4.25" barrel (Canadian laws) rather than a 4", so there may be some compromising.  I also want a covered trigger (range rule at one place info, and IDPA and USPSA everywhere), so that further limits things.

 

I have speed loaders, though!  

I have a S&W 696; the sorta kinda forerunner in .44 Spl, and have some HKS CA44 loaders for it.   I just wish I knew where they were. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Opinion so far:

Naturally I had concerns about recoil from a medium frame .44 Magnum.  After shooting it a few times, I've decided this:

 

Recoil isn't enough different to matter.

 

I haven't shot a S&W 29 or 629 since getting this one, so I'm only going by memory, but I can't say it's THAT much different.   It delivers more recoil to be sure, but not as much more as I expected.  My theory is that after a certain point, differences in recoil are hard to tell apart, at least that small of a difference.  Jump to a .454 or .480, and it's another step and the difference is very noticeable.  

 

A .44 Mag is going to bounce around no matter what.  I can accept that easier when the gun is as much handier as this one.  I have thought about using this as a carry gun (with stout .44 Spl or 180-200 grain Mag ammo) but wouldn't begin to consider that with an N-frame.  The size difference is more than I can handle. And that size difference makes it much more useful to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...