|
|
Post by cas on Feb 4, 2017 23:50:31 GMT -5
Oooh that's bad. The fact that they were the same barrel length as my Mountain Gun was the excuse I've been using for not buying one. This could be trouble. So I handled one today. The size is great, oh boy. Im having a hard time warming up to the new production guns. I find them cold and rough, somehow as if they don't finish making them. This model was well fit and very tight. I think about the only way I could make it happen though would be to sell my 325PD. That wouldn't be a bad thing gun wise, it'd be replacing it's roll anyhow, though I have a slight sentimental attachment to the 325. |
|
|
|
Post by dougader on Feb 6, 2017 23:20:04 GMT -5
Any news on the 2-3/4" model yet?
I'm a certified (certifiable?) snubby hound...
|
|
|
|
Post by cas on Feb 7, 2017 19:37:43 GMT -5
S&W has one on display at the Great American Outdoor show, so they should be coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Feb 7, 2017 21:48:03 GMT -5
Just back, from the basement forbidden zone(loading bench and surrounding territory)and the long seated 300gr XTP's are definitely a no-go. Not that verification by me was needed, but I have some seated thus left from a RH project years ago, so.. Next try, again since on hand, 305gr LFN's from the folks at Buffalo Bore. While short of flush, I'm gonna pass. If I want to shoot heavys think I'll stick to WFN's with their shorter noses. Enjoy. What Handloader issue had the review on the M69? |
|
|
|
Post by paul105 on Feb 7, 2017 23:27:34 GMT -5
Handloader Mag Dec 2014 (#293)
|
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Jan 28, 2022 23:09:00 GMT -5
Bump
|
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Jan 29, 2022 6:02:07 GMT -5
Thank Greg...
Lot of information in that thread, including my tight cylinder throats problem.
Will get the cylinder shipped off for correction.
Thanks...
|
|
|
|
Post by paul105 on Feb 8, 2022 9:22:45 GMT -5
test  |
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Feb 8, 2022 9:33:03 GMT -5
Anybody know how the 4” M69 compares to a 629 mountain gun weightwise?
|
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Feb 8, 2022 9:36:48 GMT -5
Anybody know how the 4” M69 compares to a 629 mountain gun weightwise? My 69 in 44 Magnum weighs 34 Oz if that helps... |
|
|
|
Post by cddogfan1 on Feb 8, 2022 13:29:02 GMT -5
Anybody know how the 4” M69 compares to a 629 mountain gun weightwise? Look at the first page of this thread. All the specs compared. |
|
|
|
Post by paul105 on Feb 8, 2022 14:34:05 GMT -5
Anybody know how the 4” M69 compares to a 629 mountain gun weightwise? The 4 1/4" is 37 oz. The 2.75" M69 is 35 oz as mentioned above. Here's a comparison of the 4 1/4" M69 to the 4" 629 Mtn Gun 629 Mtn Gun weighs 39 oz M69 L Frame weighs 37 oz 629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Diameter: 1.70” M69 L Frame Cylinder Diameter: 1.56” 629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Length: 1.705” M69 L Frame Cylinder Length: 1.670” (Note: The M69 cylinder is 1.670 inches and isn't recessed for cartridge rims -- a 1.712" hand load fits, but is right at the face of the cylinder. Lymans No 49 edition shows OAL w their 425421 Keith Bullet is 1.710". A .429 minus plug gauge will enter all throats a .430 plug will not.) 629 Mtn Gun Frame Window - Height: 1.735“ M69 L Frame - Frame Window Height: 1.600“ 629 Mtn Gun Frame Window – Width: 1.880“ M69 L Frame - Frame Window Width: 1.820“ 629 Mtn Gun Cylinder Wall at Narrowest Point: .095” -- (.0900” between chambers) M69 L Frame Cylinder Wall at Narrowest Point: .060 “ -- ( .130 “ between chambers) (629 Cyl Bolt Cuts are over the chamber while M69 bolt cuts are between chambers) 629 Mtn Gun Frame Top Strap – Width: .665“ M69 L Frame - Frame Top Strap Width: .665“ 629 Mtn Gun Frame Top Strap – Height: .220“ to top of frame (includes sight mortiss) M69 L Frame - Frame Top Strap Height: .210“ to top of frame (includes sight mortiss) 629 Mtn Gun Barrel Shank OD: .630“ M69 L Frame - Barrel Shank OD: .620“ 629 Mtn Gun Frame Over Barrel OD: .900“ M69 L Frame - Frame Over Barrel OD: .880“ 629 Mtn Gun Trigger Reach: 3.10“ (same grips for both 629 & M69) M69 L Frame - Trigger Reach: 3.00 “ Brian Pearce -- Bolt notches weakest point - M69 thicker than M629 at this location |
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Feb 8, 2022 17:42:49 GMT -5
I should practice what I preach...
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by pjb2643 on Feb 14, 2022 22:09:03 GMT -5
I just received a brand new Model 69 2 3/4” today, a GunBroker find. Initially I got it for about $100 under MSRP but the fees, taxes, and shipping drove the price up by $150+ to bring it in at over $950.
I wish I could say I’m pleased with what I received but I’m not. The pistol looks good, I like the short barrel and overall size for a “farm” working gun, but the action should have never left the factory. I cut my teeth on S&W duty revolvers starting back in the late 70’s and shot PPC competition back when 50 yards was still one of the stages. Like most I learned to pull the trigger thru to cylinder lock up and hold there for final sign alignment, quickly, so I still appreciate a really good S&W trigger. The action in the Model 69 I received is mediocre, at best. I found the trigger to stack up as follows: one chamber feels like the trigger pull has a definite shelf after lockup, then a good one, and then a “surprise” one where you don’t really get a warning that it’s pulling on through, and finally a couple of decent ones again. I’m going to dry fire the crap out of it to see if it settles in but I suspect it’s going to have to go back to S&W. Another thing I noticed, it has the shallowest rifling I’ve ever seen in a pistol. I suspect it will shoot jacketed bullets ok but I’m thinking it will not like lead bullets very well. Time will tell. It’s just discouraging to spend almost “A Grand” for an common out-of-the box pistol and find that poor a trigger. That’s probably my punishment for “cheating” on my Single Action Rugers & BFR.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Feb 15, 2022 9:03:48 GMT -5
I just received a brand new Model 69 2 3/4” today, a GunBroker find. Initially I got it for about $100 under MSRP but the fees, taxes, and shipping drove the price up by $150+ to bring it in at over $950. I wish I could say I’m pleased with what I received but I’m not. The pistol looks good, I like the short barrel and overall size for a “farm” working gun, but the action should have never left the factory. I cut my teeth on S&W duty revolvers starting back in the late 70’s and shot PPC competition back when 50 yards was still one of the stages. Like most I learned to pull the trigger thru to cylinder lock up and hold there for final sign alignment, quickly, so I still appreciate a really good S&W trigger. The action in the Model 69 I received is mediocre, at best. I found the trigger to stack up as follows: one chamber feels like the trigger pull has a definite shelf after lockup, then a good one, and then a “surprise” one where you don’t really get a warning that it’s pulling on through, and finally a couple of decent ones again. I’m going to dry fire the crap out of it to see if it settles in but I suspect it’s going to have to go back to S&W. Another thing I noticed, it has the shallowest rifling I’ve ever seen in a pistol. I suspect it will shoot jacketed bullets ok but I’m thinking it will not like lead bullets very well. Time will tell. It’s just discouraging to spend almost “A Grand” for an common out-of-the box pistol and find that poor a trigger. That’s probably my punishment for “cheating” on my Single Action Rugers & BFR. ***** Appreciate your impression----despite your disappointment. Stainless Smiths crave lubrication, moreso than a blued model. Experience in PPC positions you to read the COORDINATIONS of double action fire. Classic double actions----Colt and S&W----stretch back a century and I suspect have never outgrown their need for HAND FITTING. Manufacturer reps and gun writers fell over themselves in the 1980’s extolling the virtue of Computer Numeric Controlled machining to eliminate the need for human skill. To succeed, practice must equal ideal. This has not happened, as you feel in the trigger. Lube should help, but it doesn’t replace a perfectly symmetrical cylinder ratchet, or other instruments in this orchestra. The object of streamlined production is to eliminate TUNING, to have parts fall off machines into frame in time to box and ship a perfectly running revolver. I am told Colt almost succeeded with the MK V .357; can’t say, as I haven't shot that double action. Parts still have to be made right, and assembled right, to be a SHOOTER. The less perfect a part or parts, the more talent it requires to fix. Should you need to speak with S&W service, experience from the firing line is a good thing. The M-69 is a lucrative member of the S&W catalog. In my shooting, a Model 69 cannot supplant marksmanship handled by the Model 29 4-inch (or 629). David Bradshaw |
|
