The S&W 69 vs. the S&W 329PD ?

[bulasteve]

I see these as greatly different methods of approaching the same goal. Wanted is a lightweight .44magnum. One pursues this by going to a smaller frame and the 5-shot route. The other stays with the frame size we are used to seeing for a .44mag, then applies space age metals/alloys. What uses do you see for these handguns ? How would you pick one of them over the other ? A few months ago I shot with friends and amongst the arrayed arsenal was a 4" 629 and a Mtn gun version, also my Bulldog and Vaq Sheriiff. Mine being .44spec's. After passing things around, I got to wondering about thses other S&W offerings in .44. I'm not sure how they are for availability or how they compare by cost. I can look up weight. Your thoughts ?   steve

[bigbores]

I have a 329 but want to try a M69, seems to me S&W learned from and applied both cost cutting and improving (strength wise) there new M69 from there ultra strong x-frames.
Don't like the new MIM parts.
If I didn't have my 329 I would have already bought the M69 because of the lower cost and smaller size.
I think I will sit on the side line and watch how the M69 holds up, I am hopeful it will prove to be stronger then the older N frames and if so I will sell my 329 and pick one up... time will tell.

If on the other hand the M69 comes out in 45Colt I will simply order one ASAP.

[rkrcpa]

The M69 seems like an improved 696 albeit in 44 mag rather than 44sp. I can't imagine my 696 with full magnum loads. But, if they would introduce a five shot 41 magnum, now that would be something worth having.

[gw425]

I bought my 329pd for bear medicine while elk hunting. It is the ultimate hiking gun. I carry mine in a Diamond D chest holster and I'm fairly sure the holster weighs more than the gun. It has it's drawbacks. I don't care for the sights, it has stout recoil with almost any load--altho I'm not really recoil shy, and it's a bit fragile. Mine needs a new blast shield and the cylinder release screw has fallen out 3 times now. But, if your number 1 objective is a potent, lightweight revolver, it doesn't get any better.

Greg

[2 Dogs]

Well, to me, if I solely wanted to tote carnivore repellant, I would choose the 329. Dont get me wrong, with full on mags it REALLY sucks to shoot. That said, why would I give up that 6th shot if something was bent on biting me???

[paul105]

I have both guns. Actually, I’ve had three 329s (still have 2) and I currently own 2 M69s.

The 329 was my primary carry gun (all day every day) for 7 or so years. It’s also my backup when bow hunting elk in MT. The 329 is 11 or 12 oz (about 3/4 of a pound) lighter than the m69. This makes carrying it a joy, but creates some other problems – namely shootability and durability.

The 329 is a great trail gun for up close and personal application where .44 mag power is needed. The very things than make it a great trail gun (light weight and v-notch rear/fiber optic front) along with fast/snappy recoil, make it more difficult to shoot accurately.

If shot a lot with .44 Mags (240/250gr w/18.0 A2400 and up), the 329 will require more frequent trips to S&W for repairs – don’t know about durability w/standard/moderate .44 special loads. S&W will repair under warranty and pickup shipping costs both ways. I shot around 9,000 rounds of mostly 240/250gr w/18.0gr A2400 (and some upper level .44 Mags) thru three 329s – those guns went back to S&W six or more times for various problems.

With all that said, I wouldn’t be without a 329.



I've had my M69s for about a year. One has 3,800 rnds (40% moderate .44 mags) and the other 1,500 (predominantly .44 moderate .44 mag). I haven't had any problems with either gun and both are as tight as when new.

I alternate carrying the M69 and the 329 – if I’m just walking the dogs, it’s likely the 329. If I’m woods wandering where gophers and such are likely targets, the m69 gets the nod. The M69 is much easier (and friendlier) to shoot well. I basically use two loads, both deep seated and crimped over the front drive band. One is a 240gr commercial cast bb swc over 6.7gr HP38 (880 fps from 4 ¼”) and the other is the Lyman Thompson 265gr SWCGC over 17.5gr A2400 (1,140 fps from 4 ¼”)

I like both models and use them a lot – the 329 mostly for carrying and the M69 for shooting..

Paul

[Thunderjet]

I've owned both and came to the conclusion the 69 is a better overall revolver. Your opinion may be different but freedom of choice is always a good thing.

[450ak]

I would worry that the 329 would fail me when I need it. Would love a model 69 just not sure the base of my thumb can take it. Like to be able to shot one before buying.

[450ak]

I would worry that the 329 would fail me when I need it. Would love a model 69 just not sure the base of my thumb can take it. Like to be able to shot one before buying.

[ezekiel38]

I just bought my 2nd 69 and put a set of Altamont grips on it. My first 69 has a set of Hogue RB grips and they both shoot well.

[Frank V]

For me it'd be the 329 PD for the light weight & for a field gun, I'd disable the sorry lock.

[nolongcolt]

I handled a 69 in the LGS one day and the cylinder walls looked mighty thin to me. But I cannot compare them to anything else as I don't own one.

[paul105]

Jun 12, 2015 0:03:11 GMT -5 nolongcolt said:

I handled a 69 in the LGS one day and the cylinder walls looked mighty thin to me. But I cannot compare them to anything else as I don't own one.

Brian Pearce, Handloader Magazine did an extensive test on M69. From his writeup:

Article addressed strength & durability w/long term use of .44 Mag level ammo – shot over 2,700 round while testing and discussed engineering features.

S&W Reengineered yoke to place enough supporting steel surrounding bbl threads to handle Magnum pressures and allow increased barrel shank diameter.

Due to location of bolt notches (chamber wall thickness at weakest point is .040” in 629 vs. .052 in M69) cylinder strength is more than adequate to handle .44 Mag pressures. Ball detent lockup is a plus and “aids chamber alignment and durability”.

All endurance package features previously/currently incorporated in 29/629s have been included in M69.

Brian quotes S&W “the L=frame has a strong durable frame and barrel built for continuous Magnum useage”. Further, S&W engineers subjected the M69 to endurance testing with full power .44 Mag ammo and passed with ease.

FWIW,

Paul

[nolongcolt]

Thanks for the info Paul!

[ezekiel38]

Shot my newer 69 today with the Altamont round to square grips that mimic the old Smith target models. Rounds made up that were in the 1K fps category was ok for recoil and excellent accuracy. Any rounds over 1100fps smacked the base of my thumb and reminded me that 70 yoa, is fast approaching.

Fugly but a Hogue round Butt rubber grip will go on this 69 also as this grip protects the bones at the base of my thumb. Want to shoot some 240LSWCs with 7.0 Unique for an accurate plinking load.

Excuse, I'm old and I want to wear both of these guns out. My brother who is 87 shot the 69 with 44 Mag loads and shot 5 rounds into 2.6"s at 12 yds. First time he ever shot a 44 handgun of any type. He didn't start shooting until 5 years ago when I gave him a 586 and a boatload of 38s.