Hobie
.30 Stingray
Posts: 206
|
Post by Hobie on Jan 3, 2010 19:57:36 GMT -5
I've not had my 696 for very long but have fired some of the Skelton load through it. Check dimensions on chamber mouth and forcing cone. I had a bit of leading where there was none in the two Lipsey's .44 FTs. The Speer 200 g. Gold Dot load seems to be a winner. I too was warned away from the more energetic loads due to that forcing cone's thinness. As to a holster, any that work with the 3" 586/686 will work. I am looking at a T3P/120 myself though a pancake would be wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by serialsolver on Jan 4, 2010 8:05:52 GMT -5
I have a threepersons style holster, a pancake style and inside the waste holster for the 696. If you are concerned about “flop” a good quality holster with a good quality belt that is made to carry the weight of the gun is a must. The width of the belt and holster loops must also match. I think the pancake style is the most stable type outside the waste holster and holds the gun closer to you. My favorite is an inside the waste ban holster.
|
|
|
Post by Lee Martin on Jan 4, 2010 10:11:45 GMT -5
Lee, I'm not familiar with GD, what sort of numbers do you get? Chris Never chrono'd it, but 6.0 of Green Dot under a 250 grain Keith should be around 700 - 750 fps from a 3" barrel. -Lee www.singleactions.com
|
|
sonny
.240 Incinerator
Posts: 13
|
Post by sonny on Jan 4, 2010 22:04:56 GMT -5
These are my loads. They worked well in my gun. I have more work to do with several of these powders which look promising. I realize that a number of these loads DO exceed standard SAAMI pressure standards. If you find any of these uncomfortable for you in any way, do NOT use them in your gun. There are well-meaning folks, on all forums, who see it their just cause to criticize those who would dare to step outside of the bounds of SAAMI. Elmer would laugh. Several of my good friends stay within SAAMI at all times, and disagree with my experimentation. This is fine; there's nothing wrong with promoting safety. I would be inclined to say that "experimenters" are well-advised to work up their loads slowly, carefully, using measurement and visual clues, discretion and prior knowledge. The 696 is a rare bird. Born and conceived by Smith, this L-frame was built with strong chambers, upon which has been previous detailed and interesting discussion in my earlier thread on the "factory" forum. And, no, the forcing cone hasn’t cracked yet, although, if it does, I will report it promptly. One interesting article comes to us in the HANDLOADER article on the .44 Special, #236, August 2005, where the prominent author and experimenter, Brian Pearce, classified various revolver makes and models into three separate categories with their own pressure limitations. And then, Mr. Pearce developed and listed specific and numerous recipe data within each group. In his defense of the Smith L-frame five-shot cylinder, he relates that “the factory conducted some rather strenuous torture tests wherein the Model 696 easily endured pressures well beyond anything we will present here.” The “Categories” were 15,500 psi or less, 22,000 psi or less, and finally “Category Three” at 25,000 psi or less. Category Three is, of course, where Brian Pearce specifically included the Model 696. Wolfe Publishing Company has these older issues in stock for those of you who might be interested in the entire article.
Smith model 696 (3” barrel) Cast-bullet loads Use at your own risk. (December 2009) 253 grain hard-cast, Keith design Several loads below are well above SAAMI pressure levels. Powder grains avg veloc Veloc Spread MAD Recoil (fps) (low to high) (perceived)
Alliant 2400 12 gr 844 fps 799-888 2.6% 6.0 13 923 905-938 0.82% 7.0 14 957 945-975 1.02% 8.2 15 1021 1008-1040 0.84% 8.6 16 1055 1034-1065 0.82% 8.7
Unique 7.5 938 914-945 1.00% 7.0 7.8 949 936-962 0.88% 7.0 8.0 960 945-976 0.81% 7.5 8.5 993 983-1019 1.00% 7.5
HS-6 7.7 731 704-755 2.63% 6.0 8.4 781 777-787 0.35% 6.0
H-4227 17 1002 962-1049 2.67% 8.0
Power Pistol 9.0 1007 984-1023 0.95% 8.0
W-231 6.0 809 794-827 1.66% 7.0
MAD = Mean Absolute Deviation. WLP primers used for all loads. 253 grain hard-cast, Keith design, used in all loads. Leadheads Bullets, Kansas. All cases new Hornady or new Starline. Five cartridges used with each new loading. Tested velocity difference between case manufacturers was less than 2.5%. Powder charges weighed: desired weight, +0.1/-0.1 grain. Some loads based on the .44 Special article by Brian Pearce, in Handloader magazine #236, August 2005, by Wolfe Pub. Co. Perceived Recoil: 6-7.90 = mild, actually pleasant, 8-8.90 begins to feel heavy 9.0-9.9: heavy, unpleasant recoil 10+: severe recoil Always easily extracted five cases with one palm-push on extractor rod. Barrel leading was insignificant. No primer flattening noted. Case expansion not measured. These loads seem to be safe in my gun; they may NOT be in yours. I enjoy shooting (target) where my perceived recoil is in the "7" range. Anything lighter feels like a .22 and when you exceed "8", the recoil starts to feel heavy and uncomfortable and therefore not fun for me. Your results may vary. Have fun...stay safe. Do what YOU think is correct. Sonny
|
|
sonny
.240 Incinerator
Posts: 13
|
Post by sonny on Jan 4, 2010 22:32:34 GMT -5
I've not had my 696 I too was warned away from the more energetic loads due to that forcing cone's thinness. Sir, I know you have previously spoken as to the fragility of the 696 forcing cone. Brian Pearce, and the manufacturer's destructive testing of the 696, did not show any evidence of this, even at pressures far exceeding 25,000 psi. Careful measurement of the 696's forcing cone shows that it is the same thickness as the forcing cone of the 640-1 .357 mag, which is SAAMI'd at 35,000 psi , over twice the pressure-rating (15,500) of the .44 Special. Based on these points, I would respectfully disagree. It would be interesting to have an idea of the source of your information regarding the forcing cone. And, to forestall the inevitable statement from other readers,.... yes, I already have a few .44 Mags, Freedom Arms, 5-shot .45's, .500 Linebaugh, etc. No flames intended; I respect your opinion. Just seeking the real potential of that gun. Sonny
|
|
mtnbkr
.30 Stingray
Posts: 294
|
Post by mtnbkr on Jan 5, 2010 7:57:06 GMT -5
I have no doubt the cylinder is strong enough, nor do I doubt the FC will handle multiple shots of high pressure 44spec. However, I am not convinced it will withstand a significant amount of those loads. Unfortunately, the few reports of cracked FCs I've seen do not include the loads used or the number of shots fired before the FC cracked. For all I know, they were cracked by hundreds of Keith loads rather than warm (S. Skelton level) 44spec loads.
I don't have a j-frame 357mag, but the FC on the 696 is no thinner than the FC on my m37 38spec. Nobody has problems with j-frame 38 FC cracks, but few people run "keith" loads through them either.
Chris
|
|
Hobie
.30 Stingray
Posts: 206
|
Post by Hobie on Jan 5, 2010 8:37:39 GMT -5
I've not had my 696 I too was warned away from the more energetic loads due to that forcing cone's thinness. Sir, I know you have previously spoken as to the fragility of the 696 forcing cone. Brian Pearce, and the manufacturer's destructive testing of the 696, did not show any evidence of this, even at pressures far exceeding 25,000 psi. Careful measurement of the 696's forcing cone shows that it is the same thickness as the forcing cone of the 640-1 .357 mag, which is SAAMI'd at 35,000 psi , over twice the pressure-rating (15,500) of the .44 Special. Based on these points, I would respectfully disagree. It would be interesting to have an idea of the source of your information regarding the forcing cone. And, to forestall the inevitable statement from other readers,.... yes, I already have a few .44 Mags, Freedom Arms, 5-shot .45's, .500 Linebaugh, etc. No flames intended; I respect your opinion. Just seeking the real potential of that gun. Sonny Sonny, If you would, please note that I am repeating what other more experienced shooters have told me by saying "was warned away" rather than saying "in my experience" or some such. The source of my information includes several of the more experienced shooters here on this forum. I also noted that I fired the 7.5 gr. Unique "Skeeter Skelton" load without ill affects aside from leading probably due to ill-fitting bullets. I think that a certain amount of caution is acceptable. In my "old age" I've discovered that learning from the mistakes of others is cheaper than doing it all on my own. www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=28Some folks have indeed said that they used Skeeter's load without issue. They might have worried or might not have worried about the forcing cone.
|
|
|
Post by serialsolver on Jan 5, 2010 9:19:35 GMT -5
Sonny, Thanks for the information. I have heard about Mr. Pearce’s article in Handloader but have not read it (would very much like to).
|
|
|
Post by brionic on Jan 5, 2010 11:01:34 GMT -5
Thanks Sonny. Good info.
|
|
sonny
.240 Incinerator
Posts: 13
|
Post by sonny on Jan 6, 2010 12:27:11 GMT -5
Hobie, thanks for that article by Mr. Fryxell. He is a conservative person and I respect his viewpoint. He does say, however, that "the 200-230 grain flat-pointed bullets at about 950 fps are an excellent fit for the dainty little S&W 696, and make dandy field loads." I am not trying to push my 696 very much faster than that, although I am using 255 grain bullets. I would not, however, call my gun "dainty" as he did. Nasty little word...dainty! Sonny
|
|
|
Post by boxhead on Jan 6, 2010 20:56:08 GMT -5
I recall seeing more on the forcing cone issues some time back on the S&W forum, with photos. Also, do note the rather insignificant velocity increases as charges, hence pressure, goes up.
|
|