Has anyone got there hands on one yet? I haven't been able to find much info other than the initial shot show stuff. looks like a good pack gun

Interesting, I'd like to get my hands on one. At 37oz. it's at least 10oz. lighter than a 29. 5 shot 4.25" barrel. List is $400 cheaper than a 29! Now I really want to get my hands on one.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/..._757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

I can't see the bother given an N-Frame Mountain Gun is within a few ounces and holds one more. Oh, and is keyless... Silly azz marketing IMO.

EdM

+1


Except I don't have one. The only reason.

I like the number "69" also.

I do prefer L-frames to N-frames so I do like the concept. But as far as backpacking, I would still consider it too heavy to carry.



Travis

If they'd lop an inch and a half off the barrel they'd be on to something.

If they added two inches to the 396 NightGuard, they'd really be onto something.



Travis

For backpacking I would just get a 329pd and be done with it. 6 shots, 4" barrel, lighter than...well...most anything else by a substantial margin. Then again, I like N-frames.

Another 329PD fan here. I hate shootin' the SOB, but I didn't buy it to replace my Ruger, I bought it for backpacking.

For hunting, I wish I'd picked up the 6" version of the 329. The gun, mounts, and a Leupold 2x totaled up less weight than my most comfortable Ruger weighs bare. Woulda been a SWEET backpack hunting rig. I snoozed, I losed. Or something like that.

from the S&W ln-line catalog ( http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/..._757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y ), it weighs 37.2 oz. OUCH!!!

I had an early Ruger Blackhawk with an aluminum grip that was also very light weight. The web between my thumb and index finger would bleed by the 4th shot.

I guess you're not familiar with the 329PD. If you think that model 69 at 37.2 ounces is ouch, try a 329PD, also a .44 magnum, at 26.5.

Gotta keep things in perspective.

Tom

I wonder how the thin part of the forcing cone will hold up.
Bill

I'd want one for moderate .44spcl loads. Would work for snakes, armadillos, and hogs. May have to check one out. Round butt?

Not sure which one you're talking about. 69 vs 329.

I've heard the 329s need some work at about 1000 rounds. I'll never get there. My 329PD is not a plinker. It's job is to ride in a holster without notice and kill stuff that wants to bite or claw me.

I did not work up a load, I used what I already had. I sighted it in and put it away. Sighting it in HURT. Now I fire it 4-6 shells a year and never more than 2 in a sitting. I just make sure it does indeed go boom and the bullets hit to point of aim.

My hands don't go well with S&W grip shape anyway and with the light weight of the 329PD, it hurts. (Or is that hurtz? Anyway's it's no effin' fun.) I have a couple Ruger .44s to shoot if I just want to shoot up some .44 ammo.

Tom

Tom,

Have you tried X-frame grips on yours? They help. A lot.



Travis

If it's 37.5 ozs., it's 5.5 ozs. lighter than my M29 w/ a four inch barrel. E

The 696, 44 special, has a reputation for craking the forcing cone because they are so thin at the cylinder gap.
Bill

That tends to happen more to dumbasses who think sticking 18 grains of 2400 under a 250 Keith is a good idea.

I've had a -1 model since 99, I've sent a few thousand 250 Keiths through it over the years. Either over 14 grains of 2400 or 10.5 grains of Blue Dot. Both are right in the 1000 FPS neighborhood, and all the hotter you'd want to shoot in a gun that size.

I also notice that the 69 has a longer cylinder and shorter forcing cone than the 696.


Now if S&W would make that same gun in a 41 mag, I'd already have one pre-ordered.

No, I haven't tried that. I've heard good things about 'em soaking up recoil. Real deal, huh?

Truth o' the matter is, once I got it sighted in with the rubber grips I went back to the wood ones for carry. Seems like it carries better.

One trick I've learned about shooting it ... fire one shot, then put it down for 3-5 minutes, repeat as needed. The cumulative effect of recoil, for the same number of shots, seems a lot less 5 minutes apart rather than 3 seconds apart.

The other thing, for any handgun with recoil, is never to shoot them at the range when my hands are stiff and cold. Wait for 80+ degree weather. Hurts a lot less.

Geez, just thinkin' about that gun has me going through backpacking withdrawals.

Tom

The X-Frame grip makes a huge difference.

Yeah, they help.

And I agree, ready for the trails this summer.



Travis

Don't get me wrong... I like Smith revolvers but my Glock Model 20 in 10mm seems waaaaaay more practical in this situation than any revolver made.... 14 down and one up is kinda comforting if push comes to shove...

It doesn't weigh much either unless you count the weight of the ammo... LOL

G20 is 15+1, and I agree I use it much more than even my 329.

This is a backpacking forum...if it ain't light,it ain't right.
37oz? screw that.
Grab a 396 Mountain Ti or the like and move on...mine is 18 oz. and actually shoots excellent.
There are several other choices...

I've been looking for a 396 for a long time.


I settled on a 325PD with Buffalo Bore +P AR loads with the 255 hard casts.

I do have a 696, but now it's a vintage collectors item and I'm afraid to abuse it like I used too.

Having worked for much of my life with clients, family and friends in areas of dangerous game. Alaska and Africa primarily. I choose a revolver for one basic reason. I'm not dismissing those who choose a semi auto. But at least understand there is a very good reason for a revolver.

Even folks who do not know much about guns can pick up a revolver and squeeze the trigger on a revolver. Granted, semi autos can also be cocked and ready to go, but with a safety that delay or confusion for a non gun toting person is bad.

I've also noticed on more then a few occasions, those unfamiliar with a semi autos have squeezed the trigger unintentionally when lowering the gun or shooting it. not realizing they were squeezing it hard enough to fire.

I guess simply put, a semi auto is great for the experienced person using it. It's less functional and far less safe for the novice that has to shoot it in an emergency.

There can be a lot of safety and mechanical limitations for a novice with a semi auto. Not so much with a revolver. I'm not always 100% certain the gun would be at only my finger tips. Another person in the group could possibly have to use it too.

The 69 is without a doubt, a handgun aficionodo's choice. A backpacker it ain't.

Major kudos to Smith making it though. I mean schist, they called it the 69. That alone makes it worth owning.



Travis

Exactly. The Glock is 1/2 lb lighter and almost 2" shorter. 44 mag numbers look good from 8" test barrels, but real numbers from 4" or shorter barrels just ain't that impressive nor that much better than the best 10mm loads from 4-5" barrels.

+1

No, exactly NOT. You do not have your facts straight. Glock 29 10mm lists at 27.1 ounces. S&W 329PD lists at 26.7 ounces.

Loads ... my .44 load pushes a 250 grain SWC at over 1250 fps. Faster. Larger diameter. Heavier. And I didn't have to buy an aftermarket barrel with a supported chamber to do it. Each factor favors the .44, taken together, they overwhelmingly favor the .44.

Tom