Range Report 2.75 inch S&W m69 44 magnum

[mesinge2]

I finally got the 2 3/4 inch L frame model 69 44 magnum. Probably the smallest production all steel five shot 44 magnum you can get

New grips and the second gun is even more rare. It’s a 2 inch 44 Special S&W 269 with a scandium frame and titanium cylinder. I carry the model 69 on my hip and the 269 in my pocket.

The first cylinder is 240 grain Underwood ammo and the brass of every cartridge overexpanded making extraction difficult. The next two cylinder loads were Buffalo Bore Deer Grenades and were flawless as usual. Even though it has very stout recoil I was able to shoot quite rapidly.


VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBFpjbExqCI

 

[mesinge2]

Two pictures it wouldn't let me post above and some images from the high speed camera:

 

[Oldschool shooter]

Nice revolvers! That's a lot of wallup in a small package.

 

[Targa]

Nice guns! Full power .44mag sure lets the palm of your hand know it out of a m69.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Agreed, nice guns. That bodyguard-ish .44 looks particularly interesting!

However, um, ouch! And here I thought the 4" Charter Target Bulldog was a beast!

 

[JeffG]

Good report, great guns!

 

[Mark_Mark]

how the recoil with .44 nags?

 

[mesinge2]

It is a stout recoil but I am used to heavy magnums. You can get a idea of the recoil from the video I posted above.

 

[shoebox1.1]

The magnas with Tyler T really make the black moving bits much more appeasing to the eye. Makes me want one and do a black cerakote finish with faux ivories

 

[W.E.G.]

Great gooogly-mooogly!

 

[Big_Al]

I like the 44 special in a pistol that size. Don't see many of them around.

 

[Barmcd]

Now I remember why I quit shooting big cartridges in short barrel guns! Congratulations on the new gun!

 

[UncleEd]

A short barrel may actually lessen recoil a bit because
a lot of energy and recoil impulse can be lost. But the blast
tends to be more severe than from a longer barrel such as 6 inches.

Whether the shooter notices the lesser recoil is another matter.
I expect in a light weight model this would be particularly true.

 

[dickydalton]

I put this Compac grip on mine. It's thick and makes the recoil acceptable.

 

[PapaG]

Glad you have them. I had a 4" 29 years ago. It was s handful.

 

[sparkyv]

That's pretty impressive fast double action shooting with that bucking Pug, mesinge2!

Great gooogly-mooogly!

 

[JeffG]

I love my 3 3/4" Ruger Vaquero. There is always enough light from the muzzle blast for a second shot.

44 Vaquero

Stiff handload from a .44 Magnum, 3 3/4 inch barrel Vaquero.

www.youtube.com

 

[cfullgraf]

I have a 3" Lew Hortson S&W Model 624 (44 Special) that I really do not care to shoot much. Not that I can't, I just do not like it due to the recoil. Ditto with my 2-3/4" Model 69 although I load 44 Special level loads in 44 Magnum cases.

I've aged enough where wrist snapping recoil is not a necessary thing for me anymore. But different strokes for different folks.

My 4" and 6" Model 624's are much more comfortable to shoot.

I did not know that S&W made a shrouded hammer 44 Special revolver, I'm guessing it is a Model 696?

 

[mesinge2]

Thanks, sparkyv. I've been shooting DA revolvers since about 7 years old when my pop started me off with his S&W m19 snubbie. He always taught me to practice in DA as during self-defense you won't have time to cock the hammer. I still have the m19 to this day and I shoot it on occasion. He passed about 3 years ago and it feels like a connection to him.


Actually cfullgraf, it is a model 296 and wasn't made for very long due to the heavy perceived recoil. They are harder to find today but I love this little thumper.

 

[paul105]

A short barrel may actually lessen recoil a bit because
a lot of energy and recoil impulse can be lost. But the blast
tends to be more severe than from a longer barrel such as 6 inches.

Whether the shooter notices the lesser recoil is another matter.
I expect in a light weight model this would be particularly true.

I have both barrel lengths of the M69. I find the recoil to be less with the 2.75" gun (probably due to reduced muzzle velocity of 50-100 fps. Have shot both a bunch with heavier loads.

Some actual chrono data that might be of interest.
.

Buffalo Bore, 305 LBT LFN HC rated 1,325 fps

Underwood, 305 LFNGC Plated (HiTech?) rated 1,325 fps

LabRadar muzzle velocity at 33 deg F

S&W M69 2.75" ===> BB 1,195 fps ===> Under 1,147fps

S&W M69 4.25" ===> BB 1,276 fps ===> Under 1,248 fps

Ruger SRH 7.5" ===> BB 1,395 fps ===> Under 1,315 fps

Also find M69 recoil to be slightly less than M629 of equal barrel length - lower bore axis maybe.

 

[mesinge2]

Paul105, The bore access might be why I could shoot this m69 faster than my m629 snubby.

 

[paul105]

I was asked about the recoil of my 4 1/4" gun when I first got it in 2014. I took a 4" 329 Ti/Sc, a 4" 629 Mtn Gun, and the 4" M69" to the range. Firing 240gr Federal Factory JHPs (chronoed almost 1,400 fps from a 7 1/2" SBH) my comment at the time was the 329 is "snappier", the 629 Mtn Gun has more muzzle flip (probably due to lower bore axis). Subsequently Brian Pearce wrote an article on the M69 and said recoil/muzle flip was less than 629 which he attributed to lower bore axis.

FWIW,

Paul

 

[mesinge2]

Thanks, I'm gonna look for that article

 

[paul105]

Per Brian Pearce

Handloader Magazine Dec 2014 -- No. 293

 

[Jcon72]

Wow, those stags are amazing! Are they vintage?