Skeeter .44 Special Load Safe in an S&W 696?

[Gray Fox]

I have one of the Lew Horton 696s that came with Magna-Porting. The gun is in very good condition. I know about the forcing cone being thin on these guns and wonder if moderate use (couple hundred rounds a year) of the the Skeeter load of 7.5 grains of Unique under a 429421 is a safe load for the gun? Thanks in advance, GF

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Yes. The 5 shot cylinder places the stop notches between the chambers instead of at the middle of the chambers such as a 6 shot cylinder. More steel, more strength.

I called Smith & Wesson when they introduced the Model 69 L frame .44 magnum and told them the M69 was a bad idea because the L frame barrel won’t provide enough metal at the forcing cone. I told them they’ll have cracks at the forcing cone on the M69. The tech told me they had M69’s with 10,000 .44 magnum rounds through them, and they have not seen a cracked forcing cone.

[rking22]

The M69 barrel is a 2 piece affair like the 500s, nothing like the barrels on M696s. The barrel extension is much thicker, by design, on the 69. That said the M696 I have has shot quite a lot of Skeeter loads without incident. I bought it the year they came out, there was a ported one in the case, wish I had bought it too!

In an early Handloader article Brian Pierce stated S&W gave the OK for up to 25k PSI in a M696, that has been retracted in a more recent article. Now it is stated to stay at standard pressure. Personally I feel the truth of the situation is between those extremes. If the specific M696 is in time and shooting a standard weight bullet it’s probably “ok” to run 18,000psi. That opinion is worth every penny you paid.

I still shoot Skeeter loads in mine on occasion, but have backed off to 7.2 gr after seeing Larry Gibsons pressure data. Shoots just as well accuracy wise and less stress on a very valuable revolver. There are fine guns and will do anything expected at near standard pressure. Power Pistol is supposed to give Skeeter velocity at standard pressure, I am going to give it a try. Honestly 7.2 unique shoots as well as the 7.5 load, with my eyes and 3 inch barrel for 5 at 25 yards.

[Gray Fox]

Thanks for the comments, folks. I'll try the 7.2 grain loads. Any opinions or usage experience using Universal Clays in place of the Unique with the same charges? GF

[rkrcpa]

I use the Skeeter load in mine but plan on trying Power Pistol. As an aside, has anyone measured the cylinder throats on their 696? Mine are very tight at .428.

[44MAG#1]

Is there anyone that thinks that .3 grain is really going to make a difference???? What if you loaded 7.5 grains with a mild lot of Unique and then bought a pound of Unique that was on the hot side. You could very easily be running no more or even less pressure with the mild lot of Unique at 7.5 than with the hot lot at 7.2. One must think, now if one would be using 7.0 grain verses 7.5 grain that would make more sense. What is one changed the lot of powder and lot of primers?
Now I know there will be someone with over "50+ years of experience" loading a wide variety of calibers with a wide variety of powders, primers, cases etc. and refute what I say but just think about it.

[osteodoc08]

Certainly without pressure testing equipment and testing pressure in our own firearm, own lot of powder and primer, our own crimp, etc; it’s all an educated guess. My fingers, hands, eyes, other body parts are worth more to me than not. Yes there is a safety margin built in, yes the data has been pressure tested and yes, Larry was kind enough to lend us his data. Do with it as you wish.

If this thread starts to get sideways, it will be shut down.

[44MAG#1]

Certainly without pressure testing equipment and testing pressure in our own firearm, own lot of powder and primer, our own crimp, etc; it’s all an educated guess. My fingers, hands, eyes, other body parts are worth more to me than not. Yes there is a safety margin built in, yes the data has been pressure tested and yes, Larry was kind enough to lend us his data. Do with it as you wish.

If this thread starts to get sideways, it will be shut down.

I don't know if that was directed to me directly or not. I was just asking a simple question and that is all? Without pressure testing equipment you are entirely right. Would you want more than a .3 grain cushion considering the variation in lots of powder and primers?
I believe if I wanted a cushion it would be more than. 3 grains.
I will shut up. Don't want to ruffle any feathers.
My last post on this thread.

[rking22]

My reasoning is I have seen 7.2 of unique listed as standard pressure in the past. I am comfortable with the Skeeter load being a reasonable top load for MY revolver due to much use. The 5% reduction in charge yields about 10% peek pressure reduction giving me a comfort zone keeping me always under the expected character of the 7.5 gr load.

Changes in actual net case capacity are of much more concern than any lot to lot variation I have seen in Unique. I did not respond to the question about using Universal due to there being no direct, measured correlation with unique. I use 20-28 in gr for gr sub for unique in some reduced rifle loads, but NOT in L frame 44 special. The Skeeter load has a LONG track record as in decades of use, that is not as good as actual pressure trace data but it does give a level of confidence. Change the bullet (length inside the case) or to a powder “almost just like” Unique and that track record no longer exists.

Mine is a no dash, most throats accepted .430 pin as I remember, believe that was the nominal with only one pretty loose on a .429 pin. Been a while, they were OK so just went on about business.

[sixshot]

No doubt the 696 will handle the Skeeter load but I have other 44 specials to do the heavy lifting. In mine I shoot 5.5 grs of 231 with a Miha 243 gr HP & enjoy it for what it is, a very fine, accurate revolver that I plan on shooting for a very long time.

Dick

[Silver Jack Hammer]

The M69 barrel is a 2 piece affair like the 500s, nothing like the barrels on M696s. The barrel extension is much thicker, by design, on the 69. That said the M696 I have has shot quite a lot of Skeeter loads without incident. I bought it the year they came out, there was a ported one in the case, wish I had bought it too!

Rking22, Are you saying the frame of the M69 is enlarged where the barrel is screwed into frame? I had assumed it was not, hence my call to Smith & Wesson about the potential for cracked forcing cones. I have never owned either a M69 or M586, or M686

[376Steyr]

I have a custom 4-inch "696" that uses a re-bored 357 barrel, and a Ruger GP-100 5-inch. Both have "thin" forcing cones. I've dropped my standard Skeeter load for them down to 7.0 grains, just to be cautious, since these are guns that can't easily be replaced. I figure if that half grain of powder is going to make that much difference to the beast I'm shooting at, I probably shouldn't have brought any .44 Special load to the party in the first place.

[rking22]

The M69 barrel is a tensioned barrel separate from the exterior shroud, think Dan Wesson. My understanding is Smith first used the concept on the X frame 500 then used it to allow a thicker barrel extension on the M69. I own a M696 and was looking to buy a M69. I found one and the barrel extension is notably thicker and the frame is still the same exterior dimension. I found the info about that , I believe, linked from the S&W forum. Anyway, very much beefed up from a standard L frame barrel in the forcing come extension.

I have never gotten a Ruger GP100 in 10mm in my hand but it looks like they have that gun beefed up as well, compared to my GP in 44special. Was discussion that if the gun could take 10mm pressure it could do near that pressure in the slightly larger 44 special. Not going there with mine, there are some pictures that show what seems to be a hex nut of some sore around the barrel extension on the 10mm that is not there on the 44special. Pressure splits forcing cones, that is the weak link in “small” frame big bores. That along with just the pounding wear from increasing end play is the concern with +p loads in them.

696s fall into that ”don’t make them anymore” category, no need to pound them. Mine sees mostly 200 to 220 gr bullets now but I did put a lot of Skeeter loads thru it when they were readily available and I wanted a backpacking load for a fee trips out west. It shot well and had a lot of track record. I shoot it much less now as I do not want to add unnecessary wear.

Original question, yes the gun will (probably) take it but it will definitely shorten its effective life as a good shooter.

[Gray Fox]

Larry Fryzel did an article on the .44 special in which he described his efforts to develop a load for his 696. He pointed out the tight throats and recommended that boolits for that gun be sized no larger than .429. That's what I size mine to now. He also recommended 200 grain RNFP boolits. I cast them with one of the Lee molds. GF