Mines the 696-1 so it has a frame mounted firing pin but no lock. It's weird in that it has a forged hammer but a MIM trigger. I've never had any problems with MIM parts so haven't worried about them. They must have been fairly popular as there were at least three runs of them made, all the way to a 696-2 model. Another revolver model you wonder why S&W hasn't resurrected. It would be even better with a four inch barrel.I wish I never sold mine....
The Awesome L-frames
- Thread starter Petrol & Powder
- Start date
CWLONGSHOT
Well-Known Member
Dont know what mine was. But Id bet early as well. I was the cheif RO on a S&W event announcing and promoting the then new 1911 Preformance center guns and this was also offered.
As a officer I was allowed to purchase direct. (I did) Dont remember the year but early 1990's.
CW
As a officer I was allowed to purchase direct. (I did) Dont remember the year but early 1990's.
CW
The S&W 69 has the 4-inch barrel and it is not handy to work with. I picked one off the stand at the Louisville NRA Annual Meeting and was immediately grabbed by salesman. The Modal 69 is nice, and .44 Magnum, but unwieldy in contrast to my 696. It does not fit well in my front jeans pocket like the 696.
I told the salesman S&W needed to bring back the 696 and he did not even know what the 696 was. After a brief explanation, he tried to get me on over to the 686 .357 Magnum as it had more power. I'm old and set in my ways, I'll keep the 696..
I quit carrying it for serious social occasions. It is much too valuable to have it held for evidence and lost need i use it. I carry a Walther PPK/S which can be replaced. I now carry it with shot loads for rattlesnakes when shooting prairie dogs and to the range for practice.
462
California's Central Coast Amid The Insanity
My same reason regarding the 3" Lew Horton S&W Model 24.
Mowgli Terry
Active Member
Holy Smoke, I shot my collector's item 586 no-dash successfully in our little match yesterday.
hporter
Active Member
I saw a Rossi 720 discussed, so I thought I would ask what frame size a Taurus 441 in 44 special might be considered?
I bought this one just to see if all the trash talking about Taurus revolvers was justified. It has one of the best triggers on any handgun I own, so someone in the past thought well enough about it to put some work into it. It is as smooth as butter, and the only fault that I have run across is that it has large throats, ~.433 . But I have several molds that will cast large enough to shoot well in it.
I bought this one just to see if all the trash talking about Taurus revolvers was justified. It has one of the best triggers on any handgun I own, so someone in the past thought well enough about it to put some work into it. It is as smooth as butter, and the only fault that I have run across is that it has large throats, ~.433 . But I have several molds that will cast large enough to shoot well in it.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Not to start a wild thread drift about Taurus quality but I'll say my personal experience with Taurus is you either get a good one or you don't. The good ones are fine guns and the not so good ones are, ....well, not so good.
I've seen quite a few Taurus model 85's that gave yeomen like service for years. I've also seen brand new Taurus guns that were horrible.
As for what S&W frame size a Taurus model 441 would corrospond to? I couldn't say off hand.
I've seen quite a few Taurus model 85's that gave yeomen like service for years. I've also seen brand new Taurus guns that were horrible.
As for what S&W frame size a Taurus model 441 would corrospond to? I couldn't say off hand.
hporter
Active Member
I have never owned an L frame S&W, so I was just curious if anyone knew how it measured up against my Taurus size wise. (BTW, I do intend to correct this grievous error in the future...)
Compared to John's Rossi 720 which he mentioned had a cylinder measurement of 1.465", this Taurus 441 is at 1.515" while my GP100 44 special measured 1.584. And for comparison, my S&W 24 3" Lew Horton measured 1.710.
Visually and in the hand, it seems smaller than the GP100. But the cylinder diameter is only 0.069 smaller. Obviously the Ruger's frame is beefier, especially the top strap and crane. I just dropped them on my postal scale out of curiosity and the GP100 weighed 36.0 oz and the Taurus weighed 33.2 oz.
I sure do like 3" 44 specials..... I've wanted to add a 3" 696 to my safe, but I just haven't crossed paths with one yet.
Compared to John's Rossi 720 which he mentioned had a cylinder measurement of 1.465", this Taurus 441 is at 1.515" while my GP100 44 special measured 1.584. And for comparison, my S&W 24 3" Lew Horton measured 1.710.
Visually and in the hand, it seems smaller than the GP100. But the cylinder diameter is only 0.069 smaller. Obviously the Ruger's frame is beefier, especially the top strap and crane. I just dropped them on my postal scale out of curiosity and the GP100 weighed 36.0 oz and the Taurus weighed 33.2 oz.
I sure do like 3" 44 specials..... I've wanted to add a 3" 696 to my safe, but I just haven't crossed paths with one yet.
Last edited:
robertbank
Member
I have a 686 No Dash Model L originally part of the US Customs purchase. The gun received the "MOD" by S&W as indicated on the revolver above the Serial Number on the frame. As some of you know this shipment of revolvers had to be modified as a result of a bureaucrats insistence the cylinder gap was to be narrower than S&W normally made. The result was the revolvers gummed up there and were unserviceable. the fix was to widen the cylinder gap to the size S&W had recommended. The feature of these guns from a Canadian perspective is the barrels they installed all were greater than 105MM. That is important to us because the Liberals wrote our firearms act to prohibit handguns with a barrel length of 105MM or less. My 686 barrel measures 105.14MM making it a legal handgun in Canada. I know of two other 686 US CS guns in our area all with barrels greater than 105MM. If you own one of these "CS" marked 686's I would appreciate hearing from you. The "CS" marking is found just under or over the serial number. If you own one of these revolvers I would be grateful if you would measure the barrel length and let me know if your gun's Mod resulted in a longer barrel length. The guns were meant to have a 4" barrel (102MM).
I like my 686 but do prefer my GP-100 4.2" for IDPA.
Take Care
Bob
I like my 686 but do prefer my GP-100 4.2" for IDPA.
Take Care
Bob
Last edited:
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
So, to provide some perspective, I measured the cylinder diameter of S&W L-frame and got 1.563”. The width of the frame near the hammer is .655”
This places the diameter of the L-frame cylinder pretty close hporter's messurement of his Taurus 441 at 1.515" and his GP100 44 special cyliner diameter of 1.584.
That comes in smaller than his S&W 24 (N-frame) cylinder diameter of 1.710".
So based on that, i would say the Taurus 441 is closer to the size of a S&W L-frame.
This places the diameter of the L-frame cylinder pretty close hporter's messurement of his Taurus 441 at 1.515" and his GP100 44 special cyliner diameter of 1.584.
That comes in smaller than his S&W 24 (N-frame) cylinder diameter of 1.710".
So based on that, i would say the Taurus 441 is closer to the size of a S&W L-frame.
robertbank
Member
P&P should you not be measuring the frames not the cylinders if you are commenting on the relevant sizes of the frames. The grip size for my K frame Model 10 uses the same size of grip as my L frame 686 but the frames and cylinders are different sizes. My 686 and GP-100 both use the same size of speed loaders. Empty, the Ruger is slightly lighter than the 686 due to th,e different grips on each gun. The differences in the frames of the guns you mentioned and I referenced from a practical point of view, I suspect are pretty much the same size.
Take Care
Bob
Take Care
Bob
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Bob, you make a valid point. Without any solid criteria, one must pick some dimensions to compare and cylinder diameter is just one of many dimensions to use as yardsticks.
I picked cylinder diameter as a convenient dimension to compare one type (a Taurus 441) against another type (S&W L-frame) mostly because hporter had provided those measurements in a prior post. I’m not suggesting cylinder diameter or frame thickness, or some other arbitrary measurement is a key factor, it’s just a convenience reference point between totally different manufacturers. Since there is no such thing as a Taurus “L-frame” (L-frame is a S&W term) the only thing we can do is offer an approximation to the known frame sizes used by S&W.
The underlying question by hporter from post #48 was, "I saw a Rossi 720 discussed, so I thought I would ask what frame size a Taurus 441 in 44 special might be considered? ".
Since there is no absolute answer to that question, the only thing we can do is come up with approximations. Sort of the same way that I would say that a Taurus model 82 is ROUGHLY the equivalent of a S&W K-frame. They aren't the same thing but they are roughly in the same class.
I picked cylinder diameter as a convenient dimension to compare one type (a Taurus 441) against another type (S&W L-frame) mostly because hporter had provided those measurements in a prior post. I’m not suggesting cylinder diameter or frame thickness, or some other arbitrary measurement is a key factor, it’s just a convenience reference point between totally different manufacturers. Since there is no such thing as a Taurus “L-frame” (L-frame is a S&W term) the only thing we can do is offer an approximation to the known frame sizes used by S&W.
The underlying question by hporter from post #48 was, "I saw a Rossi 720 discussed, so I thought I would ask what frame size a Taurus 441 in 44 special might be considered? ".
Since there is no absolute answer to that question, the only thing we can do is come up with approximations. Sort of the same way that I would say that a Taurus model 82 is ROUGHLY the equivalent of a S&W K-frame. They aren't the same thing but they are roughly in the same class.
robertbank
Member
P&P Agreed. The term "L" frame tends to take on a generic definition outside of the S&W shere.
Take Care
Bob
Take Care
Bob
Mowgli Terry
Active Member
Exactly, what does this measuring stuff have to do with L frame Smith's. What's the point?
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
A question by hporter from post #48 was, "I saw a Rossi 720 discussed, so I thought I would ask what frame size a Taurus 441 in 44 special might be considered? ".
S&W revolvers are classified by frame size (J, K, L, N, etc.). Other manufacturers make revolvers and people tend to classify those according to how closely they match the size of a S&W family of frame sizes. For example, a Ruger GP-100 is roughly the same frame size as a S&W L-frame.
It's just an informal way for people to compare frame sizes. We do the same thing with cars (sub-compact, compact, mid-size, full-size), Chain saws and outboard motors (engine displacement), Tractors, (horsepower ratings), etc. It is just a natural tendency for people to group things together.
For example, I think of a Taurus model 85 as being roughly the equivalent of a S&W J-frame. It’s just an easy way to classify the size of the gun but it doesn’t mean much.
hporter
Active Member
P&P,
Thank you for taking the time to measure and provide feedback to my question. I appreciate it.
I was sincerely curious about the frame size on the Taurus, because most of the Taurus and Rossi revolvers seem to have been a copy of some S&W or another. People over the years have modified all manner of revolvers into 44 specials. Typical in discussions of those conversions is the concern over frame strength and cylinder dimensions. So it seemed strange to me that Taurus would produce a 44 special in a frame size that seemed smaller than that of other 44 special S&W's that I own or that I am familiar with.
So my question really had no relation to the merits of the L frame.
One of the things I enjoy the most about this website is that most of the time thread drift is taken lightly, and we can ask questions of one another as if we were sharing a cup of coffee.
Educating one's self is a lifetime hobby, and I value the wealth of knowledge of the contributors here.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
44 Special revolvers have been built on all sorts of frames and of course Taurus is free to do whatever they want. Taurus is not constrained to follow S&W dimensions and they can design whatever they wish. However, I think it’s fair to label the Taurus model 441 as “L-frame-ish”.
Cylinder diameters play a role because there comes a point where you simply cannot fit the chambers into a given diameter and still have material left for adequate strength and all the necessary components. At that point you have only a few options: Use a smaller caliber, use fewer chambers, or make the cylinder bigger. A larger diameter cylinder requires a larger opening in the frame to accommodate the bigger cylinder, higher pressures require more material in critical areas like the top strap, and so on. So, while cylinder diameter isn’t an absolute criterion when comparing one gun to another in terms of size, it is a convenient place to start. All revolvers have cylinders and cylinder diameter is an easy dimension to measure and compare.
Cylinder diameters play a role because there comes a point where you simply cannot fit the chambers into a given diameter and still have material left for adequate strength and all the necessary components. At that point you have only a few options: Use a smaller caliber, use fewer chambers, or make the cylinder bigger. A larger diameter cylinder requires a larger opening in the frame to accommodate the bigger cylinder, higher pressures require more material in critical areas like the top strap, and so on. So, while cylinder diameter isn’t an absolute criterion when comparing one gun to another in terms of size, it is a convenient place to start. All revolvers have cylinders and cylinder diameter is an easy dimension to measure and compare.
Mowgli Terry
Active Member
Has anybody measured the difference between a L frame Smith and the Python./Official Police Colt frame. I don't have a Colt otherwise it would have been done. Could have it been that the Python influenced the outcome of the L frame? Or was the L an N frame grown small or a K frame enlarged? My guess is that the Smith folks were looking at the Python. I think the Python came from custom target Colt's OP's from the 1930's.
Last edited: