.22LR Revolver

[Doyle]

I am also in the market for a good .22 revolver (I'd like to dump my MK 3) and would like some feedback on the single six. Does the interchangable cylinder have the same accuracy on both .22 lr and .22 Magnum?

All that I've ever seen did. Some users have reported better accuracy with one than the other. Not all single sixes are convertable though. Unless I miss my guess, there were probably fewer of those produced than the non-convertable ones. They certainly fetch a higher price than the non-convertables.

[JasonWilliam]

Doyle's comments reflect my experience too. Part of the reason I jumped on the Single Six I have was because it was there, and you just never see them.

As for accuracy. I am not the best shooter in the world. Not by a loooong way. My eyes are pretty terrible, and the SS Hunter's brass dot up front seems to disappear against the target in a dimly lit range (to my eye; my buddy had no such problems.)

And here's what I shot with it about a week ago:



That was shot using 22mag at a distance of 10 yards, held off hand. The gun is capable of putting each round, 22lr or 22mag, in the same hole. Obviously, I'm not.

[model18]

6 in. model 17 K frame and 4 in. model 34 J frame.

The 17 is a serious target revolver and the 34 is more of a plinker. Both are fun and the choice is a matter of personal tastes and needs.

[CajunBass]

I've run the gammit with 22's. I've had Rugers, Colts, Harrington & Richardson and Dan Wesson's. These days, I'm down to just one. The one I wanted all the time, but told myself I didn't really want because it really wasn't worth the money, and it was just a "name."

Well, I was wrong. I finally got one, and found out they're (1) not that expensive, and (2) worth every dime.

Smith & Wesson 22 Combat Masterpiece/Model 18 and it's slightly bigger brother, the 22 Target Masterpiece/Model 17.





I paid less about a year ago for this one, made in 1954, than the current production Ruger D/A 22. Way less than what a 617 goes for. I had a Model 17-3 that had some cosmetic flaws, so I'm looking for a old five screw target masterpiece, but I'm in no reall hurry. One will turn up. I'd also like to find a newer Model 18, with the bright finish, (this on has the matte post war finish) and the box and tools.

About the only fault I've found with them, is the chambers are tight. You have to keep them clean or they'll start sticking on ejection. Not a deal breaker for me.

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

S&W 617 or a Ruger Single Six Hunters are awesome guns and should last several lifetimes. Neither is cheap. My best group with my Hunter is 0.517": 5 shots at 50 yards, scoped and on sandbags. It averages well under 1.5" at 50 with CCI SV ammo.


The regular Single Six is a rugged and fine gun too, but does not have the accuracy of the Hunters in my experience.

[ScotchMan]

Thanks for the replies. I definitely want a double-action. If someone made a single action with a swing out cylinder I might consider it, but I can't stand loading and reloading single action revolvers. Besides, my dad has a single action Ruger (one of the ones mentioned in this thread I'm sure), that is mine whenever I want it.

I hadn't considered the Charter Target Pathfinder (http://www.charterfirearms.com/produ...nder_72240.asp) that Aarond mentioned. That might be the best of both worlds! Even if it does have issues, this is purely a fun gun, so I am ok taking the risk, but I don't expect to have trouble. Looks like they are $337 on Grabagun.com. I think this is at the top of the list for now...

[jammer]

over a S&W or Ruger??? hmmm

[aarondhgraham]

I really do not think you will be disappointed with a Charter Pathfinder,,,
The one my lady friend has is a very nice revolver,,,
American made with a lifetime warranty,,,
At a price S&W or Ruger can't match.

If you do end up getting one,,,
Put it through it's paces and post a range report here.

Aarond

.

[Joe_Pike]

Well, if you don't care about light weight, look for a Colt Trooper MK III .22lr. I've got one and it is definitely built like a tank. I really wish I would have found a S&W model 18 instead, though. I'm just more of a S&W kind of guy.

[darkgael]

I was going to recommend the S&W 317. Your comment

I don't need something lightweight, so the 317s are out

stopped me.
What does "need" have to do with a gun purchase?
Pete

[shafter]

I've got a 5.5 inch Single Six with adjustable sights and boy is it accurate! I've been told that they were great guns and I always believed those who told me but I really had no idea how much I would be impressed with it.

[22-rimfire]

I would get the M63 Smith or try to find a slightly used M17 or M18. All are expensive, but all will last you a lifetime if you treat them right.

[ScotchMan]

I was going to recommend the S&W 317. Your comment
Quote:
I don't need something lightweight, so the 317s are out
stopped me.
What does "need" have to do with a gun purchase?
Pete

Just that price is an issue here. Price is NOT an issue on my business guns, and consequently they all retail for over a thousand dollars. But this is a fun gun, for me to shoot when I have used my centerfire ammo budget for the trip, and to teach with, since new shooters usually don't like semi-automatics or recoil. It doesn't need to be the best in the world, I have that covered elsewhere.

This is the reason the Charter is ok. However, I was talking to my dad on this topic, and his opinion is I should get a 617 and that the other choices are garbage. I will keep this gun for a very long time if not forever, so maybe I should spend a little more...?

I guess if someone could specify WHY the S&W is better that would be helpful. It seems like more money for the same thing to me.

I'd also like to add, a fiber optic front sight is a big plus. Grey front lined up in grey rear, on a grey/black target sucks. The 317, 63, and SP101 all come with fiber optic sights.

Leaning towards Ruger as a not too hot, not too cold option. Just a bit more more than the Charter, 4", 8 round capacity, fiber optic front. I'll have to see what the trigger is like compared to a S&W.

[Zhillsauditor]

I guess if someone could specify WHY the S&W is better that would be helpful. It seems like more money for the same thing to me.

Maybe you can answer the question yourself: why are your business guns all over $1,000 when you could get by with a $300 S&W Sigma? I suspect the answers are the same.

[Doyle]

Scotchman, unless you really like that full underlug I think the regular K-frame (model 17 or K-22) is a better choice than the 617. I've got a 617 and the only two reasons I chose it over a 17 was that I really wanted stainless and I also shoot an N-frame (617 with full underlug feels a lot like holding my 629). If I had not had those two requirements I'd have chosen a K-22 or 17.

[CajunBass]

I guess if someone could specify WHY the S&W is better that would be helpful. It seems like more money for the same thing to me.

I used to think the same thing, and tried to prove it to myself by buying Ruger Single-Sixs, Harrington and Richardson, Dan Wesson and even Colts S/A revolvers. They're all good guns, but they're not in the same class as Smith & Wesson D/A 22's. The fit and finish and feel are just in a class by itself. (Note:I have never shot a Ruger or Colt D/A 22, so I make no claim to have any knowledge of them.)

The Model 17 and 18 look and feel like a "big gun," as well they should since the only difference between them, and their larger centerfire brethren is the size of the hole in the barrel and the cylinder. A Model 18 is just a Model 15 in 22 Caliber. That's the only difference. A Model 17 is the same as a Model 14. Just a little heavier due to having a little more steel.

I went to the range one day, taking both a Harrington and Richardson 22 (I forget the model number) and a Model 17. Shooting the H&R first, I thought I was having a bad day at the range. I was all over the place. I started to pack up and go home, but decided to fire a few rounds through the Model 17 (a -3). Instantly my groups tightened up and I started shooting the 10 ring out. Better trigger, better sights, better grip...just an overall better gun made all the difference.

Does that mean the H&R was "bad?" Not at all. I paid about half what I paid for the Model 17 for the H&R, but what it does mean is you get something for that extra money. Only you can decide if it's worth it to you.

[aarondhgraham]

Well, if you don't care about light weight, look for a Colt Trooper MK III .22lr. I've got one and it is definitely built like a tank.

I have a 6" Colt Trooper Mk-III in .22 LR,,,

It's definitely a fine handgun but I have one worry about it.

If it breaks I have no idea how difficult it will be to get it fixed,,,
There is one older gentleman near me who can work on it,,,
But he told me parts would be very difficult to find.

I don't keep it as a safe queen though,,,
I'm trying to wear out each and every gun I own.

Aarond

.

[CajunBass]

I don't keep it as a safe queen though,,,

I don't understand the "don't shoot it, if it breaks you can't get it fixed" line of thinking either. Heck, if I can't shoot it because I'm afraid it might break, it might as well be broken.

Fine looking Colt you got there. One of these days, I'm going to get one.

[ScotchMan]

Quote:
I guess if someone could specify WHY the S&W is better that would be helpful. It seems like more money for the same thing to me.
Maybe you can answer the question yourself: why are your business guns all over $1,000 when you could get by with a $300 S&W Sigma? I suspect the answers are the same.

In those cases, I went through several less expensive choices before arriving at what I wanted. It was a combination of desired features, ergonomics, and my performance with the gun. Not just that they were expensive for the sake of being expensive.

I also place more importance on the gun that might save my life than the one I shoot soda cans with.

So I return to the original question, what about the S&W justifies the price tag?

[MrBorland]

So I return to the original question, what about the S&W justifies the price tag?

For your purpose? Nothing. It just gives you the option to do something beyond plinking, if you ever get the itch. Otherwise, a Charter would likely be just fine.

[Zhillsauditor]

So I return to the original question, what about the S&W justifies the price tag?

Longer lasting parts; smoother operation; resale value; consistency; ease of modification (aftermarket parts, knowledgeable smiths).

If you are only using it to train new shooters and accuracy doesn't matter, and if it breaks you can buy another, then buy cheap. Even a piece of **** can be the right tool in some situations.

[22-rimfire]

I personally believe since you say you have these "business guns" whatever that might mean, that you know that S&W revolvers are known for higher out of the box quality than ANY currently manufactured 22 revolver.

The Colts compare very well however. But which Colt? Just like which S&W DA, there are differences.

A S&W revolver and a Charter Arms Pathfinder is like comparing a Neon with a BMW. They both shoot or drive in this analogy, but of there is a big difference.

My recommendation stands.

[skoro]

So I return to the original question, what about the S&W justifies the price tag?

To me, everything about the S&W k-frame 22lr revolvers justifies their higher cost. But it's totally subjective. My only useful suggestion would be for you to go to a convenient gun shop and compare a S&W Model 17 to a Charter Arms or Taurus and decide which better fits your purpose.

A few years ago, I was asking myself the same questions about rimfire revolvers that you're asking now. And, like you, the extra cost on the S&W models caused me to hesitate. But I decided to get a Model 17 and 18 despite the cost. I've never regretted that decision.

The sum of all the verbage in this thread won't reveal to you what 60 seconds of holding them in your hands will.

[Florida Guy]

This is my sister's .22



She loves it. I also had one, but found the J frame was too small for me, so I bought this K frame to replace it



The model 63- was made around 1980. Model 17-2 around 1964.

[CarbineCaleb]

I have the 4-inch/10-shot S&W 617. It's "expensive for a .22" as many would say, but that's because most .22 handguns involve extensive corner cutting. That's not true of the 617, which is made just as well as it's papa, the 686, and that's why they both cost about the same price - I honestly don't see why it would be cheaper if it's a fair price for the 686. I have never regretted getting it.