.22LR Revolver

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hello 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.
Click to expand...

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

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

.
 
I don't keep it as a safe queen though,,,
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
So I return to the original question, what about the S&W justifies the price tag?
Click to expand...

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.
 
This is my sister's .22

63_no-dash1-1.jpg


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

P1000731.jpg


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

attachment.php
 
I bought a used 617 and will never sell it. Great feeling gun, maybe over-priced, but that's ok, it isn't going anywhere in my lifetime.

I also have two .22 semi auto handguns, but the 617 is my baby!
 
What about the LCR 22?

My LCR 22

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Traded for a LCR 22 and checked it at the range with my wife. She has weak hands, can't rack a slide and can't cock the hammer on centerfire SA/DA revolvers. Trigger pull at the dealer was about the same as for a SP101 and much better than a Taurus 94. Better price too and no hammer for her to cock.
At the range we shot over 50rounds of a variety of ammo with no malfunction of anykind. The little revolver shot to POA for me. Wife got a little used to the trigger after 3 reloads and began putting shots on the paper plate at about 4 yds. The trigger pull is more than for a .38revolver and she tended to pull shots right and up just off the paper plate. But the trigger is unusual in that it can be 'staged', pull to about half way then hold aim and fire. Don't know if I described it correctly, but a nice idea.

I then did some Chrony tests to compare with what Jeff Quinn reported....

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-LCR22.htm

Average results...
Win Dynapoint...860fps.....JQ...866.
CCI MiniMag.......1000fps...JQ...928
Fed BulkPac.......980fps......JQ...831
Velocitor............980fps......JQ...885
Stinger..............1300fps.....JQ...NA

Compared some .25acp with my Beretta 21A and got....820fps avg.

The only minor problem with the LCR was some ammo like the Federal and Velocitor were harder to extract and had to hit the rod with my hand.

So the best ammo for my LCR looks like CCI MiniMag right now. We'll go to the range again soon so my wife can learn to shoot it better.

og
 
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.
Click to expand...

By business guns, I just mean they are the ones I train with, carry, and shopped for with the criteria of hard, frequent use. Great performance is required no matter the cost. The .22LR I want is none of these things, its a toy, and a training aide at best. I'm not disparaging your .22 revolvers, I'm just saying for me this does not need to be a BMW, it can be a Neon. But, if a more expensive choice is worth it, I don't need the gun tomorrow, I can save a bit more and get the more expensive one.

I agree that S&W has a great reputation (despite some people saying otherwise about newer examples). But I hear the same thing about Ruger. The Charter is a new idea for me, coming from this thread, but the recommendation was positive from a poster that I respect, so I'm considering it.

I have handled S&W and Ruger revolvers, though not the .22 varieties. I agree the K-frame S&Ws are very nice. The Rugers seem that the newer ones are very nice (I held a new GP100 and thought the trigger was as nice or better than a 686). But the older ones (an '89 SP101 I had) had triggers that were definitely not as nice as the Smiths.

The LCR is definitely out, only because of the size. I want something I can get a full grip on for sure.

I will of course go to a gun store and handle everything before making a decision. The only reason I haven't yet is because I don't want to buy just yet. I like to do some initial research online first so I go in with a good set of ideas and know what to look for. For example, I will pay extra attention to the double action on the SP101 since some have reported it is not the best. And I will look at a Charter, which I would not have otherwise done.

Thanks for the replies, keep em coming.
 
It's definitely a fine handgun but I have one worry about it.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, it wont break. The MKIIIs were the best 22 revolvers ever made. When you shoot one you get to practice sight and trigger control with zero recoil. My 4 inch tought me to shoot my 6 inch Python as the 4 inch barrel was heavier per inch than the 357 so it balanced the same.
 
My favorite LGS has a used 4" 617, he said he'd sell me for $600. That works out to about $650 after tax. It's in great condition.

I handled a Charter Arms Pathfinder at the same time, and I agree the Smith is worth the extra money. The double action trigger was just very gritty and seemed to stack. For $200 more used, the Smith seems like the smarter choice.

He didn't have a Ruger for me to try. He had a 6" 617 as well, but I think that is a little big/heavy for my purposes. The 4" seems perfect. Is that a good deal?
 
Single Action:

Cimarron Plinkerton
Heritage Arms
Ruger Bearcat
Ruger Single Six
Ruger Single Ten
Click to expand...
You forgot the Uberti Stallion, the 12/22 and Plinker from US Firearms.

The Cimarron Plinkerton is almost all pot metal and I wouldn't cross the street for a free one. The Heritage is actually better but not by much.


Overpriced, using old technology, tweaked out of spec when you breath on them wrong, have restrictions on their diet, have "safety features" you don't want, require frequent maintenance, and tear themselves apart when pushed to their advertised limits. Definitely a good analogy.
Click to expand...
Must've been a long time since you experienced a Cadillac. If ever.


The Cadillac analogy is a good one but not for new guns. Older S&W's were definitely a step above 20yrs ago but those days are gone. They've cheapened their guns to the point that I would rather have a Ruger DA and that's saying a lot.
 
Personally I prefer older revolvers. Smith M17, K22, Colt Officer's Model Match, they all carry some history, and are arguably better made and certainly more attractive than current production.

Rimfires don't suffer as much from use as centerfire revolvers of the era, and issues of modern metallurgy generally not going to surface with the .22 cal cartridge.

They're not cheap, but generally not terribly expensive either, when you consider what you're getting. And of course there's no depreciation factor; in fact, they hold their value pretty well, if that's a consideration.

But then, I just like older guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top