So educate me on the S&W 22lr revolvers

P

Peter M. Eick

New member
I have never owned a S&W revolver, but I am looking for a 22lr target shooter (for fun). I would consider a diamondback, because I have a diamondback 38 and python 357 but I understand the old S&W 22lr's are pretty nice. For this reason and the fact that I have never owned a S&W, I am considering an older blued 22lr target version. My requirements are 22lr, target sights, mid sized frame (I have big hands) and good accuracy.

I looked at a k-22 (I believe, or possibly it was the k-17) 6" target model that seemed pretty nice, but the gun itself was a bit chewed. The trigger was good, timing ok, but it had a nice "heft". My dealer said he gets nib's in blued steel in occasionally, and really nice ones in regularly. He had 2 really nice ones in 22mag but he said I could not shoot 22lr's in them. I liked the gun, just not that specimen.

So what do I need to know about these revolvers. Are they any good? What are the problems? What should I look for (yes I have read the FAQ on revolver buying recently and will check all of that out, but I am looking for this specific model issues). Also they said that I could get a 4" 6" and 8". I sort of asked for them to look for a 6". Any advice on that.

Last question, do you all like them? What comments can you offer?

I am a colt revolver person myself, I have only shot one S&W and frankly its trigger stunk. I understand this is an anomaly.
 
I owned a 4" Smith & Wesson model 18 .22LR for years.
After thousands of rounds downrange, I would have to
say that this was my most beloved rimfire handgun!:)
Dressed out with Goncolo Alve target stocks, and
equipped with a target hammer and trigger; this
gun was something to behold.:cool: :D

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
The S&W K-22's are MOST EXCELLENT pieces...especially the older, "Pinned and Recessed" ones...I've currently got TWO k-22's...one, an early '70's version, the second a more recent, full-lugged version...both have six-inch barrels, and, with ammo they "Like", will give my bull-barreled MKII's a run for the money!!!....mikey357
 
I've owned a couple of Smith & Wesson K-22s over the years, and sorely regret selling the second, which had an 8.375-inch barrel, a Patridge front sight, and a very sweet single action trigger.

Several years ago--before Smith & Wesson crawled into bed with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime--I bought a model 617 K frame .22 revolver with ten chambers in the cylinder. It's a reasonably good plinker, but even after I did a trigger job, it's not as good a gun as the K-22s of yore.
 
IMO K 22's are THE BEST .22 revolvers ever made. I own 5 blued K 22's. Two 4 inchers, 2 six inchers and an 8 3/8" model. I wouldn't sell any of them but my favorite is the 5 screw 6" K 22 Masterpiece from 1948 that my father left me. It has at least 100,000 rounds through it and it still functions perfectley. I'd suggest looking for 5 screw pre model 17. They can be had in nice condition for $325-$400 in my area.

Randy
 
I am a colt revolver person myself, I have only shot one S&W and frankly its trigger stunk. I understand this is an anomaly.
Click to expand...
May be an anomaly but I kinda doubt it. Not that S&W triggers stink,,,gawd no! I love my Smith trigger worlds better than any Colt D/A or Ruger D/A,,,or anything else. That might be the whole reason you thought the Smith trigger stunk though,,,,if you're used to the Colt trigger. I went through a few different .22's, a new production Smith 617, a Dan Wesson and an H&R convertible trying to find a good "plinker" rimfire. I wasn't happy until I ended up with 2 older K-frame square butt Model 17's. The other's were decent guns in their own right (well to be fair the 617 was kind of a dud, but it was that particular "lemon").

If you like the Colt's stick with looking for a Diamondback.

If money allows it though, don't pass up on an older P&R K-22 in like NIB condition for under $300.00 if you stumble across one. You'll have zero problem turning it for more than that. They're gettting pretty scarce in pristine condition. There's hardly a week that goes by here that someone doesn't comment on a S&W K22, Model 17 or Model 18. They're very popular with the Smith crowd,,myself included.
 
Ok, So the k-22 and k-17 are the models to get, and 5 screw frames appear to be the identifying features. Is this right?

I see there is a fully lugged version refered to and the type I saw which was not fully lugged. Which is better?

How does one tell the relative age of these guns? What should I look for to find an older one?

Thanks for the advice, I will start another "quest".

On the trigger. The S&W I shot was a 357mag of recent manufacture. The trigger was very very rough and gritty. I was used to the very smooth trigger of my diamondback hence the comment.

One last question, Do these guns go out of time like my colts?

I had to have my diamondback back to Colt to be retimed and TJ of Sugarland worked on my Python and said to be careful about to many full power 357mag loads or I will mess with the timing. This is the reason I do not want a 22 diamonback. I want to shoot the gun, not worry about it.

Thanks.
 
Mr. Eick-

S&W's action design is far superior to Colt's, and holds its timing much better. The exception are the last few Colt designs, the Mk. III-King Cobra.

The K-22 and the M-17 are the same gun. After 1957, S&W went to a numerical catalog system. The Chief Special became Model 36, the M&P .38 the M10, etc. People who knew the guns like the Highway Patrolman or Combat Magnum by the old names, which continued to be used for years, refer to the guns by those names as well as by catalog numbers.

The flaw in S&W .22 revolvers is that sometimes, the fired cases stick in the chambers and the extractor rod has to be seriously WHAMMED to eject that fired brass. I sold a M34 Kit Gun because of that. It doesn't affect all their .22's, and if it does appear on one you buy, I understand that the factory can polish the chambers to cure the problem.

One would think that the heavy cylinder walls (like the N-frame .357's) would cause timing wear sooner than with .38 cylinders bored out for bigger cartridges, but it doesn't seem to be as pronounced as one might think. I've heard that it's due to the very low stress of firing .22's.

Lone Star
 
Peter

K-22 is how it was referred to before it became the M17. Many wax poetic about 5-screw frames, and pre-war quality, and certainly much of that is true. However, those are guns which are likely to have been shot-a LOT. Make sure that you are familiar with Jim's check-out procedure.:)

Please do not discount the M17. The 17 through the 17-3 have a medium taper barrel that, IMO, balances just perfectly in 6" length. Starting with the 17-4, it became heavier, and the extra heft may appeal to you. IIRC, the -5 introduced the barrel with a full underlug, ala the Python/L-frame. IMO, that configuration is too heavy for barrels over 4".

The Diamondback is slightly smallr, IRIC, than the K-frame, so it may not give you the same heft. Since they are normally priced far higher than K22s in my area, I've seldom given one a look. By all accounts, though, they are certainly fine shooters.
 
i have both a 6" k-22 (m-17) and a 4" diamondback and am often torn between which is truely my favorite .22 wheelgun.

the m-17 was an understudy for my k-38 (m-14). it is very accurate, has a great SA (<2lbs), and balances beautifully. if you are looking at a m-17, i highly recommend a blued 6" six shot model. it is the K-frame (medium same as the m-19/66 and m-13/65)

my diamondback also has perfect balance in a smaller package...i tried a 6" .22 diamondback, it was too heavy and the front sight was too short. i had mine tuned and the trigger is smooth as silk...well, as close as you can get with a .22lr. i owe my abilities in DA to this beauty.

my diamondback is my most accurate .22 as the D-frame fits my hand perfectly. the only thing i had to change was the grips. i like the frame size combined with the K-frame sized cylinder.

i have never heard of a .22 diamondback having the timming problems of it's centerfire siblings. i don't think there is enough pounding of the lockwork to throw it off. my understanding is the the tighter lock-up of the colts is what causes the wear on the lockwork...sorta like a suppressed pistol with it's slide locked closed during firing.
 
Thanks all. I think I have a clue what I am doing. I was impressed yesterday by the "heft" of the k-22. Very solidly built gun. Particularly the cylinder and crane lockup. My Python seems "dainty" when you compare it. I guess I will trust my dealer (he has never steered me wrong before and start looking for a really nice -17 or -22 and we shall see.

Thanks again for all of the advice and help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top