[Nematocyst]

I've added another revolver to my wish list: a .22 LR.

Reasons that I need/want it can wait for another day.
(Mainly a woods gun for use near camp,
and for small game when carrying a centerfire rifle.)

I've been looking at Ruger's Single Six (http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdResults?function=famid&famid=14&variation=Blued%20Convertible&bct=Yes&type=Revolver) for a long while.

A few days ago, I learned of the re-introduction of SW mod 63 (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=63570&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y).
(OK, I admit, I didn't know it went away; I'd never heard of it until a few days ago.)

I read Jeff Quinn's article about it (http://www.gunblast.com/SW-63.htm). He likes it a lot.

So, being a SW guy entirely so far, but being an equal opportunity revolver guy,
I'm seeking opinions about which .22 revolver is better.

If you don't like the choices, add your own w/ other.

Let's party.

Nem

[Virginian]

I picked the Single Six because I like single actions, I love Single Sixes, and cost wise it's much less expensive. 63 is a good gun, no question. It is difficult to compare apples and oranges.

[jfh]

I've had both, Nem--and other than "nostalgic" interests in single-action shooting, I prefer the j-frames. Like Virginian, I will call it apples-and-oranges.

So, save up for one of each. Then you can start saving for a 617.

Jim H.

[Nematocyst]

Jim, tell us more about the 617. It's a K frame, yes?

Why is a .22 better in a K frame?

[ArchAngelCD]

Like already said, it's hard to compare the two because of their actions. I like both SA and DA revolvers and both have their place. For hunting small game you will have to decide which makes more sense for you because both are of high quality.

Actually I think Jim has a better idea, buy a M617. It's a fairly large revolver (K/L frame) so it will be easier to shoot off-hand than a J frame and it has a very good SA pull like the Single-Six. I guess I'll vote other in favor of the M617 which is available in a 4" barrel (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=14748&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=15705&isFirearm=Y) or a 6" barrel (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=14747&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=15705&isFirearm=Y), both hold 10 rounds. (I like the 4" barrel, mostly for carry comfort)

If you can go for an even higher price take a look around and try and find a used M17 (6" barrel) or M18 (4" barrel). S&W has also re-released both models but I don't really care for either for several reasons. You may like them, many shooters do. Model 17 (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=86943&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=48302&isFirearm=Y) Model 18 (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=86947&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=48302&isFirearm=Y)

Good like finding something you like and will shoot well.

[paralaska]

For hunting . . . I prefer the single six. If you want to make a good shot at small game, you're probably gonna shoot single action instead of double action anyway. And, if you want a little more umph . . . you can put in the 22 mag cylinder.

[Landpimp]

the smith should be more accurate as the SS barrel is sizes for 22mag

I have both and they both have their place, I love my long barrel SS to shoot Super Colibei's out of.........good for picking off crows.

while the 63 is more of a kit gun and is a bit more accurate from my experence, but neither are tack drivers like a 17 or 18

oddly I shoot my 34 2" better than any of the above

[ArmedBear]

The 617 and 317 are worth a look, too.

I like single actions, and Ruger single actions.

However, I don't much care for .22LR single actions. They can be a PITA to eject and reload, since the rounds are so small. The .22 Rugers could use a reverse indexing pawl like the New Vaquero. If the things lined up without any effort, the Single Six would be much more interesting to me.

[Nematocyst]

Thanks for the feedback, all. This is going to be interesting.

I also agree that, to an extent, this is apples and oranges. But they're both (all) .22 revolvers, and that's what counts for me. I only want to buy one (at least to start :rolleyes: ), and want to research it well to increase my probability of getting "the right one". (And yes, of course, it's just fun to study them.)

Arch, the 617 is an awesome revolver for all the reasons you mentioned. And it's fine to discuss it here more for comparison.

But I should have specified (my bad) that I'm seeking a light-weight revolver to tag along with my center fire rifle, but also for potential backpacking use.

I'm a believer in unltr- light backpacking. Not for long expeditions where I need the top gear for long periods in very adverse conditions, but for fast long weekend to 5 day trips where I want to shave off pounds. I shave pounds and ounces anywhere I can. On those switchbacks going up with 30 - 50 lbs, the ounces matter (to me).

So at 44 oz, the 617 (6") is a bit heavy for my needs. (Single Six with 5.5" = 33 oz; 63 with 5" is 28.5 oz).

Nem

[22-rimfire]

Putting the cost issue aside, the only thing I dislike about the Model 63 are the tiny grips. Their other revolvers in that frame had the same grips and I wouldn't be interested in buying one of those due to recoil control with a very small grip.

I will admit, I do not own a Ruger Single Six. I have shot them. They are very sound guns. The only Ruger single action I own is a Blackhawk in 41 mag (or is that the one I had the unfortunate accident with at the lake?).

I just prefer double action revolvers and will pay the extra cost to have one. I like the 4" Colt Diamonback or Smith Model 18 for your usage. Hard to find the 18's and Diamondbacks are expensive. The Model 63 is smaller and has a steel frame, 5" barrel which in this case I like a lot, and it has a pretty darn nice trigger if it matters to you for a small framed revolver. I'd buy the Model 63 in your case and never look back.

For backpacking, clearly the Smith Model 317 takes the prize if weight is the dominant concern. Most sport a 3" barrel. I'd like to own one, but just have not followed through with a purchase. It would be purely just another 22 revolver to add to the accumulation in my case. They are my thing.

Jeff Quinn likes just about everything he shoots. But that's okay.

[Nematocyst]

For backpacking, clearly the Smith Model 317 takes the prize if weight is the dominant concern. Most sport a 3" barrel. 22, I agree that at 10.5 oz, the 317 (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=14743&tabselected=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=) is the best for those counting ounces.

What rules it out for me is the barrel length. I'm looking here for a hunting revolver that's packable, not a snubnose.

As for the tiny grips on the 63, yeah, I'd switch them out, probably put on some Hogue Monogrips, same as on my other two revolvers. I like consistency.

[ArmedBear]

Ever handle a 317?

It has a decent sight radius with the rear sight all the way at the rear of the frame, doesn't feel at all like a snubbie. I was pleasantly surprised. It feels like an oddly-light 3" Model 60.

I'm talking about the 3" version with adjustable sights, not the one that looks like a 637.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/firearms/160221_thumb.jpg

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=14742&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y

It's a hefty 11.9 oz.:)

[Nematocyst]

I have handled one, Bear, but not shot one.

But you've convinced me to at least keep my mind open about it,
even though I'm still leaning strongly towards a 5 - 6" barrel.
(Don't want longer for this niche.)

[ArmedBear]

The 317's sight radius is not too much shorter than that of a 4" 686.

I do tend to like long barrels, but I've been warming up to shorter ones. I've found that even with a 642 I can shoot more accurately than I'd ever expected.

Now I'm not sure what I like...:)

[22-rimfire]

Just to let you know, I AM going to buy a Smith Model 63. I like them that much and I have no earthly need for another 22 revolver other than I just want one.

[Nematocyst]

Well, I just read Jeff Quinn's review of the 317 (http://www.gunblast.com/SW_317.htm).

Very interesting. Maybe it is a contender, even though I still think a longer barrel will be better for this for me.

Anyway, good thing I added an "other" category for the poll. :rolleyes:

BTW, this purchase is months off for me. Just doing research here.

[paochow]

I've come very close to pulling the trigger on a S&W 63, but haven't been able to do it. My 317 is ultralight, my 617 accurate, and my Single Sixes cover everything in between. I suppose if you wanted one revolver that could do it all, but not as well, the 63 would be the answer. For your use however, I think a 3" 317 would fit the bill.

[Avenger29]

The S&W Model 34 is, for me, a joy to shoot. Does not feel like a small revolver in the hand, feels just right for me with a 4" barrel. The Model 63 should be equally fun.

I dislike single action revolvers, especially SA .22LR revolvers. Too slow to load, cumbersome manual of arms, etc.

Shooting my Model 34 is like zen. Before I know it, I've got an empty ammo box and a pail full of spent .22LR shells.

[Nematocyst]

I dislike single action revolvers, especially SA .22LR revolvers.
Too slow to load, cumbersome manual of arms, etc.Avenger (and others), would you mind expanding on both of those points?

Being a DAO guy so far - haven't yet owned a SA -
I've never heard that argument before, yet it seems relevant.

[Avenger29]

Let's put it this way...you don't swing the cylinder out to unload and load. You stuff a round into each charge hole through a loading gate with the cylinder on half cock, rotating the cylinder to access each charge hole. This can take fiddling around to get the ball rolling, too, to get everything lined up right.

Then, once you shoot your rounds and it's time to reload, then you put the hammer back on half cock, open the loading gate, and eject each round individually through the loading gate using the ejector rod. And you have to get it lined up just right or the round will hang and not eject, and then that's more fiddling around. Not good for new shooters, merely a pain for experienced ones.

At least centerfire cartridges are larger and less fumbling around than with the small .22LR cartridge.

You can remove the cylinder, but that's more fiddling around to get just right for it to release the cylinder and return it.

DA revolver, swing out, eject empties all at one time, reload either individually, with speed strip, or speed loader, then swing shut and resume firing in a matter of seconds. You've still got a great SA trigger with a DA revolver, but DA capability, too.

[Nematocyst]

Hmm. Good points.

Single Six folks, what say you?

The poll is running 14 : 9 in Ruger's favor,
so they've obviously got something going for them.

[Avenger29]

Instead of just asking here, how about you go find a Single Six and a Model 63 and shoot them before buying one? The Single Six and Model 63 are both well made guns, and just about all the pros/cons have been listed here, so now it's down to personal choice and "feel" about each. Run 50 rounds through each to get used to and be able to compare the manual of arms.

[dennis228]

I own the 317 3 inch., the new 63 with 5 inch, and a Ruger SS stainless conv.5.5.

Love all three and all three shoot great.

But, for your needs, gun for camping, trail and small game, I think the 63 is the best bet. 8 shots double action, very accurate with 5 inch bbl. and only 28 oz. I have Pachmayr grips on mine. Great handling little 22. Loaded with Aguila Interceptors or CCI Velocitors with that 5 inch bbl. you will have enough pop for small game and then some. The Single Six with 22 WMR cyl. is much more powerful but slow loading and unloading but if you want easy cary, and reasonably light weight, with the 5 inch bbl. advantage, and with easy load and unload 8 round capacity, adjustable sights and tough stainless, then I don't think you can do better than the S&W 63.

For what you are needing I carry the 63. For walking the trails only the air light 317. For all of the above and some additional coyote protection then the Single Six 22 WMR.

[Nematocyst]

Instead of just asking here, how about you go find a Single Six and a Model 63 and shoot them before buying one?Yes, will do. This is just the preliminary research part, to know more about both (all) of them so I'll be informed when I test drive them.

Dennis, it's great to get an opinion from someone who owns all three. Thanks.

Update: the poll is now running 14 : 11

[007BondJamesBond007]

I have the Ruger Single Six. The gun put real tight 1" groups @ 10 yards with the .22mag cylinder. With the .22 long rifle cylinder the groups widen with most .22lr rounds.

The group tightens back to 1 in with .22 shorts. Go figure? With .22 mag the noise is loud like my .45. With the long rifle sound like any .22. With the .22 shorts I look did it go off? The trigger pull is light and crisp. I replaced the grips on mine with Hogue grips it helped keeps my hand from sliding up and aligned for follow up shots. I was told that single actions your hand is suppose to slide for re-cocking the hammer but I found I am more accurate with out having to keep repositioning my hand.

[aladdin]

Ruger Bearcat stainless

[Nematocyst]

Page 2 already. That was fast.

Welcome to THR, Aladdin.

Interesting that your first post is here. You must have an affinity for .22 revolvers.

I'll confess, I haven't looked much at (read much about) the Bearcat (http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAFamily?type=Revolver&subtype=Single%20Action&famlst=10)yet, but should.

Why do you like it so much?

[Nematocyst]

Well, I now know one .22 revolver that's not on my list (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=466637). :scrutiny:

[ArchAngelCD]

But I should have specified (my bad) that I'm seeking a light-weight revolver to tag along with my center fire rifle, but also for potential backpacking use.
In that case I would have to switch my choice to the M63 unless that's still too heavy in which case I see nothing wrong with the 8 round M317, but with a 3" barrel, not a 1 7/8" barrel for the woods. (but damn, they are both so expensive!!)

[Nematocyst]

Arch, yes, they are expensive. I agree.

But quality is always expensive.
I've always been willing to pay for quality,
have rarely been disappointed, and will continue to do so.

No decisions yet, but the 63 is still one of the top two in my considerations.

[ArchAngelCD]

I like the M63 that's in current production because of the 5" barrel.

[Radagast]

I've shot an old six shot four inch model 63, I wasn't impressed with either the trigger pull or the accuracy. Ditto the Taurus copy, which gave patterns rather than groups.

I don't like the 617 - the underlugged 6 inch barrel does not balance for me, although it is very accurate. As you are used to the 686 this may not be an issue for you.

I do love the model 18 - four inch skinny barrel gives perfect balance and pointing. It's currently my favourite hand gun, but this is probably partially due to the fact that it is my newest gun.

I sold my Single Six, MK II & 22-45 to fund the 617 for my dad. I still regret selling the Single Six some five years later.
I found the accuracy with .22lr to be no worse than the 617 & for a small game hunting firearm there is no need to rapidly reload. It's squirrels and rabbits you are looking at, not human waves in Mogadishu.
I also found the slow load and reload cycle to be quite calming at the range, There was no ability to shoot rapidly, so every shot was made to count. The single six pointed well in my hands which is always a plus. Last, for small game hunting the .22 magnum cylinder will give you that extra bit of energy to ensure clean kills, something every ethical hunter should keep in mind.

Summary: Get the Single Six as your hunting handgun. If you still use a 686 as your main SD gun, then consider a four inch 617 as a complementary training firearm. It will probably pay for itself in saved ammo costs

[SGW42]

I looked for a .22 revolver for like a year and had a hard time with it.

I really wanted a 4" 617. But all said and done, I never found one in this area in person, and whenever I saw them advertised they were so expensive. I just don't feel like I get a good value for the money with new S&Ws. I tried looking for a used Model 17 but got really fed up with the used firearms market in the middle of all this Obamamania nonsense and never saw one I could afford.

I ended up with a 9.5" Single Six when it winked at me last year. It shoots wonderfully and is the perfect compliment to my Marlin 39A. I don't miss double action functionality at all. It was my first single action but I got used to the manual of arms in my first range session. I like how just plain simple it is. I get the same feeling shooting a classic .22 single shot on a nice day.

People haven't said much about how versatile the Single Six is. Don't forget they come with the option of .22 Mag. I shoot my SS more with the .22 Mag cylinder and it's a lot of fun and quite accurate. You also get the option of stainless or blued finishes. On the blued models I see that Ruger offers fixed sight versions which could be good for packing, etc.

I'd also look at a Bearcat for your purpose.

[RSVP2RIP]

S&W 317, 2" barrel. So small and light, it's hard to "forget" it at home. Keep it loaded with CCI Velocitors and you're GTG.