smith&colt
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10
What do you guys think an excellent one with an 8" barrel is worth? Thanks!
Nickel Colt Trooper Mark III 22lr
- Thread starter smith&colt
- Start date
- Status
bikemutt
Member
I always figured the same gun in .357 is a $550-$650 gun, in minty condition.
Seems online sellers have loftier ideas these days.
Either way, a .22lr Diamondback is probably a $1100 gun, in excellent condition, so I'd go $550 for the Trooper.
Seems online sellers have loftier ideas these days.
Either way, a .22lr Diamondback is probably a $1100 gun, in excellent condition, so I'd go $550 for the Trooper.
Gordon
Member
Basic Mark III Trooper .357 = $450
8" Barrel= +$50
Nickel =$+50
.22LR = +50
$600 90% or better
NIB with box and papers = $700
8" Barrel= +$50
Nickel =$+50
.22LR = +50
$600 90% or better
NIB with box and papers = $700
Last edited:
smith&colt
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10
Thanks a lot guys!
Ash
Member
They are great revolvers - I have mine that my Grandfather gave me when I was just a kid. My almost 4-year old daughter loves "shooting" it, which is to say, I light up the sights, she puts her hand around mine and pulls the trigger. Then, softly in my ear, she says "Again." Six shots later, she's ready to reload.
Confederate
Member
If you like them, fine. To me they were far too heavy and unwieldy. Still, they make a good collector's gun. I'd love to see photos of the gun if you can post some. What type of finish does it have? Is it the brushed nickel or polished?
Ash
Member
They are heavy, built for the .357 after all. But they are real easy to hold steady, have smooth triggers, are very very accurate, and no squirrel is safe when I have mine. They are not a trail gun to be sure, but a bull-barrel target rifle is not ideal for a long hike, either.
22-rimfire
Member
The 8" nickel 22LR is uncommon and you are most likely looking at the $750+ in 96%+ condition. The online sellers may have "lofty" prices, but they sell at these prices. The days of common Trooper Mark III's for $350 are over. The 22's are more expensive.
You buying or selling? I'm looking for a nice one in 22LR.
You buying or selling? I'm looking for a nice one in 22LR.
Last edited:
smith&colt
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10
I'm looking to buy...waiting to see it.
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,461
Is it bright nickel or that satin e-nickel?
If it is a satin e-nick gun with rubber grips, I wouldn't go over $600 if it is like new.
If it is an excellent condition bright nickel with factory wood grips, I'd gladly give $750....I don't think I have ever seen a bright nickle 8" before. I'd sure like to own one.
If it is a satin e-nick gun with rubber grips, I wouldn't go over $600 if it is like new.
If it is an excellent condition bright nickel with factory wood grips, I'd gladly give $750....I don't think I have ever seen a bright nickle 8" before. I'd sure like to own one.
smith&colt
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10
it's supposed to be bright nickel with rubber colt grips
Seamore2001
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2009
- Messages
- 55
I suspect that you're looking in the +$700 range. Colts in .22 just don't come cheap anymore. Nicely kept nickel Colts aren't cheap either. A nice nickel .22 Colt is not an inexpensive combination.
smith&colt
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10
Did these all come with wood grips or were there some shipped with the rubber grips?
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,461
I don't recall seeing any bright nickel guns coming with rubber grips.
Confederate
Member
Yep. Another thing to keep in mind, though, is that one should never base their expectations on Colt prices. Colt made those pieces to meet a particular price frame at a particular time. The prices may go up with Colt (and they usually do), but prices may have no correlation at all to the quality. I recall at the time of production that the revolvers weren't all that well received. They were generally regarded as being significantly inferior, in fit and finish (and quality control), to some of the better Colts -- and magazine writers were quick to criticize them for being too heavy to cart around.
In short, they complained that the gun was the size and weight of a full throttle .357 Magnum and that the six tiny chambers drilled into the cylinder block added significantly to the weight of the revolver.
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,461
I have a MK III in .22lr. Mine has great fit and finish....True it is the size of a .357, but actually weighs a bit more because there is more metal there. I really like the gun.
Ash
Member
Mine is the electroless nickel with rubber grips, but otherwise like yours. I can't understand why someone would complain that the 22 was the size and weight of a full-throttle 357 when that was entirely the goal. It would be akin to complaining that the CZ-75 Kadet was the same weight and size of a CZ-75. It's supposed to be.
I guess therein lies the utility. I have carried mine hunting, rabbit or squirrel for the most part, and the weight is no big deal. But, I carry it knowing it is big and heavy because it is the same size as my Trooper Mk III 357 (rides in the same holster). If I were to be used to carrying 22 trail revolvers, such as a Bearcat, then the Trooper would seem giant compared to its small caliber. I might complain that it is a big revolver for such a small round - and I would be right.
Since I am accustomed to it (it was my first revolver), it does not seem big, especially since I own a Colt New Service, which IS big, as well as a Webley Mk VI, which is also big. Compared to those, the 22lr Trooper is nice and convenient. But, were I to carry compact revolvers or autos, it might seem unwieldy.
I guess therein lies the utility. I have carried mine hunting, rabbit or squirrel for the most part, and the weight is no big deal. But, I carry it knowing it is big and heavy because it is the same size as my Trooper Mk III 357 (rides in the same holster). If I were to be used to carrying 22 trail revolvers, such as a Bearcat, then the Trooper would seem giant compared to its small caliber. I might complain that it is a big revolver for such a small round - and I would be right.
Since I am accustomed to it (it was my first revolver), it does not seem big, especially since I own a Colt New Service, which IS big, as well as a Webley Mk VI, which is also big. Compared to those, the 22lr Trooper is nice and convenient. But, were I to carry compact revolvers or autos, it might seem unwieldy.
22-rimfire
Member
I have an bright nickel 8" 22 Mag that is pretty nice. You couldn't buy that revolver from me for under $900-$1000 if that gives the OP an idea of the market. It has the factory wood stocks. I believe the rubber grips were "only" put on the E-nickel's. But with Colt, anything is possible as those that are interested have learned. Never say Never.
It is true that the Trooper Mark III did not sell very well in 22LR. The Diamondback was still in production and the price differential was not that significant. Most would choose the Diamondback which is smaller and lighter. Dealers had a hard time moving the Trooper Mark III's 22's. I have one that I paid $250 that was purchased around 1995.
My 6" Blue Trooper Mark III is my favorite 357 mag revolver. I don't think I would carry an 8" if I could find a 6". But my 8 3/8" S&W M57 is my favorite 41 mag revolver and I do carry it hunting from time to time. The 4" Mountain Gun goes hiking with me sometimes.
It is true that the Trooper Mark III did not sell very well in 22LR. The Diamondback was still in production and the price differential was not that significant. Most would choose the Diamondback which is smaller and lighter. Dealers had a hard time moving the Trooper Mark III's 22's. I have one that I paid $250 that was purchased around 1995.
My 6" Blue Trooper Mark III is my favorite 357 mag revolver. I don't think I would carry an 8" if I could find a 6". But my 8 3/8" S&W M57 is my favorite 41 mag revolver and I do carry it hunting from time to time. The 4" Mountain Gun goes hiking with me sometimes.
Confederate
Member
There's nothing like a good Colt bluing, and the Trooper III is no exception. People and views do change as well, and when guns become scarce they become more in demand. I like electroless nickel, but I wouldn't like it on a Trooper III I wanted to purchase. Why? Because I'd wait until I could get a beautiful blued one and then I'd pay through the nose for it.
From a more objective standpoint, if the gun were still in production and only available in stainless and electroless nickel, it probably would not be a great seller. The gun isn't just as heavy as a .357 magnum, it's heavier due to the fact that the chambers are smaller (making the cylinder heavier).
One of the guns that did the Trooper in was the Ruger semi-auto. It was more accurate, had more rounds and had far greater firepower. Another gun was the S&W 17 which was probably a better gun that was available at a lower price. Nibbling at all these guns was the S&W 63 kit gun. It wasn't as accurate as the others because of its light weight, but boy it was in demand! (I had to wait well over a year to get mine, and then it was stolen from my apartment!) It was very accurate, though I can't imagine people throwing it into their fishing kits or in the back of their trucks.
There are guns like the Colt Trooper that were very well made, and they competed with guns that were well made. But times change and as the old saying goes, "They don't make 'em like they used to!" Today the Trooper V, made for .22LR with an 8-shot capacity, would be a fantastic gun. But the old Trooper III had a lot of room for improvement; but no one doubts that it was a superbly made pistol.
From a more objective standpoint, if the gun were still in production and only available in stainless and electroless nickel, it probably would not be a great seller. The gun isn't just as heavy as a .357 magnum, it's heavier due to the fact that the chambers are smaller (making the cylinder heavier).
One of the guns that did the Trooper in was the Ruger semi-auto. It was more accurate, had more rounds and had far greater firepower. Another gun was the S&W 17 which was probably a better gun that was available at a lower price. Nibbling at all these guns was the S&W 63 kit gun. It wasn't as accurate as the others because of its light weight, but boy it was in demand! (I had to wait well over a year to get mine, and then it was stolen from my apartment!) It was very accurate, though I can't imagine people throwing it into their fishing kits or in the back of their trucks.
There are guns like the Colt Trooper that were very well made, and they competed with guns that were well made. But times change and as the old saying goes, "They don't make 'em like they used to!" Today the Trooper V, made for .22LR with an 8-shot capacity, would be a fantastic gun. But the old Trooper III had a lot of room for improvement; but no one doubts that it was a superbly made pistol.
Ash
Member
I can't say the 22lr Trooper was THAT much heavier than the 357, when loaded, considering the increased lead in the 357. Yeah, more steel, but not particularly noticeable - I own both. I'll get the scales, but the Trooper 22lr isn't a heavy revolver, certainly not any worse than my Webley. It is no different, indeed, than the 22lr versions of any other full-size revolver, and they exist for the same reason. One did not buy the Trooper in 22lr expecting a small revolver, any more than one buys a 1911 with a 22lr kit and expects a small auto (or the CZ-75 Kadet). They are a great way to practice shooting a Trooper in double action and single action, then moving on and using the exact same trigger, grip, and aiming techniques on the 357.
Confederate
Member
You may say it's not a heavy revolver now, but back when it was in production, that was the primary criticism of the Trooper III .22LR when it was in production. Most people preferred the S&W 17. And I remember the beautiful bluing job on the 17s. It doesn't mean the Trooper wasn't a good gun. It's just that competition was a little stiffer back then. In fact, if I had a choice today, I don't know which I'd take. I'd have to look at both.
Both guns were stunning in workmanship, the kind you don't see anymore. S&W no longer cares how ugly their guns are today. But back when they were produced, the Trooper .22 was pretty much considered an anchor by many. Times change, though.
Both guns were stunning in workmanship, the kind you don't see anymore. S&W no longer cares how ugly their guns are today. But back when they were produced, the Trooper .22 was pretty much considered an anchor by many. Times change, though.
22-rimfire
Member
This thread is turning into a Trooper Mark III chat which I enjoy.
The Trooper Mark III was more like a S&W M17 than a Daimondback. The Ruger did not kill the Trooper. The Diamondback killed the Trooper Mark III and it was a Buick versus Olds kind of comparison and if you liked Colts and wanted a premium 22 revolver, most went with the Diamondback at the time.
Now the Trooper Mark III is a different kind of animal and still compares favorably with the S&W M17 of that time period. I loved the Colt blue, but S&W also did a nice job on the blueing on their revolvers then. I hated stainless for years. But I have a stainless M63, a stainless Ruger LCR-22, and a number of other stainless guns. But I still have not purchased a stainless S&W M617 as I have blued versions of the M17 and M18.
My suggestion is to buy one of each as usual which is pretty much what I do. Some days, it's Colt; some days Ruger; and some days S&W.
But I have to say that I love my Colt Trooper Mark III in 357 mag. It is a fine revolver and my favorite shooter 357!
I personally never really like the E-nickel finish Colt had. But now, I buy them for collector reasons versus shooting reasons. I didn't particularly like the bright nickel guns either in the day for shooting, but collecting is a different ball game and fun too.
The Trooper Mark III was more like a S&W M17 than a Daimondback. The Ruger did not kill the Trooper. The Diamondback killed the Trooper Mark III and it was a Buick versus Olds kind of comparison and if you liked Colts and wanted a premium 22 revolver, most went with the Diamondback at the time.
Now the Trooper Mark III is a different kind of animal and still compares favorably with the S&W M17 of that time period. I loved the Colt blue, but S&W also did a nice job on the blueing on their revolvers then. I hated stainless for years. But I have a stainless M63, a stainless Ruger LCR-22, and a number of other stainless guns. But I still have not purchased a stainless S&W M617 as I have blued versions of the M17 and M18.
My suggestion is to buy one of each as usual which is pretty much what I do. Some days, it's Colt; some days Ruger; and some days S&W.
But I have to say that I love my Colt Trooper Mark III in 357 mag. It is a fine revolver and my favorite shooter 357!
I personally never really like the E-nickel finish Colt had. But now, I buy them for collector reasons versus shooting reasons. I didn't particularly like the bright nickel guns either in the day for shooting, but collecting is a different ball game and fun too.
Gordon
Member
I too don't like the electoless nickle Colt finish, first one I had with it was a Combat Commander in 1971 (I had two over the years) amd had several revolvers with it over the years too. No thanks to it and rubber grips for me! I do like the parkerized and unfinished "strike guns" for everyday carry tho, go figure! I will get around to taking a pcture of my gorgeous every bit as nice as Royal Blue .22 Mag Mark III Trooper with an ear spliting 4" barrel.
- Status
