Taurus Ultra-Lite .22 VS. Smith 317 .... Opinions?

[The Mighty Beagle]

I actually would prefer the Taurus, as I appreciate adjustable sights even on a pocket revolver. However, the Taurus is heavier, which is a minus for pocket carry ... and yes, I will be carrying this gun occasionally for CCW. It will be much better than the .44 I tend to leave at home.

So what's your experience with the 94UL?

I like the idea of the Smith's lightness, but I've heard bad things about their clear enamel-type finish coming off with moderate wear. Also, I don't care for the fixed sights of the 2" I'm considering. BTW, it is a LadySmith, what's the difference between it and the standard 317?

 

[tomkatz]

I think the only difference is the LS has wood grips and LS logo. I don't like adjustable sights on a snubbie and the smith has a better trigger so for me it would be S&W.....tom

 

[RoyJackson]

If you're going for a light weight revolver, I'd sure look at the 85 Ultralite .38 Spl.
This is a really nice little pocket gun and definitely a better stopper then a .22.

However, if you go for this revolver, put a couple hundred rounds through it ASAP. The early 85 UL's had a problem with light strikes. Taurus squared it away quickly and at no charge.

 

[The Mighty Beagle]

Nope, a .22 is all I want. I don't exactly live on the "mean streets", I live in a small rural town. If I did, I already have other guns for that.

I want something for inexpensive plinking that can also be pressed into service when my wife makes me go to the grocery store with her (very low-threat environment).

I loved the only concealable .22 I ever had, a Beretta .22 Bobcat, but lack of sights really got me down and I sold it.

Mainly, I want a concealable-type gun that actually FUN to shoot, so that I'll shoot MORE than I do now.

 

[VictorLouis]

I'd steer you toward a Taurus PT-22, or the Beretta version, before either revolver. FWIW, the PT has an excellent DAO trigger(I'd say better, even, than their small revolvers), and is quite fun to shoot. With a .22LR, you may need a reload, and that little spare mag will be light years ahead of an HKS loader with nine little .22 cartridges dangling from it.

Of the two revos, this is where I'd give the edge to the Taurus. My buddy has one that I've shot, and I've fired the little Airweight Smiths several times. The Taurus has the superior box-stock trigger, hands-down. The Smith is just so heavily sprung, it can be a bear to use, particularly if you want to plink with any level of accuracy. As you already mentioned, the Taurus has adjusstable sights, which you and I both prefer.

 

[tomkatz]

I have not pulled the trigger on a 94UL so I guess I should not have commented, but my 317 has a decent trigger and my friends steel 94 has a really stiff trigger pull, so that is what I based my comparison on. Maybe I got a good one, I have seen some bad S&W triggers lately, the worst being a 386pd I owned......tom

 

[The Mighty Beagle]

Tom and Victor,

Tom - I'm certainly glad you replied, sounds like your Smith 317 is quite nice. I have, however, done a recalculation of the finances (i.e. my wife will only let me buy the cheaper Taurus). But thanks anyway for your evaluation, one day I'll have the Smith.

Victor - I guess great minds think alike, I darn near ordered a nickel PT22 today based on some of your old posts I found over at TFL. You're absolutely right, a quick reload of an accurate, pocketable gun is paramount, sights or no sights. And it's about $100 cheaper. I also had some experience with a regular 94 with a DA that was extremely heavy, but until now I just thought it was my individual gun.

I just have one question - are the sights on the PT22 as bad as on the Beretta 21? Everyone comments on the accuracy of the PT22, so I'm assuming it has an edge in the sighting dept.