S&W 63 22lr vs.................

Rodentman said:

Ah, you guys got me...just placed an order for a 63

Click to expand...

Got 'em!!!

The LCRx is a good choice, IMO. I had the original 2" .22 LCR and it was lightweight and rugged.

Sometimes, just sometimes, the "I can't justify the extra cost of what I really want " ends up costing us more in the long run!

Been there a time or twelve myself.

I bought a model 63 just over a year ago. Soon after I bought it I discovered that red optics, fiber and red dot sights, and astigmatism do not go together.
I also didn’t care for the original grip.

Without boring you with the evolution of the sights I went through to find the combination that works for me I ended up with a standard J frame rear sight (could have, should have left well enough alone) and I installed a Hi-Viz green fiber optic sight in front. I changed the grip to a Hogue Monogrip. I am thinking there is a better J frame grip out there for me. I am not totally happy with the Monogrip at this point, but it’s good enough.

Here is my 63 in original condition:


Here it is now:


Also, I bought a Speed Beez loader and ammo box for it. The one that goes with theS&W 317 is the one to get. What a cool little set up this is for plinking and target practice.
https://www.speedbeez.com/product/s...er-speedloader-loading-block-case-value-pack/

I hope you get your 63 soon.

I've had a Model 60 in .357 Magnum for a lot of years, but really wanted a similar gun but in .22 for trail walks etc., that matched the bigger gun's weight and bbl. length. I bought a M63 last year with that in mind, 3" bbl. but with that plastic hi-vis plastic tube abomination for a front sight. Range work showed that it was sighted very low, well under the front dot sight...2-3" low at 15 yds to be exact. Too, it was shaving lead on 2-3 chambers of the cylinder. Lead splash back was hitting me on the left side of my face. Not good.

A call to S&W got me a FEDEX shipping label and I sent it back. That was January 3rd of this year. An email from FEDEX, earlier this week, informed me that they had picked up a package in Springfield, that would require a signature for delivery on the 19th but that an "error in transit" had occurred in Connecticut, and no delivery date could be estimated. Wonder what's going on....too, no word from S&W regarding a gun shipment as yet.

As to the gun's fit and finish...good trigger in SA, heavier than I like (as are most J frames) in DA. Great accuracy with a variety of Hi Speed and standard velocity ammunition (and inch at 10 yds from a Weaver Stance) but...I was dodging lead frag's on each cylinderful. I really like the gun, but hope S&W corrects the lead shaving and puts a more suitable front sight on it. I asked for a solid steel sight, as is supplied on the M60...we'll see. I'd recommend the M63, in that length other than the above problems.

"If single action is okay, the three Ruger Single Sixes I've owned have all been excellent"....." the Single Six is a good 22 rimfire revolver. I have a 22 mag/22RF convertible model."

I'd agree with these single six remarks...I've had 3 of them over the years, not counting my .32 H&R's. All were excellent holster guns...All were/are blued, but stainless steel construction makes even better sense for canoe, horseback or back packing use.

HTH's and YMMv, Rod

@Rodfac your post reminded me that I also had to send my 63 in to S&W. Just after I purchased it I discovered that the accuracy was lacking. It turned out the barrel to cylinder gap on the left was .015” on the right it was .005”. I sent it S&W. It came back with an even .005” on both sides on all chambers.

Rather disheartening, but it’s all better now.

I have a S&W 617, 6" model. It is a sweet gun....but it is heavy and clunky feeling to me.

I have tried to like two 6" 617's, a 6 shot -5 and a 10 shot -6. I failed on both occasions. I have had both cut to 5", which is a length I like, particularly with the full underlug barrel. Now they match the weight and balance of my 5" 627-5 PC. Works for me.

I had a beautiful S&W 63 that was stolen when two guys who worked at my apartment complex entered my apartment and took it and two other handguns I owned. I was devastated by the loss, and the two guys were fired, but I never got my guns back. The guns were insured, but the M63 was gone and the gun was hard to get. I got an FFL (Federal Firearms License) shortly thereafter and replaced my M63 with two Rossi M511s, which were beautiful and equally as accurate (if not more) than the M63. I still miss my M63, even though this happened about 40 years ago.





..

Rodentman said:

View attachment 856383

View attachment 856384

Click to expand...

I d don't know why S&W revolvers aren't polished like some of the cheaper competition revolvers. They look like they're finished by a bunch of orangutans with sandpaper (no offense)! I usually buy a tub of Mother's metal polish, then use cotton balls to beautify it while watching a movie. Of course, some people like the sandpaper look, and maybe you do, too, but the crisscrossing of very fine lines bothers the living daylights out of me. Of course there's no accounting for taste.

AK103K said:

The one I picked up was the first Ive seen around here. Even the 317's dont seem to be very common, as Ive only seen one other around here in any of the shops. They arent cheap either.

Click to expand...

My S&W 317 was acquired in a trade and at first I didn't like it at all. But it grew on me and is now one of my favorite guns and is packed in my bugout bag. So tastes change over time.




I know this is a revolver thread, but the two pistolas in
my bugout bag are the S&W 317 and this Ruger 22/45.

Confederate said:

I d don't know why S&W revolvers aren't polished like some of the cheaper competition revolvers. They look like they're finished by a bunch of orangutans with sandpaper (no offense)! I usually buy a tub of Mother's metal polish, then use cotton balls to beautify it while watching a movie. Of course, some people like the sandpaper look, and maybe you do, too, but the crisscrossing of very fine lines bothers the living daylights out of me. Of course there's no accounting for taste.

Click to expand...

Some of us prefer the matte finish to mirror polished. The matte finish generally holds up a little better too. Ive bead-blasted more than a couple of scratched up, brightly polished SS handguns in the past just for that reason.

Polished SS is like having a black car. The slightest little thing on its finish stands right out and looks like hell.

Confederate said:

My S&W 317 was acquired in a trade and at first I didn't like it at all. But it grew on me and is now one of my favorite guns and is packed in my bugout bag. So tastes change over time.

Click to expand...

Yours is an older gun, and I would prefer that over what seems to be available today.

The sights on the newer models, and just the crappy clearcoat finish the "Airweights" generally have, and how poorly they hold up to use, make them about the least desirable of the S&W line.

PatRiot, I'm waiting on my M63 Smith, sent back to Springfield for that lead shaving issue. FEDEX has had it in Grandby, CT (<20 miles south of Springfield) since the 19th according to their tracking info.

The gun mic'd 0.010" at the top and 0.003" at the bottom of the cylinder/barrel gap; but shot beautiful groups with all 8 chambers...hated to send it back but that spitting lead scared the heck out of me, peppering my face on the left side.

Asked to have them put a solid, all steel front sight on it, regulated for top of the post impact at 10 yds. We'll see...still no word from S&W regarding that it was shipped tho, Fedex sent me updates on it's location....Rod

Update: FEDEX delivered my M63 this morning and I promptly headed out in the pasture range to try it out. It suffered from lead shaving and that fiber optic front sight was not to my liking if you recall.

Well...they replaced the barrel which corrected the uneven cylinder/barrel gap & lead spitting issues, and also replaced the ejection rod and adjusted the crane. They did not however replace the front sight with a steel one. Guess I'll have to learn use the damned thing. The gun is every bit as accurate as before (1" or a bit less from the 10 yd line in a Weaver Stance, slow fire...about as good as my old eyes will do anymore). This with Mini-Mag solids in gusty winds here. The single action trigger is as good as any Smith I've owned over the past 50+ years, but the DA trigger is still way to heavy...more dry fire there or perhaps a trip to a local gunsmith for some work.

I've worn the gun all day, like the light wt. on my hip and with it's 3" bbl., I can head shoot rabbits out past 20-25 yds or so. More enough for a fun piece, understudy to my M60 .357. Rod I'll try to post some pics of the two manana.

Rodfac said:

PatRiot, I'm waiting on my M63 Smith, sent back to Springfield for that lead shaving issue. FEDEX has had it in Grandby, CT (<20 miles south of Springfield) since the 19th according to their tracking info.

The gun mic'd 0.010" at the top and 0.003" at the bottom of the cylinder/barrel gap; but shot beautiful groups with all 8 chambers...hated to send it back but that spitting lead scared the heck out of me, peppering my face on the left side.

Asked to have them put a solid, all steel front sight on it, regulated for top of the post impact at 10 yds. We'll see...still no word from S&W regarding that it was shipped tho, Fedex sent me updates on it's location....Rod

Click to expand...

When I got mine back and installed some sights that I like I am really liking my 63. It seems to be pretty accurate with a with variety of ammunition. Funny thing is it really isn’t accurate with match ammo. But, that works for me. Cheaper ammo! Also, between CCI Stinger and CCI Velocitor it is more accurate with Stingers.
I hope yours arrives soon.

Some years back (10?) my 85 year old aunt asked for my help on buying a .22RF revolver. She still cross country skied and decided she wanted a little something for protection when out on the snow, and at home were she lived alone. She went to the Sheriff and got a permit to purchase and took the CCW class so she could carry. I brought her along and headed for a Cabela's about 70 miles away. I made a stop at a gun shop along the way. As I was browsing she was looking at guns in the showcase. When I seen she was handling a gun I went to see what was going on. Well the salesman had talked her into buying a Taurus M941 in .22 Magnum. I asked her if she was sure about buying this as we could always come back to it on the way home after looking at what was available at Cabela's. She had also said she wanted a regular .22 and not a magnum. well she bought the gun for about $350 without bargaining. Since we were only 20 miles from Cabela's I decided we would still go there. At Cabela's in there used gun display case I approached and my eyes went straight to a S&W M63. Then to make me cry I looked at the price tag and the gun was marked at $200 dollars. And to ad insult to injury I was broke. I didn't look the gun over for problems and don't know why it was that cheap but sulked all the way home. I always wanted a S&W M34 or M63 and never ran across one that cheap. Even if I would of had to do a bit of work on it . My aunt stopped cross country skiing at 92. I bought a Taurus M94 .22LR I picked up on sale at Gander Mountain for $132 and change out the door. Works fine in SA but misfires at times in DA.

mnrivrat said:

Works fine in SA but misfires at times in DA.

Click to expand...

Lots of .22 revolvers do.

AK103K said:

Some of us prefer the matte finish to mirror polished. The matte finish generally holds up a little better too. Ive bead-blasted more than a couple of scratched up, brightly polished SS handguns in the past just for that reason.

Polished SS is like having a black car. The slightest little thing on its finish stands right out and looks like hell.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Paul7 said:

Lots of .22 revolvers do.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of that issue with the revolvers is due to fouling and the rounds not fully seating in their chambers.

I use the same ammo in my revolvers and autos, and rarely have a fail to fire in the autos. The revolvers are usually pretty good when clean, but once you get a couple of hundred rounds through them, you start to see problems, especially if you arent paying attention when you load them, and make sure the rounds are seated fully in the chambers.

They may look like they are in there right, and the cylinder seems like it closes OK, but all it takes, is that round not having the rim against something solid, and that little movement when the hammer strikes and fully seating it, actually cushions the strike.

I clean my guns every time out, and with the 22's, they all seem to run fine when you first start shooting them. Its when they start getting dirty that they start getting grumpy, and they all eventually start to have issues. Just seems the revolvers are more sensitive to it.

AK103K said:

I think a lot of that issue with the revolvers is due to fouling and the rounds not fully seating in their chambers.

I use the same ammo in my revolvers and autos, and rarely have a fail to fire in the autos. The revolvers are usually pretty good when clean, but once you get a couple of hundred rounds through them, you start to see problems, especially if you arent paying attention when you load them, and make sure the rounds are seated fully in the chambers.

They may look like they are in there right, and the cylinder seems like it closes OK, but all it takes, is that round not having the rim against something solid, and that little movement when the hammer strikes and fully seating it, actually cushions the strike.

I clean my guns every time out, and with the 22's, they all seem to run fine when you first start shooting them. Its when they start getting dirty that they start getting grumpy, and they all eventually start to have issues. Just seems the revolvers are more sensitive to it.

Click to expand...

I believe you mentioned that a while back, I've been conscious of doing so when .22 shooting. Would you agree it doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with the gun?

As long as they go off when you know the gun is clean and the round is seated, I would say its not the gun. Thats assuming "good" ammo.

When I load the chambers on my 22's, but especially if Ive been shooting them a bit, I give the rounds an extra push prior to closing the cylinder, to make sure they are fully seated. And sometimes you can feel some of the rounds go in a bit more when you push. Its those rounds I think that will likely give you trouble.

All of my .22 revolvers either can't close or rotate the cylinder if all the cartridges won't seat fully. Not enough clearance between the cylinder and recoil shield.

Mine all seemed to have no problem closing with that little bit of play. My 63 has recessed chambers and there is still a good gap between the back face of the cylinder and the recoil shield. At least the thickness of a rim.

And just like my centerfire revolvers, if you raise and lower the muzzle, you can hear the rounds falling back into the recoil shield and back into the cylinder.

It doesn't take much to deaden the hammer fall on the primer.

AK103K said:

And just like my centerfire revolvers, if you raise and lower the muzzle, you can hear the rounds falling back into the recoil shield and back into the cylinder.

Click to expand...

Certainly the cartridges fall back and forth with clean chambers, but the cartridge in front of the firing pin portion of the recoil shield hardly moves at all due to that "ramped up" part of the recoil shield offering much less clearance.

Of course, I don't own an S&W rimfire to know if this is the same as my Rugers, H&R, and Charter Arms. These particular rimfire revolvers of mine are pretty dang tight in front of the firing pin.

The Taurus M94 has a reputation for misfires in DA. Mine is best using CCI ammo but I prefer a gun that is not ammo sensitive. I only paid $132 OTD for mine and to be honest I have no need for DA in a .22 LR revolver. I shoot it SA 100% of the time. I read one article on the M94 that indicated the problem in DA to be a light hammer coupled with a short throw. I have a tendency to agree with that.

4" Smith and Wesson M651 (pre lock) with both 22lr and 22mag cylinders.

PatRiot: I'd be interested in the sights you put on your M63...type and how you did it. I've got a cpl of blank S&W sights in my parts box, but have never attempted installing them. Best Regards, Rod

Update: FEDEX delivered my M63 this morning and I promptly headed out in the pasture range to try it out. It suffered from lead shaving and that fiber optic front sight was not to my liking if you recall.

Well...they replaced the barrel which corrected the uneven cylinder/barrel gap & lead spitting issues, and also replaced the ejection rod and adjusted the crane. They did not however replace the front sight with a steel one. Guess I'll have to learn use the damned thing. The gun is every bit as accurate as before (1" or a bit less from the 10 yd line in a Weaver Stance, slow fire...about as good as my old eyes will do anymore). This with Mini-Mag solids in gusty winds here. The single action trigger is as good as any Smith I've owned over the past 50+ years, but the DA trigger is still way too heavy...more dry fire there or perhaps a trip to a local gunsmith for some work.

I've worn the gun all day, like the light wt. on my hip and with it's 3" bbl., I can head shoot rabbits out past 20-25 yds or so. More enough for a fun piece, understudy to my M60 .357. Rod I'll try to post some pics of the two manana.