Looking for a .22 Kit Gun

I have a nickel 34 and would say my BH Wrangler makes an ok substitute as would my Bobcat or Sig P322 if a person wanted a bottom feeder.
Don't own one but a LCR 3" 22 would be excellent.

I know this section is focused on revolvers,
however.......
to the "kit gun" needs of the OP, suggest a standard Ruger Mark IV.

Twenty-odd years ago, I wrote an NRA grant for our Club, for revolvers to teach our Handgun Safety course. Got six of them, because I had one myself, and liked it. In the intervening years, most of our students wanted to use autos, so the Club sold off 4 of the 6, for maybe $450 @, first come, first served, among the members. Still have my original, with I don't know how many rounds thru' it. They aren't terribly light, but they are a wonderful gun.
Riomouse, as noted in my post, the trigger in the 317 can be slicked really well, and that V notch sight blade replaced with an OEM square notch.
Another poster was concerned about the ratchet on Ti cylinders; the ratchet is steel.
The Glock 44 has been suggested; it's relatively bulky, but weighs next to nothing, and mine works all the time.
Moon

jstert said:

although i’m not a huge fan of birdshead grips (hence the grip tape on mine) i do like the overall smaller “footprint” of the 3.5” ruger wrangler birdshead over the 4.5” plowhandle model. the shorter wrangler b.h. feels more balanced in my hand.

another option might be a naa 2.5” sheriff or 3” earl mini revolver but with cv revision grips.

i firmly believe that a wranglerized (i.e. alloy and cheaper) bearcat would sell like hotcakes.

and while i’m asking, how about a wrangler sheriff, i.e. 3.5” barrel but with plowhandle, not birdshead, grips?

Click to expand...

I agree! I took a Birdshead Wrangler, swapped grip frames to an aluminum XR-3RED that I tapered and polished, swapped to a Single 6 hammer and added a Bisley trigger. The front sight is now windage adjustable. Light, kit gun with a decent trigger. Ditching the zinc birdshead grip lightened it up.

Bible....outstanding work...Gotta chuckle every time I see your Avatar...

OP...my choices for a kit gun for plinking and informal target shooting runs to revolvers like many here. For fishing carry, in my vest or chest pack and where it's only for snakes and treacherous milk weed pods, I normally carry a Smith M-63 with a 3" bbl. It's light enough to tote all day yet heavy enough to offer some real precision.

Couple of thoughts...mine had the _#*$($*&#)$ infernal lock but truth be told, I don't notice it anymore. DA shooting...well it's a coil main-spring Smith "J" frame and I've never run across one that stood up to a run of the mill "N" or "K" frame Smith. But in SA fire...it's as good as any Smith I've ever shot...

Accuracy is all I can hope for...1/2" to 3/4" 5 shot groups at 10 yds with me having a good "eyes" day. And that's offhand from a Weaver stance & with that abominable fiber optic atrocity. The gun's good enough to pick off charcoal briquettes on my fence posts from ~15 yds!

Ammunition: it likes Fed Auto-match, Remington Golden Solid and HP's, and anything made by CCI. Currently here locally in the Louisville, KY area, Auto-Match is $21.16 + Tax for 325...The lowest of any currently available, and the gun really likes them.

The factory boot gripprobably fits smaller hands but the Hogue Monogrip really fills my paws and improves my hit/miss ratio. Sights are ok, but Smith has cursed this current production 63 with a fiber optic front...believing some idiot in the advertising dept., that it adds "tactical" allure to it's sales appeal. Sure wish it had come out with the tried and true Baughman ramped front sight. More precision is the reason and a much stouter construction for hard use....

Over all; mine had lead spitting issues when new but Smith made that right on their dime including shipping and did a SA trigger job while fitting a new cylinder & bbl. A friend's, however, was GTG right out of the box. While I've learned to really like the 3" bbl. for it's compactness & easy concealment, I'd have preferred a 4" had it been offered, though I doubt now, that I could wring out any more accuracy with that extra inch of sight radius. It's a quality gun, worthy of the S&W name and one that I'd really recommend for a DA/SA choice.

Pro's: Great SA trigger pull and a good bbl. both contribute to excellent/superb field accuracy. SS construction for extended outdoor/fishing use. Good adjustable sights, even with that fiber optic mistake out front. Uses the cheapest of current production .22's with real precision. Great service from S&W should you need it.

Neg's: DA trigger needs a good gunsmith to lighten and smooth it up. FIber optic front sight not needed on a .22. Best regards, Rod

Pic of the M-63 and its big brother my M-60 (wearing the Monogrip) plus the holsters I've made for both. Stocks on the M-63 are S&W early combats. Monogrip works as well.

Heritage recently had prices that were almost give aways, less than half the price I paid for a RR a year or so ago. I'd hop on that if I didn't already own one. Might get another, just hearing of ridiculous deals. If you're looking for a deal. They were cheap already, but recently seen them for half normal.

I'm late. Haven't read through. I really like my 63-3 Smith. I'm also intrigued by the NAA MiniMaster mentioned early in the thread. In fact, that mention reminded me of it again.

halfmoonclip said:

The Smith 317 is the answer, if a lightweight .22 with good sights is what is wanted.
The factory adjustables come with a V-notch rear and fiber optic front. I cannot get a repeatable sight picture with the V, so I replaced the blade with a standard J-gun notch.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with installing a more conventional rear sight blade on a Model 317.

After a little use, I got use to the v-notch rear sight blade on my Model 317. I picked a sight picture that was consistent and then adjusted the sights from there.

The ultra light weight of the Model 317 makes carrying it afield a joy. My M317 has put a ground hog out of my misery with no issues except for what any 22LR revolver would experience with an animal the size of a ground hog. It took several rounds to completely plant the ground hog., (I'm planning on using my 327 Fed mag SP101 with hot 32 H&R Mag reloads for the next ground hog that is dumb enough to hang around as I approach).

I'd really like to carry a 22LR revolver when I am bush hogging the horses and ponies pastures. The M317 is one option and a Model 43C is a new, second option. Most of the rats and mice are too fast to get with a 22LR but maybe I can dispatch something else that needs to be eliminated from my pastures.

Oh, the joys of country living.

Peakbagger46 said:

The Smith 43 is looking better and better.

Sorry for not being more clear earlier, I am looking at revolvers only for this gun.

Click to expand...

For a "kit gun", a 2" j-frame with adjustable sights would be ideal but they seem to be difficult to find. So, a longer barrel is a compromise. With a j-frame, that really is not a big issue.

If you nre looking for a plinking gun as well, a 3" or 4" barrel j-frame will serve you well and will be easy to carry afield in a kit.

The M317 AirLite is obscenely light and easy to carry.

The AirWeight Model 43 is a bit lighter than the steel versions (Model 34 and Model 63). 4" or more recently, 3" versions are on the market.

So, if you want a kit gun that would be a fun plinking gun, any of the S&w models (34, 43, or 63) would serve you well. Except for the Model 43, the other two are readily available in the used market.

The Model 43C is a Classic or Centennial, depending on your definition, of the Model 43. It is a double action only, 1-7/8" barrel 22LR revolver. It would be a nice "kit only" firearm but with the double action only trigger, it takes some work to get proficient with it.

Finally, what has not been discuss is the 22WMR kit gun, the Model 51. It might be a consideration for the OP as well. A bit more oomph in the field than 22LR.

You know, I wrote about the Heritage Rough Rider, because I was thinking inside the revolver box, but since the topic of semi-auto's has come up, I realized I would have another option for a "bum around the woods gun" these days. Small, and light, but accurate as the day is long, heck, even I shoot it pretty well, the "Fort Smith" Walther PPK/S would probably be my first choice for a day of woods buming even over the Rough Rider. I shoot it a lot better if for no other reason.



Great little gun. Small, light, accurate, and really as reliable as any 22 semi I've owned with cheap bulk pack ammo. Use something like CCI mini-mags, or even better, Stingers, and I'm still waiting for the first malfunction. Ten +1 capacity, it will slip into a coat pocket if that's what's needed, or like I do, I have a really nice Bianchi IWB holster for it. The DA trigger leaves a lot to be desired, but as a woods gun, I'd almost certainly just thumb cock the hammer for the first shot anyway. The SA is actually pretty darn good. With practice the DA is doable even. It's heavy, but smooth.

I caught mine on sale for less than $300 out the door. I'm not even sure what they sell for normally.

cfullgraf said:

Nothing wrong with installing a more conventional rear sight blade on a Model 317.

Click to expand...

I've taken the v notch off of every smith that came with one. I despise them. I have taken the fiber front sight off of every one but my 460. Its much finer on my 460 and if does pick up light well but still don't like them

I'm one of those guys with a certain set of eyes that can make good use of a red fiber optic front sight. I've tried the green ones and they wash out too much for my vision. Plain black sights even with a white dot or line are harder for me to see these days. Orange, red, and yellow paint aren't much better for me.

chicharrones said:

I'm one of those guys with a certain set of eyes that can make good use of a red fiber optic front sight. I've tried the green ones and they wash out too much for my vision. Plain black sights even with a white dot or line are harder for me to see these days. Orange, red, and yellow paint aren't much better for me.

Click to expand...

I hear you, I have added FO sights to guns for that same reason.

I didn’t like them until I got a new Colt Cobra .38. That set up was, literally, an eye opener on how well a good FO sight system can be for defensive work and shooting under stress. I have bought them, or added them, to every one of my potential choices for defensive armament, along with the 7.5” Redhawk and a couple of action-sport oriented target autos.

But, the darn 317 sight set up just doesn’t do it for me. That one will need a new rear sight blade to make it work, or maybe even a complete change of sights. (On the list of things to do!)

Stay safe.

I own or have owned most of those shown so far, with the exception some of the newer fare. I seldom buy current production revolvers and, when I have, I have been invariably disappointed. So I look for gently used vintage ones that are priced right for the quality. For me, it is less about cost and much more about enduring value. Back in the day, making the very best firearm possible was more of an expectation that it apparently is now.

It seems to me that that the industry is now very good at producing polymer framed, center fire autos, but far too often misses the mark with revolvers, and especially with 22 revolvers, and especially those in DA.

I understand that what you want is a revolver, and not an auto, and you want it approximately 16 oz. That weight restriction puts you squarely in the realm of alloy framed revolvers and the choices there are quite limited.

Within those parameters, and with the 16 oz weight as a serious and non-negotiable requirement, I would recommend the SW 43 with the alloy frame above all others. In a 3 1/2" barrel, adjustable sights, with a weight of just over 14 oz I think it is far better than the original fixed sight 16 oz alloy frame Bearcat, especially in the realm of accuracy.

Don't expect a superb trigger in any double action .22, although in SA most triggers should be ok enough. If you choose a DA revolver, refrain from lightening the pull weight in DA with mere spring changes, as it will likely compromise reliable ignition. Judicious stoning of some of the internal parts done by a professional (who has done it a few hundred times), combined with somewhat lighter springs will make a modest difference.

If you were to consider an auto, I would recommend the steel framed Beretta 70s with adjustable sights, 3 1/2" barrel at just over 22 oz. But don't expect a great trigger there either. But it shoots well for its small size and is very, very compact. It can also be carried cocked and locked (8+1).

If you were to reconsider your desired weight, I might also recommend the SW Model 63, stainless steel, adjustable sights, at about 25 oz. If you choose one of the J frame Smith's, I strongly recommend getting SW target grips or at least a set of cheap Pachmayr Compacs. Either of these will make a world of difference in how well you can shoot.

What's my kit gun for the field?

In revolvers, it is either a steel frame SW Model of 1953 22/32 Kit Gun, 4", at 24 oz with SW Target grips, or a SW Model 63. In autos, the Colt Woodsman Sport, 2nd Series, steel, adjustable sights, 4 1/2" barrel, at 30 oz.

Riomouse911 said:

I hear you, I have added FO sights to guns for that same reason.

I didn’t like them until I got a new Colt Cobra .38. That set up was, literally, an eye opener on how well a good FO sight system can be for defensive work and shooting under stress. I have bought them, or added them, to every one of my potential choices for defensive armament, along with the 7.5” Redhawk and a couple of action-sport oriented target autos.

But, the darn 317 sight set up just doesn’t do it for me. That one will need a new rear sight blade to make it work, or maybe even a complete change of sights. (On the list of things to do!)

Stay safe.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the front sight is too fat for the barrel length?

Smith 317
8 shot
10.7 oz empty, 11.5 oz full of CCI stingers.

Surprisingly accurate for such a little gun. No sights but with 8 rounds, it's easy to walk them up to your target. Horribly stiff double action trigger. Single action is more accurate but cocking the hammer will shred your thumb.

Will trade for a Wilson Supergrade or Korth Mongoose.

chicharrones said:

Sounds like the front sight is too fat for the barrel length?

Click to expand...

Ya, that and the rather shallow V notch rear conspire to cause me fits. I’ll fix the notch sooner or later.

I checked GB completed sales a minute ago. Vintage 4” 43’s range from roughly $900-$1,000. The Centennial Air Lite or black stainless hammerless 1 7/8” barrel gun about $740.

Not inexpensive guns at all .

Stay safe.

I think the only real answer is the LCRx 3". The steel J-frames are too heavy, while the alloy J-frames at 12-oz may be too light to shoot well. The LCR is 17.3 oz.

Riomouse911 said:

Ya, that and the rather shallow V notch rear conspire to cause me fits. I’ll fix the notch sooner or later.

Stay safe.

Click to expand...

I will not dispute your dis-like of the M317 V notch sight. It is a personal preference thing.

After I took a ground hog (10 yards or so) with my M317 I was more acceptable of the v-notch sight.

With the extreme light weigh of the M317, it is an easy option to carry in the field as long as 22LR will solve all potential need.

Regardless, it is nice that options are available.

Shoot safe and Happy Hollidays.

To harken back to that classic '80s flick, Highlander -- "There can be only one."

Count me in with the Model 63 contingent. Even a 4" barrel is eminently concealable and quite lightweight.

I was going to recommend a Rossi 511. I have one in 4”, a well done adjustable sighted J frame Kit Gun. Mine is a very nice shooting gun albeit a bit tight in the chambers. Then I looked on Gunbroker and saw they run for over $600 and said to myself “nope”. Has to be a decent .22 for field use at a somewhat decent price.

J-Bar said:

Look for a S&W Model 43, the Airweight Kit Gun. Delightfully lightweight, compact, great choice for backpacking. Called “.22/.32 Kit Gun Airweight”from 1955 to 1957 when the name changed to Model 43. Discontinued in 1974. The Model 43C is a hammerless snubbie grandchild of the Model 43 and may also do the job with its aluminum frame and alloy cylinder, and may be easier to find as it was introduced in 2010. Examples of both can be seen on Gunbroker. The 43 will likely be more expensive than the 43C. Conversations with backpacking friends leads me to believe that dedicated hikers don’t flinch at cost if they can save weight.

My preference? The older Model 43 with adjustable sights and slightly larger grip. I happen to own one and the lack of weight makes me smile every time I pick it up.

Click to expand...

Hard to disagree with you there.
Mine has a bit more wear on it from being in a saddlebag (or just stuck in my back pocket)
for most of it's life, but I did buy it to use it.



The target stocks are (obviously) a more recent addition that do help to give a
cleaner trigger release, as the gun is much lighter than the pull weight.

Peakbagger46 said:

The Smith 43 is looking better and better.

Click to expand...

Just understand that the alloy cylinder and frame will wear differently than the steel barrel.
The wear on the ejector rod shows that mine has been shot - a lot.

JT

I went down the .22 revolver kit gun road. If I were starting out now, I would probably just get a S&W model 63 and call it good.

If you can live with something a little larger and heavier, then a Smith K-frame will almost certainly have a better trigger.

Can't beat the 317 for "light as a feather", but a target gun it is not and will never be.


Single action revolvers can serve here also, and many are quite affordable. Maybe not so much the Single Six/Single Ten nowadays, but then again you're getting a very solid and sturdy gun that should last a lifetime. I have picked up a couple of Wranglers along the way and of course the jury is still out as far as long-term durability but I don't treat any of my stuff very rough anyway. So I think it should be fine.