S&W 617 or Ruger Mk III

I have a Ruger MKIII . It feels balanced in my hand, and is a quality made firearm. Its been around for many years, and its very accurate , so far, I've shot thousands of rounds thru it, and it functions just fine. I would not hesitate to buy another one.

Don't waste your money on a "high end" MKIII. Get the cheapest one you can find and shoot the ish out of it. And if you want you can mod it to your taste. They're accurate and relatively reliable. Just takes a bit of practice to field strip it for cleaning.

I have a 617 6" Bbl. 10 shot cyl. - nice DA trigger on a
K-frame S&W, and of course the SA is crisp and light. My
shooting buddy has a Mk III. He had a box of
some target .22 standard velocity - it wouldn't cycle the
slide, so he sold it to me - the 617 had no problems with it,
accurate as always. I'd rather fill it's cylinder
than rrefreshing a magazine.

Randall

I vote for the third option: Smith & Wesson model 63.

For the O.P.

I don't have any, yet, but some .22 LR shooters use
speedloaders for the 10 shot 617 and now the 8 shot
j-frames. You can get a loading block which holds
4 x 10 .22 LR bullet down to readily reload the
speedloader for a range session. I think
the speedloader is DS-10 or something.

Another reason I like the 617 is I have Hogue grips
in Coco Bolo wood and they fit my hands well. Great
warm up gun prior to moving on to my 625 .45 ACP.

S&W .22 LR Revolvers keep their value very well.
price a model 17 or 18 lately?

Randall

C: none of the above.


In November 2008 my sister bought a used Ruger MK II with a 5.5" heavy barrel (IIRC), blued finish and adjustable sights. Like new condition. For $199 .

Another affordable option would be a Browning Buckmark. Even NIB examples usually sell for under $350 locally.

And instead of a new 617 at over $600 NIB, I'd recommend a used S&W K-22 / Model 17. They are becoming rare and have only been going up in value, but you should be able to find a good quality used one for under $500, maybe as low as $400 if you are very patient. May take some time, but the K-22s / M17s are worth every penny IMO. The 4" M18 is nice too, but they are selling for over $500 these days.

I have a mod 17-2 and a Mk II. I've easily put 250,000 miles through the Mk II. But in the year and a few months I've had the 17, I haven't even picked up the Ruger.

I'll vote S&W 617.

I have a Ruger 22/45 Mk III and a S&W M-18 4" 6-shot. I've had the Ruger 2-3 years now; I've had the S&W 6 months. I'll NEVER let go of the S&W; the Ruger hasn't seen the shooting range in 6 months. Coincidence??

Seriously, get the S&W (preferably in a 4" barrel) now, and get a Ruger Mk III later.

If you want to target shoot get the 617. With the target trigger you get a nice light and crisp trigger pull. The Ruger trigger would definitely need a gunsmith to compete. If I were to go with the Ruger I'd go with a MKII 5.5" and have the trigger done.

Both of those are very accurate and reliable. Btw I'm very picky on my triggers due to wanting the best accuracy and the stock 617 trigger is excellent out of the box. I only own the 617 now if that says anything.

I have to agree with what warnerwh said, in a round-about-way. I'd go with any of the mentioned Smiths before the Ruger. And if I did go with Ruger I'd look for a used Mark II (though I do enjoy my Bicentennial Mark I).

Wyman

Both fine guns, but I vote fer the Smith.

Revolver is less finicky with ammo so you can shoot whatever is on sale without worrying about jams, misfires, or double-feeds including CB caps & subsonic rounds.. Revolvers do load slower, but that encourages fire discipline and good shooting habits that favor economic use of ammo (there are aftermarket mag loaders that will have you burning through a box of bulk way too fast to enjoy each separate shot). Finally, the revolver, in my opinion, more closely mirrors its bigger brothers in heft and trigger than the target pistol matches a centerfire auto.

I have many of them and my favorites are the J frame steel guns and the 6 model 17 with out the lug on the bottoms. In otherwords get the skinny 6" incher. I have the full lug version but you don't need the weight.


Jim

A Revolver will shoot any type of 22LR even the really cheap and old stuff. An auto is more ammo sensitive. I have a Ruger MK1, H&R 929, Taurus, USFA 10/22 and S&W revolver n semis.
In your case I would go with a S&W 917 4". Love mine.

Another vote for the S&W Model 617.

Easier to clean and you don't have to spend more money on magazines.

I vote for the 617 also, or a Model 17 if you can find one. I own both, and prefer the older blued models. BTW, I would buy all the model 17's I could get at $400-$500, in good shape. Show me where they are!

I'd go with a Ruger MKII or even a MKIII before I would lay out the cash for the price of a new 617 or any new Smith for that matter. And I have owned quite a few Smiths including a late 90s model 617.

The MKIIs I have are far and away more accurate , one is completely stock , one with Clark trigger work. For a Smith I would try to find an older 17 or 18.

au2183 there out there for that price. I picked up a target master piece with original stocks for 5 bills last year.

Nice way to ask the old revolver vs semi-auto question.
Obviously the answer is to shoot the one that replicates your carry/competition handgun more closely.

I own a 10 shot 617 with a 6" barrel and a MKIII Hunter. I ordered an aftermarket sear and trigger for the Ruger and I love the way it shoots. Didn't cost very much and wasn't too terribly bad to install myself. But, the 617 trigger was as good straight out of the box as the modified Ruger trigger.

Both guns are very accurate and have been very, very reliable. The Ruger is a little picky on ammo but fortunately just loves that Federal bulk stuff from Walmart. The only time I -ever- have any type of failure to feed or eject with the semi is after neglecting to clean for about 1500 rounds. Even then it isn't that bad and a field strip and spray down with Break Free has it ready to go again. The 617 eats whatever I throw at it.

These are the two guns I shoot the most at the range and I love both. I think you will be happy with either one. I probably put a few more rounds through the Ruger since I have three magazines and it's just so easy to blast through 30 rounds in a rhythm.

The 617 is great to shoot a few times before I break out the 686 and start shooting more expensive 38 Special rounds. The two revolvers feel so much alike that practicing with one definitely helps with the other.

-Chris

If the guns cost the same I'd go with the 617.
There's just something about them that makes them feel like they're worth more than a Ruger MK.

If I was given that money to spend I would get a Taurus 94 or 670 Tracker PLUS a Ruger MKIII 22/45.
For the same price of a 617 or high end MKIII you could get both of the others.
The Taurus would be 90% of the quality of the Smith at half the price and the 22/45 would be all of the fun of a MKIII at half the price.

Now, if you want a gun to practice with then I'd simply pick whatever is closest to your other gun.
Like iScream, a 617 would be a nice match to a 686, or a MKIII to another auto.

There's smith and wesson and everyelse. Other trooper and disamand back and python match them
rugars are shooters but they require a trigger job the most. My carry S&W is a 638 LITTle HEAVY ON DOUJBLE A DREAM ON SINGLE ACTION. iT WILL but I don't touch doubl;ew actionSHOOT EASILY 5 INCH GROU-S AT 25 YARDS. iT SHOT 12 INCHES TO THE RIGHT WHEN i BOUGHT IT. TOLD THE DEALER THE BARREL NEEED TURNED i i'D RATHER they DO IT ON AN D ALUMIN FRAME GUN. Smiths,

Jim I've regretted everyone I have sold

Get the 617 IMO more accurate than the Ruger autoloaders.