.22 Revolvers: opinions wanted, please

[Carl Levitian]

I've had the Ruger single six, the Ruger SP-101, the Taurus, all because I was hesitant to spend the high bucks for the S&W 617.

Well, four years ago, I finally spent the bucks, and now I kick myself for waiting. The 4 inch 10 shot 617 has become my favorite handgun to shoot, and I deeply regret not buying it sooner. It IS the top of the food chain in .22 revolvers. I've put thousands of thousands of rounds through this gun, as my better half and I are both retired, and go to the range once a week. We both shoot rimfires only, and love to plink.

I wish I'd just bought this revolver long ago instead of messing with those 'other' revolvers.

Get the Smith and Wesson 617 in the 4 inch. The 6 inch is muzzle heavy as, well it's muzzle heavy!

Carl.

 

[22-rimfire]

My experience mirrors Carl's in that I was a cheapskate and my first was an H&R 999. Yes, it was arguably the best made by H&R at that time. I didn't understand the difference between the less expensive DA 22 revolvers and the Smiths and Colts available at that time. Half the price.... it shoots, must be okay....

I didn't understand until one day I decided to take my H&R to a gunsmith and he refused to work on it. He said it wasn't worth spending money on one. But a Smith or Colt.... He suggested I buy a Colt or Smith and I would be a much happier shooter long term.

A year or so later, I bought a 4" Colt Diamondback and quite honestly, I never shot the H&R again, but kept it as a loaner for when I shot with other family members. My one friend at the time was a S&W guy and we routinely shot against each other. Fun old days. I knew Smith made a good product. I just chose Colt. In recent years with the Colts getting so expensive, I quit shooting the Colts and bought a M17 and M18. I'll still shoot the Colts occasionally. The Smith's are very good revolvers. As time passes, everything is getting more expensive. After years of shooting 22's, I favor the 4" models over the 6" models. I definitely prefer the feel of the 4" M617 over the 6" M617.

The new Ruger SP-101 may be the middle-ground answer for many. But I suspect that I won't be too impressed when they hit the shelves. The triggers on the old ones just plain sucked. The sharp edges always bothered me too. I wanted to buy one, but I just couldn't bring myself to spending the money for a revolver I knew I wouldn't like as well as what I was used to. I suspect that will continue to be the case, but I will give Ruger its due when the time comes. Might even buy one, but the 3" S&W M63 is the next one on my acquisition list. I have the 5" already.

 

[Remllez]

You may want to check out a Dan Wesson .22, double action,adjustable sights,built on the same frame as their .357....everything you have on your list plus the ability to simply change barrel lengths at will. They are very accurate guns although only available used one can still find them for around $600.00 on the gun auctions.

I've had many Dans in my life and it's almost impossible to break one in .22, they are simply over built yet balance quite well with a 4 or 6 inch barrel. The S/A triggers are most excellent and the D/A trigger is a delight and smooths up with use. They are quality built and last forever.

 

[Pilot]

I think the new Ruger SP101, plus some trigger work, and/or Wolff springs would be a very nice little package. But, I agree, I bet the triggers are awful out of the box.

 

[Mauser lover]

I would like to have the Ruger SP101 over all the other ones mentioned.

 

[jwgml]

s&w 617

 

[Prosser]

I've started a number of topics on this subject, or related.
I called Ruger, and the Bearcat and the new Ruger SP101 are the only one with a real .22 lr spec barrel.
Single Six is the .22 mag spec.
Oddly, they said the Single 10 had a .22 mag spec barrel, but, they had had great accuracy out of the single 10, despite the .22 mag spec barrel.

I had a Colt Trooper III, and sold it to finance a FA 252. Problem is, I was looking for a gun that could deal with CCI ammo. The chambers on the 252 are very tight, and one of them was a pain in the a.... Almost have to pound the round in, not a good thing with a rim fire cartridge, and likewise out.
Barrel was too long, and, by the time I got done, I'm looking at what I would have in a new FA 97, with the specs I wanted.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Get a Dan Wesson. Tough guns! The 22 is built on the same frame they put the 357 Magnum. I love mine and have no regrets or problems and I have put nearly 10,000 rnds down mine.

 

[skoro]

OK, here's my opinion...

Get a used S&W k-frame revolver like a Model 18 or a Model 17. They're not cheap by any means. But they're going to last your lifetime and they hold their value. Very solid action and very accurate. Be patient and you can find one for a not-too-bad price.

 

[CraigC]

Y'all realize this thread is five months old???

 

[Hoppes Love Potion]

Arguing about .22 revolvers never goes out of style, though.

 

[CraigC]

Well, that's true!

 

[mdauben]

It's unfortunate that Ruger doesn't offer any DA .22s, as I'd prefer to go with them. In new guns it seems an S&W 617 is one of the few to meet my list of wants. How many of you own a 617? 6 or 10 shot & 4" or 6"? Is there any reason to go with only 6 rounds in .22 other than, I guess, to be just like a standard CF revolver?

The S&W 617 is my first choice for .22 revolver (even over the new Ruger DA .22). I personally like the longer 6 inch versions for range shooting, but if you intend to use it outdoors much the 4 inch version is probably handier to belt carry.

IMO the main reason to get the older 6-shot model it to get a pre-lock gun. If the current integral lock on most S&W revolvers don't bother you, I would go ahead with the newer 10-shots.

The single actions and semi-autors can be a lot of fun, but if I had just one .22 handgun it would be a 617.

 

[Prosser]

This is a really NEAT looking gun:
http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/models.html

It and the Bearcat have the only Ruger .22 caliber barrels, vs. the .22 Mag.

 

[SwampWolf]

Get the Smith and Wesson 617 in the 4 inch. The 6 inch is muzzle heavy as, well it's muzzle heavy!

I'd argue for the 6" long version because I prefer the muzzle heavy bias. But then, I shoot my Model 617 mostly off-hand @ Bullseye matches. It all depends on what the purpose of the revolver is, I guess.

 

[ClemY]

I felt the balance of my 6" 617-5 was excessively muzzle heavy, so I had it cut down to 5”. Now it is a perfect match for my 627PC.

 

[Buckyt]

I bought a S&W model 18 about 45 years ago and it is still the .22 of choice in my collection. It almost matches my Model 19 .357 but cost a lot less to shoot, and is more comfortable. Buy the best you can afford and you probably won't want to trade up next year.

 

[jotjackson]

Smith & Wesson 617

Owned one for many years.....shot thousands of rounds in it. Great gun,:

 

[MrAcheson]

I have no interest at all in an aluminum gun that weighs a mere 20 ounces with 4" barrel (monstorously long by Charter's standards where everything else is a snub nose). My MK-III weighs twice that and it sure doesn't seem too heavy to me. Add in Charter's fixed sights and I'm running away from it at full speed.

The Target Pathfinder is not aluminum. It's stainless steel. In this case the light weight is from Charter's frame construction and small size, not the materials. It also has adjustable sights, not fixed.