An accurate .22 cal. 6" Revolver?

[sjcslk]

New Model 17 Masterpiece

It looks like on the Smith & Wesson website, they still make a model 17 masterpiece. Is this the same quality gun as before? Thanks,

 

[22-rimfire]

If you are starting from scratch these days, I would buy a M-17 (6" usually) or M-18 (4") slightly or lovingly used. I do like the 4" M-617, but I don't own one. I'm pretty stuck on the M-17, M-18 these days. I love the Colt Diamonback and Officers Model Match, but if I were buying today, without a doubt I would buy a S&W first. Accuracy is very good. But I can't shoot 1/2" groups at 25 yds with a 22 revolver. If I really try, I can come pretty close at 15 yds, but not 25. I believe it has to be better eye sight that really makes the difference. The better you can see, the better you can shoot handguns if you try.

 

[welldoya]

"As much as I like my Single-Six's, they're not in the same class as my Smith & Wesson Model 17-3. If that's what you've wanted, get one. They're not getting any cheaper."

I agree with this statement. If you have always wanted a K-22 then buy one. If you settle for something else to save a couple hundred dollars, you are still going to want a K-22 and won't be happy until you get one.
I went thru the same thing, although it was back in 1975. I was in college and money was tight. I had wanted a K-22 because my whole life I had been drooling over my uncle's gun.
I bought a High Standard "The Marshall" because I wanted a .22 revolver and it was $60. I still wanted a K-22 though and they were $145. Ended up selling the High Standard and finally found a store that had a Model 17. I bought it and never regretted it.
In 10 years you will be telling your admiring friends "I only paid $600 for this back in 2011" and they will be astounded.
One other accurate .22 revolver that nobody has mentioned is a Colt Trooper MKIII.
I've got one in 6" that I bought in the early 90s but it was quite a bit more than the Model 17 - $160.

 

[jad0110]

In 10 years you will be telling your admiring friends "I only paid $600 for this back in 2011" and they will be astounded.

Yup, kinda like how I paid "only" $430 for this K-22 Model 17-0 (1959) in 2006 ...

 

[CajunBass]

Lots of talk about what is and isn't accurate but so far no clear definition of what anyone, including the OP, considers "accurate".

Actually he did. He said he's always wanted a K-22. That sets a standard. He wants something at least that accurate. He mentioned a Ruger Single-Six as a comparison. In my opinion, the K-22 is more "accurate" than a Single-Six. You might find an exception to that here and there, but I suspect most people would agree with me.

So he's looking for something in the K-22 class.

 

[CraigC]

So he's looking for something in the K-22 class.

Which is defined how exactly?

He also said this:

I don't know if that's considered one of the best...

...indicating that he doesn't know how the "K-22 class" is defined either. Which is why I asked.


What's wrong with having a quantified accuracy expectation? Is it because most folks saying theirs is "accurate" don't know and I've now put them on the spot?

 

[highlander 5]

I have a 617 6 shot pre lock and if I do my part empty shotgun shells at 25 yds are not a problem.

 

[GCBurner]

Personally, I've wanted a Colt Diamondback in .22 for a long time. I like the looks of it as a mini-Python. They weren't cheap when they were new, and the prices are out of reach now, if you can find one.
I've got a High Standard Sentinel Deluxe with a 6" barrel, and it shoots as accurately as I can aim, at pistol range distances.

 

[crestoncowboy]

I agree that the single six is a good plinking gun but not a target gun. mine doesnt shoot 22lr well at all but it shoots mags good enough. I have a friends stainless hunter single six in my safe and it is the same way. You might get lucky and find a really tight one but I wouldnt compare it to a smith or colt, more like an h&r or RG. Remember that most guns can shoot better than the person shooting them anyway.

 

[welldoya]

"Personally, I've wanted a Colt Diamondback in .22 for a long time. I like the looks of it as a mini-Python. They weren't cheap when they were new, and the prices are out of reach now, if you can find one. "

I remember exactly how much they were in 1975 - $145. I remember because it was next to the S&W 17 in the display case and they were the same price. I had always wanted a K-22 so that's what I went with.

 

[PzGren]

The OMM can probably be considered the finest made Colt rimfire revolver and this one is still living proof that Colts are well made and accurate but I wish, I could find a new hand. This revolver has been shot in excess of 50,000 rounds and timing is running late, it transports and locks the last bit on the trigger pull.

Should the same happen to my S&W K-22 the remedy would be only a phone call away and S&W would send me a new hand in the mail - under their exemplary warranty.

 

[oldfool]

Steve, I would say that your K-22 is exemplary and certainly not typical. Yours shoots as accurately as a fixed-barrel auto and that is all but unheard of with any revolver that is not a linebored custom or Freedom Arms. Mine certainly do not do that well.

your comments are well made, Craig, but I guess I am going to have to pick up the challenge
don't own my own island nation, nor any Korths etc, so my notions about what an accurate revolver is are a bit limited by the wherewithal factor you know

my 10" bull barrel Ruger MkII will do what Steve defines as accuracy, rested on sandbag with 2X pistol scope (a fixed barrel auto as you said, and maybe just luck of the draw, as it certainly didn't cost what a competition gun like a S&W 41 or classic hi-std or EU pistola costs)

"in my mind" only, my pair of k-17s will do same, but cannot say tis truly true
I don't much like scopes on revolvers, but do have a couple of k-frame mounts in the old kit bag somewhere, did put one on a k-66 once "just to see"... don't remember the results well enough to state in honestly quantifiable terms, other than being well pleased
(then I took the scope off)

this thread being inspirational, I think need to park a scope on those k-17s and see what happens, just don't have the hands & eyes to prove anything offhand

accuracy definition, mighty subjective for most, that's true
I guess mine would be one MOA and/or one-ragged hole, for at least 5 shot groups

but.. not really fair to compare, I think, handguns to rifles at 100 yards
reasonable "flat shooting range" for the cartridge ought be allowable part of definition
so.. I call 50-60 yards for a 22LR rimfire rifle fair range for accuracy test with low/no wind (<1/2" all shots inside the circle = "one MOA" for me, and one ragged hole is just one-ragged-hole, no calipers req'd, close enuff to label it 1/4")

what say you fellows ?
what would you consider fair range for accuracy test of a 22 rimfire handgun ?
(is 25 yards pretty much it)
any folks here ever put a scope on a k-22/17/18 ??

 

[PzGren]

this thread being inspirational, I think need to park a scope on those k-17s and see what happens, just don't have the hands & eyes to prove anything offhand

accuracy definition, mighty subjective for most, that's true
I guess mine would be one MOA and/or one-ragged hole, for at least 5 shot groups

There is accuracy and shootability. I used to compete in olympic style pistol events back in the 1980s. Sights, triiger, and orthopedic grips made me quickly change my weapons for pure sports equipment.

The most boring one I owned was a Walther GSP, in a case with accessories that covered all situations.

When you shoot from a rest you eliminate the advantage of a superb trigger; the very reason why I love my Korth - but the S&W K-22 can be fine tuned and has great sights and plenty of aftermarket accessories, like fitting grips, to make the difference really small.

To me, accuracy is what a gun can do offhand, in my hands and I compare the results to other guns that I shot in over three decades. I have to admit that this is no scientific definition but shooting competitions isn't a science, either.

 

[BlindJustice]

The Model 18 I bought ( well, Dad bought Iwas 14 ) in '65 was $78. I had a belt holster and wore it on the farm. Sometimes on the tractor a horned toad would scare up and scamper some 10 yards away and freez. I'd
stop the tractor and take careful aim - if I did my part - usually a head shot

I had started witha a fixed sight Hi-Standard Dura-matic semi-auto loaned from and uncle. I had gotten pretty good with that fixed sight model but
the adjustable sights and better front sight on the Mode 18 helped a lot.besides having a better SA trigger.

As far as my 617 goes... it was $629 about 4 years ago. and it has the
best out of the box DA/SA of any of my smiths - I susprect it is because it's
the only K frame I have - the L and N frames have a longer trigger pull. THe 625 might be smoother but it's had the S&W Master Revolver Action job.

Randall

 

[BlindJustice]

FWIW - S&W re-issued the Model 63 withan 8 shot cyl. aka the Kit gun a
couple of years ago. first year was 5" Bbl. only now it's being offered
with a 3" Bbl. I'd like the 3" Bbl. model 63 to pair with a 60 .357 Mag 3: Bbl.
I have. For the Grandkids of course!

R-

 

[BYJO4]

The K22, model 17, and the 617 all have excellent reputations and if properly cared for, hold their value very well. Accuracy is very good and in most cases, exceeds the actual ability of the shooter. You cannot go wrong with any of these models.

 

[22-rimfire]

The Smith Model 63 a real nice 22 revolver. I have a 5" and would like to get a 3" also. That should tell you something. It is a 8-shot steel framed gun. It is a nice revolver to tote in the woods since it is a bit smaller than the Model 17/617. Honestly, I think you will be happy with either of these. I would look at a Model 63 in a gunshop. The grips are small and you might not like them. There are slightly larger grips available that are better for me, but as of yet, I have not put new grips on the gun.

I think every revolver owner should own a Smith Model 17 or 617. I really prefer the 4" Model 617 overall as it balances better than the 6" version for me. But that is based on handling them in a store. I already have a M-17, M-18; Colt Officers Model's, Diamondbacks, and Troopers (both original and the Trooper Mark III) in 22LR. These are all great 22 revolvers.

But as I said earlier, I would buy a M-17 today and look at the others as my interest grows (if it grows). You can't really go wrong buying a M-17 if you like a 6" barrel or a Model 18 if you prefer 4". These are all six-shooters, and the new 617 holds more.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

50 shots, offhand 15 yrds.

DW 722's are great guns. Inexpensive, solidly made, accurate and easy to shoot well.

 

[griz1]

another vote k-22. I have several 22's including the Ruger Single-Six but the K-22 is the most accurate and has the best trigger. I will never sell this gun.