looking at .22 revolvers

[gofastman]

I'm looking at the Taurus model 94 revolvers
http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=389&category=Revolver&breadcrumbseries=&search=

they have them in 2, 4, and 5"

its mostly for plinking, maybe some hunting, but id like the option to keep it as a carry piece or nightstand gun

I'm thinking the 4" fits that bill the best, but does the 5" offer a significant bump in velocity? Also, does the extra inch of sight radius matter that much?

 

[Radagast]

Rough rule of thumb is no more than 50fps additional from an extra inch of barrel. the extra sight radius does help. I'm a much better shot with a Glock 34 over a Glock 17, ditto a six inch S&W 686 over a 4 inch S&W 66.

My personal favourite firearm at the moment is the S&W Model 18 in .22lr with a 4 inch barrel. It's a great plinking toy and training aid for double action revolver shooting.

 

[oldfool]

not a Taurus basher, (own and love three of 'em, including a pair of their older model revolvers) but the 94 is a poor bet, really bad trigger, lots of QC problems with them, my buddy has one.
(no need to accept my word on that, browse places like rimfirecentral.com, read all about it, many complaints)
read, think, and look a little harder.... S&W, Ruger, etc.

PS
if you are lucky enough to get a 94 absent lockup and timing issues they are fairly accurate in SA mode, but a waste of time in DA mode
only other DA revolver trigger I have ever seen as bad as the 94 is my Hi-Standard D-9, which is a nice little plinker (very similar to a Ruger Single Six), but I shoot it only SA mode because of that

 

[CajunBass]

In spite of the fact that I own three D/A 22 revolvers, I've never really understood the appeal of them. For the most part, and that means about 98% of the time (or more) I shoot them single action. The guns themselves are joys to shoot, and very well made, but I just never really use the D/A.

I've got a Smith & Wesson 17, a Dan Wesson 22, and a Harrington & Richardson 999 in 22. The Smith & Wesson is the "best." The Dan Wesson is the best value, if you can find one, in good shape, grab it (I saw one recently for less that $400.00). The H&R might be the most fun. With it's break top, simultanious ejection of the empties, it's easy to imagine yourself as Michael Caine in "Zulu."

I did look at a Taurus 94 once. I bought a Ruger Bearcat instead.

Now if you want to talk S/A's 22's. Get back with me. About all I'll have to say though is "Ruger."

 

[oldfool]

Cajun, you are missing half the fun you know !
count me in on k-17s, either mode SA or DA
but "makin' 'em dance" (nerf balls and pop bottles, not people), it don't get much better than that ... be it any 6" k-frame doncha' know, 22LR, WMR, 38, 357

re: Taurus revolvers, quality varies by model and vintage
my Taurus model 96 (k-17 clone) and Taurus 66 (model 19 clone) are the only two revolvers ever in my hand that could go head-to-head w/ my S&Ws, every bit as good, trigger and accuracy, SA or DA
Taurus really do make some good ones every now and then

 

[dogngun]

I have 2 1950's High Standard Sentinel .22 revolvers...

one is a 4", made in '56, the other a 2 1/2" from '55. Both are aluminum frame nine shot swing out DA revolvers and are perfect for your uses...the 4" was $150, the 2 1/2" was $125. they made a 6" model, too...have not seen olke for decades.
These revolvers use all coil springs, and there were a lot sold, but not many for sale - their ownere tend to keep them.

If you can find one for sale, I think you should consider it - they are great revolvers...FWIW, speed loaders for the H&R 9 shot revolvers work just fine with the Sentinels. If you want it for defense, that is a real asset.

mark

 

[oldfool]

I do not really disagree with dogngun

I like my High Standard Double nine a lot
better methinks, than the Ruger Single Six (and there is a lot to like about the Single Six)
My D-9 is the all steel model, both cylinders, 22LR and WMR
more accurate in SA mode than most Single Sixes out of the box
and loads nine quick with aforementioned speedloader

but... compare it's DA trigger to a S&W old model 63, night and day difference,
and if that D-9 (or a Tarus 94) trigger was your only DA experience, you would maybe never want to spend money on a DA revolver again...

for SA only... Ruger = affordable and real good, Freedom Arms = best money can buy
but a High Standard D-9 in great condition , don't pass it by either

 

[gofastman]

if you are lucky enough to get a 94 absent lockup and timing issues they are fairly accurate in SA mode, but a waste of time in DA mode

I thought this was the nature of the beast for DA rimfire revolvers because of the big spring needed to set off the primer

 

[BCRider]

My own model 17 started out with a slightly heavier than usual K frame pull. I had a Wolff spring kit handy so I installed it and did a bit of other usual K frame cleanups to the action. The result was that my 17 now has a nice smooth double action pull that is the same as my other Wolff kitted K and N frame guns. And light strikes has not been an issue at all.

On the other hand I've also got a Hi Standard Double 9. I tried a lighter main spring in that one. The double action, while lighter, is still hellishly heavy. The single action is now acceptable but I get the odd light strike that needs a second hit to fire. This occurs about once every couple of cylinders worth of shooting. The spring obviously needs to be just a LITTLE bit heavier. By that time it will be just a little heavier than a nice center fire SAA.

So all in all I'd have to say that rimfire revolvers don't NEED to be as heavy in DA as they are. It's just that they come that way to ensure 100% reliable igntion. But if the owner is willing to fine tune things a bit significant reductions in trigger weights can be achieved.

 

[Hondo 60]

a .22 cal "as a carry piece or nightstand gun"?

Hmmm it certainly would NOT be my choice.
While 22s are great for really inexpensive plinking, I would NOT rely on it "as a carry piece or nightstand gun"
That's what .357s are for. (and of course larger sizes as well)

 

[oldfool]

I thought this was the nature of the beast for DA rimfire revolvers because of the big spring needed to set off the primer

no.. not hardly
some use leaf springs, some use coil springs
nearly all small frames (J vs K for example) have a stiffer trigger (geometry)
but "stiffer" still is relative
hard or soft primers, that can vary, but a reliable hammer strike does not vary from size to size, nor even autoloader to wheelie

no offense, but if you think DA mode revolvers are inaccurate, friend, you might ought broaden you horizons a bit
most guns are more accurate than most shooters (me for sure)
but if you have the hands and eyes (some do, I don't) ain't nothing that can't be hit that you can see with your naked eyeball and open sights at any distance with a good SA/DA revolver ... and hit in either mode... some here can do, not me, but some here

playing with mainsprings can help, but prone to cause light primer hits, true
playing with trigger return springs can help, but prone to mess up reset
but the best way to see what a good revolver DA trigger is or is not, is to shoot a k-frame or full size Ruger for yourself, vs a low cost "value" gun in a small frame size

 

[k4swb]

Taurus 94

We looked at a 94 for the wife a few months ago. She said it was too small framed so we got a 990. She likes it much better.
Also you should check state regulations. In NC, we can't hunt with less than a 5 1/2" bbl in .22 RF unless they have recently changed that. I haven't checked in a few years.

 

[gofastman]

We looked at a 94 for the wife a few months ago. She said it was too small framed so we got a 990. She likes it much better.

I dont understand, how could a 22 revolver have too small of a frame? is the grip to small? recoil too harsh?

 

[oldfool]

no, not too small weight or grip or barrel length), recoil is non-factor in a 22 if you ever have shot any handgun before, or played with cap pistols as a young lad

geometry, size of gun, how springs work, have to do the primer busting hammer hit (like you said yourself)
me, I go woobie wild over S&Ws (J or K or L/N) the ways some guys go Glock
but for a spring to develop same force, it can be longer w/ less compression per unit length, or shorter w/ more compression force per unit length, and you can shove just so much spring length into a smaller package

SA cocking does the compression for you (semi or wheelie), your finger does it in DA (semi or wheelie), but it is not something that an average 10 year old cannot do for lack of finger strength, just lack of practice, it is not a brute force thing
autoloaders, trigger feel do vary by action type, but whatever "it" is (mechanisms to compress that mainspring) it is not really spring stiffness, it is mechanism geometry
in revolvers, you can put just so much spring length in a small frame
unless the mechanism that compresses that mainspring (revolver, auto, striker-fire, whatever) has mechanical advantage
(mebbe Rugers plastic revolver do, I dunno)

let the pistola guys argue with each other about mechanisms, but revolvers, pretty safe bet that a full size frame allows better spring geometry than a small size frame

not a good explanation, but somebody here probably can say it better
or drop by the local range and shoot my coil and/or leaf spring revolvers, big vs small frame, and you will explain it better than I just failed to

but I think k4 meant hand fit, that is 100% individual, nobody else has your hand
fit trumps springs and mechanisms every time

 

[Vern Humphrey]

In spite of the fact that I own three D/A 22 revolvers, I've never really understood the appeal of them. For the most part, and that means about 98% of the time (or more) I shoot them single action. The guns themselves are joys to shoot, and very well made, but I just never really use the D/A.

Centerfire DA revolvers came first. In that era, one-hand shooting was standard and pistol matches were all shot single action -- the competitors worked on their cocking rythm. People realized that double action was good for combat, but didn't accept it for target shooting

When the first DA .22s were made, they were made on the same frames and with the same lockwork -- which is why .22 revolvers had DA/SA capability. The standard pistol match of the era had a series of stages for .22 LR, but that was still shot one-handed, single action.

To this day, I would guess most .22 DA revolvers are mostly fired in SA mode, unless they are used as understudies for a centerfire defense revolver.

 

[Uncle Ji]

I bought a model 94 in I think their introduction year 1994. Mine is stainless with a 3" barrel. I love the 3" length but not available anymore. My gun out of the box had problems which I discovered the first time at the range. The rear sight would move windage with every pull of the trigger even dry fire. Second in DA mode I had a 33% FTF rate. It had a great SA trigger and the DA trigger though a tad heavy was smooth. I sent it back to Taurus and had it back within 2 weeks with a new rear sight and a heavier hammer spring. It did increase the trigger especially in DA mode but was at least still acceptably smooth. It's accuracy belies it's 3" barrel length making for a fun plinker and trail gun. I'm happy with mine obviously but wish they would check their guns more thoroughly before it leaves their factory. I'm not sure I could recommend a model 94 with a caveat.

 

[Radagast]

If you are only going to shoot single action then I recommend you look at the Ruger Single Six. These are fine, accurate firearms, cheaper than the S&W offerings but with a much higher standard of quality control than the Taurus products.
I would prefer a S&W double action over a Taurus, to the point that I would do without until I can afford the Smith.
S&W quality control is not perfect, but they will pay shipping both ways on a warranty job and their turn around is fast. Taurus make you pay the shipping and their turn around can be quite slow. If you get a good one, then this s not an issue, if you get a bad one then it is. A search for Taurus on these forums will show that there are many threads complaining about Taurus guns being lemons straight from the box, there will be few threads about new S&Ws being lemons.
Options to consider:
Ruger Single Six, get the convertible model with the .22 magnum cylinder if you may use this for defence or small game hunting.
S&W Model 63. Stainless small J frame, heavier trigger pull than the larger guns (see posts about geometry above).
S&W Model 317. As for the Model 63, but aluminum frame for ease of carry.
S&W Model 18. Expensive re-issue of the medium K frame combat revolver in .22lr. Should have a better trigger pull than the Model 63/317.
S&W Model 617. Stainless K frame, 6 or 10 shot versions available. As for the Model 18, but heavy barrel and a bit cheaper as this is their production model. 4 or six inch barrel versions.
A second hand single six, or Model 17 would be fine also.

If you do choose to buy a Taurus, print out the how to check out a revolver thread stickied at the top of this subforum and apply it to the new gun as if it is a second hand gun. You are less likely to get burnt that way.

 

[22-rimfire]

If you buy the Taurus 94, check it out at the gunshop as best you can. Don't assume it is okay just because it is new. That has always been my assumption with Colts and Smith's and in general other than a cursory inspection, all is well with them.

I know you are looking at the Taurus because of the cost and it is a double action revolver. Consider buying a Smith over the Taurus even though you will be spending more money. Smith offers the Model 63 with a 3" barrel which might be a good compromise. It is likely to have a medium stiff trigger, but better than the Taurus. It is a steel framed J-frame gun versus the light weight J-frame like the 317 and I believe the new 34C. The old Model 34 was a 22LR snubbie. I was just looking at the S&W website and had not seen the 34C.

The best size for shooting is the 4" (with the Model 617 being the ultimate choice) which still keeps it realatively small. But for the best concealment, I would look at something with a 3" or less barrel in 22LR. So your choice is a compromise. The 3" Model 63 might be a good choice. I would prefer the 5" Model 63 for easier aiming at the range, but it is less compact. Again everything is a compromise and your are better off getting a larger 22 DA revovler (4" or so barrel) and eventually getting something with a little more power for carry and home defense. But I went for years using a 22 revolver for home defense. So, I don't have a huge problem with that choice as long as you understand that it is not the most powerful caliber for this purpose.

Good luck. This is just my 2-cents. Take it or leave it. I'm basically suggesting you spend more money.

 

[DMZ]

If you are sure about the Taurus 94, go with the 4" model. It balanced nicely.

I have a 5" and a 4" M94 and seem to grab the 4" 'er 90% of the time.

The DA pull is very heavy, but can be mastered with much practice. It helps that Taurus small frame revolver triggers can be staged.

Both of my Taurus' are very accurate and shoot most .22 LR ammo just fine. They both have also been back to the factory due to timing issues, but came back in 6 weeks fully fixed and functional.

I actually like Taurus small framed revolvers. They seem well dimensioned to me and fit my medium hands very well. I have put the old Taurus oversized wood grips on all 4 of mine as they look good feel better than the neoprene grips that come with the guns.

Taurus' are not really comparable to Rugers or S&W's. The fit and finish just is not the same. But they are good plinkers and beat about revolvers that you do not have to worry about if they get scratched or abused a bit. I always keep a M94 in the bottom my day pack, with a box of ammo.

 

[k4swb]

I dont understand, how could a 22 revolver have too small of a frame? is the grip to small? recoil too harsh?

My wife usually shoots a full size Sig P220 or a Colt Anaconda and when she handled the Taurus 94 she said it was too small and felt toyish. She likes the 990 because she is used to shooting bigger, heavier guns.