Opinions on Smith Model 22-

[Jim Allen]

What are the Smith .45 ACP Model 22 like to shoot, both the 4-inch and the 5-1/2 inch barrel models? I'm especially interested in the 4-inch model.

 

[woad_yurt]

I have a S&W M1917, the original, and it's a wonderful shooter. If the Model 22s are anywhere's similar, you'll love 'em. Imagine a slightly bigger & heavier Model 10 and you'll have the picture. It's a great shooter. I did carefully remove the grips and the lanyard loop so I could install some Pachmayr Gripper grips. Yes, I know the purists may howl but I was careful and didn't mar anything. It made a world of difference, shooting-wise.

Why not get an original? Here's nice one for $775:
http://www.gunsamerica.com/98636791.../Pre-1945/SMITH_WESSON_U_S_M1917_REVOLVER.htm

 

[SaxonPig]

I have a 22-4 and it's OK. Some folks get really upset about the internal lock and refuse to buy a gun so equipped and that's their choice. I just ignore it.

There are some advantages to having ammo held in clips, like fast reloading without needing a separate device to hold the ammo. Of course power isn't a concern with the 45 ACP. The quality of the newer guns should be better do to the more precise computer designed and manufactured parts, but on the other hand the cast parts are a bit of a turn off. But the guns seem to work fine.

Here's mine,

 

[gunnerh]

I prefer the 4" barrel. The 6" may print better but the 4" is very handy and shoots well for me. The infernal lock is not a problem other than the silly hole in the frame.

 

[Jim Allen]

I'm particularly interested in the 22-4 because I have a Mark I Webley with a 4-inch barrel that's been converted to fire .45 ACPs in clips (you may remember the recent thread). This would be a newer, better, likely more accurate handgun to replace it as a home protection weapon. Plus it won't be over 100 years old.

 

[SaxonPig]

Well, quit playing on the computer and go get one.

 

[Old Fuff]

I have mixed feelings…

Generally I don’t like to bother with the clips, and it seems that Smith & Wesson’s “precision machinery” doesn’t consistently produce chamber depths that make it possible to fire rimless cartridges reliably without using clips. The barrel’s shallow rifling seems to work with jacketed bullets, but not so well with lead ones.

If these sort of things don’t bother you, I’d say go ahead. Personally, I wouldn’t.

On the other hand, if your intention is to shoot for the fun of shooting (something that I highly approve of) I’d suggest that you look into some of the Colt Single Action Army clones (including Ruger’s) that come with two cylinders, chambered in .45 Colt and .45 ACP. In these, clips aren’t required, and a Ruger Blackhawk has adjustable sight, which the S&W doesn’t.

But to each his own…

 

[Deanimator]

I have a S&W Model 25-2. It's a fabulous revolver. Accurate and easy to shoot. In the past, I owned an M1917, which I wish I still had.

If you're looking to buy a new one as a range gun, it should be fine. I'd NEVER trust my life to a S&W with the internal lock, so that would rule it out for self-defense, at least for me.

 

[Deanimator]

Generally I don’t like to bother with the clips, and it seems that Smith & Wesson’s “precision machinery” doesn’t consistently produce chamber depths that make it possible to fire rimless cartridges reliably without using clips.

If you don't want to use clips, use .45 Auto Rim.

 

[earplug]

Fixed sights

Unless you reload and can always find the correct weight bullets that shoot to the POA, I'd consider a adjustable sight 625.
I think they made a small batch of Mountain guns in 45 acp, they had the light weight, unlugged barrel.
For plinking, RIMZ brand synthetic full moons clips work fine. I use them for my indoor bullseye practice. There a very easy to use clip.