Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by Mr. Tettnanger, Aug 11, 2019.
And from my standpoint I can't really see any use for them. Guess I'm missing something.
from the 70's-80's. The 63 was nice just too small for my hand.
I didn’t see this until now. What I did is follow the advice in this video, only I was much more careful. I had all the tools and his advice on a little magnet tray is a good idea. That pin is tiny.
When I get home I will post some photos I took while doing the change.
This is the front sight I used. https://www.midwayusa.com/product/2343739317
I used a rubber jawed vise to hold the gun in place to install the new sight. I did have to use an Arkansas stone to take rough edges off the sides of the base of the sight. I used the nylon hammer on the right to tap the sight into position.
Once the sight was seated I clamped it into my vise with the barrel as level as I could get it and while securing it the vise you want to shim the rear of the gun to help keep it level.
Notice the chuck in the Dremel tool. It is the adjustable one sold at Ace Hardware.
NOTE: put the #54 bit into the hole, get it straight up and down THEN start the drill motor. BE EASY...ONLY GO A LITTLE BIT THE TURN THE GUN OVER and do the other side. Drill halfway each side.
Now prop your gun on an Armorers block, or whatever you have to hold it in place to install the pin. I used the Armorer block, an empty masking tape roll and a piece of 1/4” plywood.
Now tape up the area around the hole so you do not ding your gun installing the pin with a SMALL hammer. I used a 4 ounce.
I used a set of offset needle nosed pliers to hold my pin in place to get it started into the hole. Just lightly tap it in. It’s not a race.
The finished product:
I actually think it took me longer to put this post together on my iPhone than it did to change that sight.
You are very welcome. I hope it helps.
I fully understand what you're saying, AK, and yes polished stainless picks up dings and nicks. That said, other S&W stainless guns don't have finishes that look like they've been done with a Brillo pad. Here are two examples of S&W guns (above) that have appealing finishes. I know you don't like the Airweight finish, but my first generation S&W 686 is beautiful, but it didn't have the Brillo-type finish the late Model 66s 6-inchers had. Or the beautiful finish this Ruger Security-Six (below). Or the Rossi Interarms .38 below that. Neither was polished, but they were beautiful right out of the box.
All's well that ends well, and I assume your aunt never had any misfires with her M94 and that she was happy with her purchase. Many times the greatness of a deal lies between one's ears rather than the amount of $$$ one paid! I hope you lavished praise on her choice and that it served her well. (My nephews, btw, are anxiously awaiting my demise so they can divide my collection. I imagine they will wonder why I had so many Security-Sixes send no GP100s, but they'll just have to guess. And they'll likewise have to guess why I had no Glocks, but, rather, all_stainless steel second generation 9mm pistols!
That’s too bad. I have not had that experience with mine. I am pretty sure I have put over 150 rounds through it before giving it a cursory cleaning and repeating the process without issues.
I have had some interesting experience with my 3" Model 317, which finally resulted in it getting a stainless cylinder, but my 63 has been good.
Is it binding between the cylinder and the forcing cone?
If so, remove the bottom screw, remove the cylinder, then put the gun in a vice with plenty of padding, grip up. You can then use a very fine jeweller's file and remove small parts of the forcing cone until you have a barrel/cylinder gap of .004-.005. Take it to the range and shoot it until it gets hot. If the gun continues to bind, take it to .006, but don't go much further. The throat in the forcing cone has plenty of room to do this.
When my S&W 63 was stolen, I bought two Rossi M511s, and they were just as accurate as the 63, plus they had an ejector guard. Woo-woo! The sights are stainless and they are great revolvers. I have an M88 .38Spc as well. Bought all three guns for roughly what the 63 cost. When I realized I wasn't going to live forever, I gave of my M511s to a friend. (And I recommend that. Give a friend a gun before you pass.) It's cheap to shoot and you'll introduce someone else to shooting.
What are the pros and cons (besides being a small rimfire)?
I HATE the V-notch rear/ HiViz front sight arrangement on mine. To me it’s just not very accurate nor friendly to use... but that’s just me.
Trigger pull in both DA and SA is typical rimfire; heavier than centerfire guns but not atrocious. I changed the factory grip to a Hogue compact grip. The factory one was ok, I just prefer the Hogue.
Accuracy is fair with the sights. Sooner or later I’ll swap the rear blade to see if it works better with a true notch rather than the V.
It did get a turn-ring pretty quickly, which I guess could be expected with the lightweight alloy cylinder.
So far it’s been very reliable, it actually loads and ejects multiple cylinders full of 8 spent rounds better than my 4” 34-1, 6” 48-3 (.22 Mag) and 4” 18-3 do with a few cylinders fired... while only holding 6 apiece.
They are pricy, but if you want to carry a 8-shot rimfire revolver that’s about the weight of an iPhone in an otterbox cover, the 317 is it.
My Dad gently lapped my M63 cylinders and remedied this.
I have gotten several guns with V rear sights. I have changed all of them to a square notch, including the 317. I also put black, serrated ramp front sights on those that needed them. Not that hard.
Some people call them understudy guns. I love my 617's and when I am shooting double action guns, I spend most of my time with the .22, then finish up with the .357. 10mm, .44 or whatever.
Same here... fundamental practice with a rimfire (auto - or SA /DA revolver) most often starts off my shooting sessions, then I’ll move up to a centerfire of the same or similar type.
There really is a lot of value in having a rimfire with a similar design to your larger guns, an “understudy gun” for shooting without much recoil, noise and cost is the perfect description .
Guh I want a full underlug sp101 in .22 so bad.
I agree that a 6" model 617 is heavy and clunky. I certainly would not characterize it as 'sweet'.
If you want a much 'sweeter', and lighter weight K frame 22, look for a Model 17 or an old K-22 Outdoorsman.
The revolver at the top of this photo is a K-22 Outdoorsman, made around 1932, the middle revolver is my Model 17-3 that I bought brand spanky new in 1975. With its ugly full length underlug, the Model 617 is much heavier.
This Model 63 left the factory around 1980 or so. Built on the J frame, much smaller and lighter than a K frame. There is a reason these were called 'kit guns'. Small enough to fit into a fisherman's tackle box or 'kit'. You won't get the kind of accuracy from one of these that you will get with a six inch K frame, but they are pretty perfect for putting in your pocket while walking through the woods.
i have a s&w 317. pros: pretty, lightweight, accurate, handy. con: aluminum cylinder heat-binds after 50 or so range rounds, even outdoors on a cold, northern, winter’s day. that episode moved my 317 from a regular carry to the gun safe, which is a true shame. i still like the concept of a 317 enough not to sell it, but knowing this flaw i advise buying a 3” ruger lcr-x 22lr instead. btw i got rid of a taurus 94 22lr before getting the 317. the 94’s double action trigger pull was about 100lbs, single action about 25lbs. of what i have, if i need to carry a small, light 22lr revolver now, i defer to a ruger bearcat: only six rounds and single action, but a mechanical jewel that is built like a brick outhouse.
I actually just gifted that one to my oldest daughter recently. Then, last weekend, there was a guy at the local show asking $1100 for one.
Now, I dont know what it actually sold for- IF it sold- and Im not sayin I would have given her a cheaper gun, but.........dang.
Separate names with a comma.