Smith Wesson 617 Barrel/Cylinder Gap

[cesarf]

Have had a Smith Wesson 617-1 .22lr revolver for some years now. The gun is reliable, has good accuracy and does not seem to spit back any lead or debris.

A few days ago, out of curiosity I got a set of feeler gages and measured the barrel cylinder gap. These where the results:

Right side: .0075"
Left side: .0085"

After that, I made some online gun forum research, and found that Smith Wesson states that their revolvers are within specs by having a b/c gap ranging between .004". - .012", and I also found out that several owners of 617 revolvers, state that their guns also tend to have "wide" b/c gaps ranging from .007 -.008".

Supposedly S&W redesigned their model 17, because it had such a tight b/c gap that it tended to bind after firing less than 100 rounds, and the result of this reengineering was the SW 617 with its wider b/c gap.

My question is, does anyone else have a 617 revolver which can confirm the online rumor of the "wide" barrel/cylinder gap tendency in this model?


Rgds

 

[LoneGoose]

I'll check mine this evening.

 

[45_auto]

I made some online gun forum research, and found that Smith Wesson states that their revolvers are within specs by having a b/c gap ranging between .004". - .012"

I also found out that several owners of 617 revolvers, state that their guns also tend to have "wide" b/c gaps ranging from .007 -.008".

If .004" to .0012" is the spec, why would you feel that the middle of the tolerance range (.007" - .008") is "wide'? Sounds perfect to me.

Out of the 50 or 60 revolvers I own, the only one I've ever measured the cylinder gap on is a S&W Model 27 that would start binding after shooting a couple of cylinders. The soot on the front of the cylinder would bind it up. Turns out that it has a gap of .002". Need to do something about it one day.

Have had a Smith Wesson 617-1 .22lr revolver for some years now. The gun is reliable, has good accuracy and does not seem to spit back any lead or debris.

Sounds like your gun works perfectly and is right in the middle of the acceptable tolerance range. Why worry about what a bunch of know-nothing internet yahoos think about it?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

In answering your question, my question to you is how are you measuring your B/C gap? The correct way to measure B/C gap is to take up any endshake present by pushing the cylinder all the way forward. If endshake is present and the cylinder is pushed back, that is not an accurate measurement of the B/C gap.

Having said all that, the B/C gap on my 617-6 is right around .005 with no measurable endshake.

Redesigning the model 17 because the gap was too tight? Where did you hear that? My Model 17-3 that I have been shooting for 40 years has a gap of .003. It has never bound up on me. A K-22 I own that was made in 1950 has a gap of .002. No problems with it either. Another K-22 was made in 1932. It has a gap of .002, although I will admit it has developed a little bit of endshake over the years.

If Smith is saying .012 is acceptable today, that sounds a bit excessive to me. Sounds more like an excuse to loosen the specifications so less quality can get out the door. Although you might be surprised with just how big a B/C gap you can get away with. I have an antique Merwin Hulbert that has a gap of around .012 and lots of endshake. But it still shoots like a champ and does not spit any lead.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

Anything up to .012 is considered in spec by S & W. My how times have changed.