Don't understand how one currently produced revolver can have so vastly different reviews about its accuracy. (All reviewers, however, love the low weight of the good looking, well made 317, as a kit gun).

The internet reviews, displaying actual targets, are of two minds. They range from showing that the 317 all aluminum 3 inch is about as accurate as both the all steel S&W Model 63 3 inch and the aluminum/steel Ruger LCR 3 inch, on the one hand, to forget about any hope of accuracy, on the other hand.

The "forget about it" reviews point out that the comparatively poor (i.e., large) groups from the 317 with various types of ammo are to be expected because the 317 has a V blade rear sight that is very difficult to match up with the round appearing front sight, and that the revolver is far too light to hold steady anyway.

Any thoughts on why the disparity in accuracy?

Different shooters.
Some people shoot small, light guns well, and to some a stubby is good for across the table only.

__________________
Science plus Art

That's very true, but the reviews I'm seeing are mostly from bench rests.

I'd like to find an early model, square rear sight 317; the metallurgy may have been a little different, too. I had one in the nineties and remember it easily grouping three inches from a rest at 25 yards with most ammo. It was a constant companion with Stingers in the field.

I once had a 317 pre-lock 3”.
Nice little gun. Single action it shot as well as my current 63 no dash.
The gun was plenty accurate. The only difference between SA & DA is that DA requires a more practiced shooter to utilize the accuracy.
I failed in that regard with my 317. To the point that it was a SA only tool for me. One of the reasons I parted with it.

I say that 99% is related to the gun's ammo preference. I don't know many .22 chambered guns that don't have an ammo preference. I say, "Ammo, Ammo, Ammo". Experiment, experiment, experiment and practice, practice, practice and your question(s) will be answered........as will theirs!

__________________
"You're messin' up my Zen"

My wife has one and we both shoot it well. In regard to ammo preference, I gave my wife a selection of ammo and she concluded her 317 liked bulk Federal bought at Walmart over several other brands.

Blaming the sight blade is a scapegoat for poor ammunition, poor shooting or both.

The sight blade kit is a $11 part from Smith & Wesson that can be changed out in less than 20 minutes (if you know how it goes) or under an hour if you have to watch a YouTube video first.

I changed mine out on my 357PD before I ever fired a round

I am with mod34 on this. . . . . . Each of my 22s is "Best" with different ammunition. Even my 2 Model 41s that were built only 246 guns apart like different ammunition

__________________
"Acta non verba"

Why are you picking one up? Hiking/fishing or Range time?
It is a great plinker/ kit gun and less range toy. I have a hard time holding it steady with the stock Hammer spring compared to the 63. But we are talking about an inch difference at 25 yds.
If you need more range comfort and still want to pack it, then I would suggest checking out the 63 first. Probably a bit better at the range but still fills the role of hiking gun. And its a hit with the kids and wife to boot.
try different sorts of ammo.

I own 3 of the model 317's and an embarrassing number of 34/43/63 models.

Two of the 317's both have 3-inch barrels and are the older versions with square black front sight (highly preferred by this geezer).

Honestly, IF I do my job, I am amazed at how close this flyweight 3-inch version can keep up with any of the 4-inch model 34's or 63's.

It just takes more concentration on my part to hold it steady and squeeze slow. As another poster stated, a 3 inch group at 25 yards can be normal for this almost fly-weight kit gun.

While I love the 34/43/63 models and none are leaving here, I carry the 3-inch 317 when hiking trails more than any of them because of the weight factor.

Y'all take care, Bo

__________________
I love the woods and streams.

Everything said by you and others in the posts above about ammo is of course true. Each of the 40 or so .22 caliber guns I have owned in the past 60 years was a law unto itself in the accuracy department--a little less so in the case of a few expensive match pistols and rifles not relevant here.

To answer your question, I want a 317 3 inch again, even with a V rear sight, because of (1) fond memories of adventures with my adequately accurate early one, (2) its unbeatable ease of carry for its class, (3) the ammo versatility factor of adj. sights, (4) its looks and (5) it's a S&W.

Range time with a non-target revolver is unimportant, except for a belly gun for those who need one, but I believe that no plinker is worth having if it's not marginally accurate; at least close to a 63 or Ruger LCR.

Hopefully, the bad reviews are not indicative of the current 317's inherent potential.

I bought on off of Gunbroker because of the great deal i found. It seems like a nice little gun. Haven't shot mine a lot but going to try some stingers next outing. A friend of mine shot mine and had to order one for his wife that afternoon.

I have an early one with the black ramp front sight and no IL...

It was an "average" shooter with Federal Bulk ammo... One day when I was out I had some of the Winchester PowerPoint 40 grain HPs along and tried some... The group at 10 yards went from 3" to cover with a thumb... The Federal bulk ammo would just put the rounds inside the circle...

Target on the right was SA at 10 yards and a few weeks later shot the target on the left DA at 7 yards...

Try different ammo before writing the gun off...

Bob

Attached Images

001_zpshqec5xwu.jpg (123.4 KB, 95 views)

Adjustable sight revolvers like all kinds of ammo; just adjust the sight to point of impact. I switch regularly between super and sub-sonic ammunition with no issues at all on my J and K frame .22s. Once point of aim is adjusted for the round, I'm shaving the cotton off Q-tips all day long.

I don't know what your personal level of experience with revolver shooting is, but maybe all you need is more practice? If you are an experienced shooter that is baffled as to why the firearm can't put rounds on target, I'd send it back to the mothership; just be sure it's not operator error, because you'll feel mighty silly if you send it in and they send it back with a target showing that accuracy with the gun is not an issue.

__________________
Ban this man,
'89

Any of the S&W revolvers with fiber optic front and V rear sights are more difficult to shoot accurately than those with target sights. I changed the sights on a friends model 329 and it made a world of difference. I shot several 317's with fiber optic front and V rear and was not impressed. I bought my wife an older one with ramp front and square notch rear and it shoots great.

One thing about accuracy that most people are unaware of is that the barrels vary a lot from gun to gun on all calibers. Many have forcing cone, muzzle crown and barrel crush problems. Or some combination and severity of the above. If all these are as they should be, the gun will shoot good groups and not be too finicky about what ammo it likes.

A gun that won't shoot groups can usually be fixed in pretty short order by someone who knows what to do and how to do it. If you have a gun that won't shoot, but you like the gun, it would probably be worthwhile to get it fixed instead of selling it off and finding another one that may not be any better. Barrels are often not very well done straight from the factory. It has been that way for decades.

__________________
protocalldesign.com

Just got off the phone with Customer Service. S&W says I can buy a kit with the square notch rear sight for the 317; $11, part no. 19148000 for a white outline, and 19149000 for plain black. Will do so.

I am plenty accurate with mine in SA at 25 yards.
I can pop 3” balloons easily.
That should put a squirrel in the pot.

DA on a small light gun is more difficult, but the 317 is a keeper.

__________________
<><

Just wondering if you have had a chance to shoot a few cylinder loads of Stingers yet. One on-line reviewer reported that Stingers in the currently produced 317s (not the early, clear-coated 317s) tended to lock up the action. If you have one of the newer models, what was your experience?

its all in how you train. when i go its longer ranges. i dig blasting clay pigeon scraps left behind by others at over 40 yards with 1911 or glock 21/30 and 38 smith snubby. or out at rio salado range over in mesa az, they have 12x12 steels at 300 those are fun with a 22 pistol, just using elbows resting on bench, no bags under gun at all. or drop onto your back with 45 auto and hit human silhouettes at 200, rest the side of the gun against the side of yer calf, kinda like using the side of a tree as a rest back in the woods. takes a few to get on it but once you dial yerself in its alot of fun. focus on the clear tip of the front sight post.

let the gun lay in yer hands and squeeze off the shot, in between heartbeats and at your natural repository pause. no different than the kd range in the Corps. you should be at full rest using skeletal support to obtain finite accuracy, with a rifle. handguns differ some in the support aspect, but squeezing the death out of the grip always makes it harder to hit as your hands will tend to twitch a bit weather you realize it or not.

no different than shootin pine cones and bottle caps back in the day. almost reminds me of playing golf on a snooker table with the ol timers back home when i was a kid. its a game of finesse when shooting for fun and pure accuracy.

the upside to all that is. when you get in close then everything seems like fish in a barrel.

__________________
R/S
J.D.

Now that's a new one on me for holding extremely light revolvers like a S&W 317. The conventional wisdom has been just the opposite--tight holds just short of white knuckles. But I'll give it a try.