I have a 17-3 K22 revolver and I'm looking at buying a scope base and rings for a K framed revolver online. The seller has insuated that my 17-3 is smaller than a K or N frame. What am I missing here? Is my 17-3 K22 a K framed revolver or not? His confusion has fueled confusion on my end due to Friday evening fatigue (or whatever).

Maybe his scope was on a model 19 or 66 that had a thicker barrel than your K-22? Your revolver IS a K frame.

Alright then. Now we have consensus. Either a K frame is a K frame or it is not. I just needed someone to help me get my bearing. Thanks

A K-frame by any other name is still a K-frame.

Thank you for that affirmation. Here is a pic of my S&W metallurgical sweetness just to make sure that i haven't gone senile prematurely. I am about to pull the "trigger" on the scope mount unless someone objects to this "union".

Attached Images

	100_1155.jpg (28.7 KB, 73 views)
	100_1153.jpg (26.2 KB, 70 views)
	100_1152.jpg (30.7 KB, 73 views)

Nice looking K-22, is that a nickel finish? If it is factory nickel it is very scarce and valuable as S&W never offered K-22's in nickel as a cataloged item but would make them up on special order. I would not be putting a scope mount on it.

__________________
John. SWCA #1586

I would be inclined to second that recomendation. Your 17-3 did not come from the factory drilled and tapped for the newer mounting rails, which means that any rail that will mount to your gun without drilling and tapping it to the standard pattern will have to either clamp on the frame or use a combination of a top strap clamp and sideplate mount. I have a model 617 no dash that was purchased with an Aimtech sideplate mount and the sideplate is scratched deeply enough that I'll have to spend about 12 hours of wet sanding to to level out the scratches and make it pretty. BTW, my 617 is now tapped to the latest pattern for mounting a rail, so that ugly Aimtech mount will be gone in about a month when I get a J Point for my 610 and can move the rail from the 610 to the 617.

I would advise that you have a qualified gunsmith tap your frame using the #6-48 thread in the current pattern, it will reduce the damage to the finish on your gun. If you use a piece of electrical tap cut to fit as an "insulator" between the rail and the frame top strap, you may even prevent any abrasion marks on the finish. BTW, tape that "insulator" to the top strap, not the rail, that should prevent any rubbing of that tape on your guns finish.

I'll also tell you that if your finish on that model 17 is near flawless, I would not put a rail on it. Nickle plating is relatively soft and as rare as your specific gun is, it might be wisest to make it a safe queen and preserve it's value. However, with the poor focus in the pics you posted it's not possible to evaluate the condition of your finish.

I have a 66-3 and a old M&P (or pre model 10). I can not force the 66-3 into holsters that fit the M&P because of the heavier barrel and ejector houseing. Yet both are K- frames.

feralmerril, I'm sure you just forgot that the 66 isn't really a K frame.

since when are 66's not K frame?

Please don't drill holes in your K frame

Stainless S&Ws have different designations than their carbon counterparts. The 66 is the same size as a K frame but is really an F frame.

I agree with VM! That is far and away too nice a revolver
to drill holes in.
teesur.

Here is pictures of both my M&P and 66-3. Same frames, difference is the barrels. I have a couple good looking holsters for the M&P and just yesterday I tried shoveing the 66-3 into one. It wont go!

I'm definitely not going to do that. I just assumed that the mount would utilize the same holes as the rear sight rail does. Thanks for the compliments about the pistol. I need to quit talking about getting a letter from Roy and just get it done.

This pistol is so hard to take pics of due to the nickel finish. I've pretty much given up on getting good pics of it. It doesn't help that I am just not a very good photographer either.

Gav-n-Tn, your 17-3 will have just one single hole for the rear sight assembly and it's much smaller than the # 6-48 holes currently used. It's been too long since I checked to be sure, but it's either a #2-56 or # 4-40, both of which are too small to use for mounting a rail, the screw will snap like a dry twig.

If you don't want to have your gun tapped with the current mounting pattern, just forget about putting a rail on it and shoot with the iron sights you have on it now. The mounting rails that will mount on the K frames that pre-date the provision for mounting a rail will very quickly damage the nickle finish on your gun. Believe me, I know this from personal experience. I expect to have 12 to 20 hours of wet sanding to remove the scratches on the sideplate of my 617 that were caused by the Aimtech mounting rail it has on it right now.

If you want a 22 revolver you can put a mounting rail on, just look for a later than 1993 model 617. They are drill and tapped for a rail, which your model 17 is NOT.

Thanks for all of the input. I think It's pretty easy for me to decide. The decision was actually made at the first mention of the words drill and tap. Forget it. No way.