Model 17 feedback appreciated....are any of the Models produced over the years (17-2, dash 3, dash 4, etc.) ‘better’ than the others? Any to avoid? Looking for any differences (if any) in fit, finish, accuracy, manufacturing quality, etc.? Any experience with the new classic 17-9? My question is really around manufacturing quality over the years with changes in ownership and production processes. Thanks in advance.

Okay, first an opinion (a very important qualifier; this is my personal take and others may - and probably do - feel otherwise):

Smith & Wesson utterly destroyed the aesthetic beauty of the K-22 Masterpiece Model 17 when they added the obnoxious full underlug to it in 1990 (17-6).

There. Got that off my chest.

Now to your real question:

I have never known a K-22 that wasn't a wonderful gun, and I've owned them from the 1940s, 1950s and 1970s. All of them have been great shooters with good looks and fine handling.

I guess you could say the 17-3 was the most improved because of the relocation of the sight screw, getting it away from the barrel/cylinder gap. But all of them are fine firearms.

My advice: acquire as many of them as you can and shoot them all.

__________________
Jack
SWCA #2475, SWHF #318

Pretty much what Jack said......

Hands down, the 17-6! IMO, it’s the sexiest .22 revolver extant! I also really like the added weight of the full lug barrel, it feels good in the hand.

Attached Images

	7795288F-74AC-4D0F-8E1C-9054717A00C0.jpg (86.4 KB, 79 views)
	66DF709C-CAE9-4E96-9A0E-216D1975A336.jpg (29.7 KB, 63 views)
	BD4AAD13-7DE2-4F61-B124-72DD28BE3583.jpg (104.1 KB, 102 views)

I agree with JP@AK about the underlug. For me, generally the earlier the better, with my favorite being the post WWII, short action, pre model 17, K-22.

Best regards,

I agree with JP@AK. I have K-22 and Model 17 from about every decade from the 1940's except the 1990's and all are very good.

For me, one of my two favorites is a 17-2 with somewhere shy of a bazillion rounds through it. I ponder if the trigger is so nice because it's had that many rounds through it or does it have that many rounds through it because it's so nice to shoot? The only downside is the chambers get too tight after about 100 rounds. I don't have the heart to "ream" anything I like so much.

My other favorite, not technically a Model 17, is a 2-3 year old Model 617-6 with 4" barrel. The 10 chamber cylinder can go a few hundred rounds before the chambers get too tight.

__________________
Scoundrel & Ne'er-Do-Well

I think the best looking of the K-22 Masterpiece revolvers is the Heritage series.I think these were only offered in blue.

They shoot even better than they look.

These would not have been my first choice for grips, but I have refrained from replacing them and I am getting used to the feel

Kind of the combination of nostalgic appearance with modern day manufacturing

While these K-22 revolvers were produced by the Performance Center they are at the -8 engineering revision of the Model 17.I do not believe that the non-Performance Center 17-8 has as nice a blue job

Well I brought an Outdoorsman with lots of character home a while back. What it lacks in looks it makes up for in accuracy. Second time out my wife claimed it as hers. Guess I’m on the hunt for another K22, never did warm up to my 617-2 or 18-4. But all shoot better then me.

__________________
Hillbilly with a gun

The K-22 revolver has been a sort of never ending story,
The word "Best" is very vague, are you looking for the best investment, best finish, best shooter , most rare ?
I like them all but some are "Better" investments than others where some are better to purchase as shooters for various reasons.

In general the older the K-22 the more it is usually worth (but not always) condition and originality of package are paramount in a "collectible" firearm.

IMO you wont really see a difference in accuracy between revisions although some are inherently better than others regardless of age or revision.

As for the 17-3 being the most improved because of the relocation of the sight screw IMO this is not pertinent since the fwd mounting screw on the rear site leaf was never an issue on Non Magnum K frames .

On the topic of of the full underlug barrel which appears during the 17-6 revision thats really a matter of taste as I find the full underlug versions quite appealing especially with the 4" barrel, (BTW the full underlug blued guns are a not too commonly encountered variant today).

This Model 17-3 is holding up pretty well for being 43 years old.

No complaints on my end.

enjoy,

bdGreenn

This question can be answered for alot of models. The best years to me were mid 50's to early 60's. The 4 screw era is right smack in the middle of this range. The finishes are top notch, most models in bright blue, and the hand fitting as good as any other time.

This would be a 17 no dash, 17-1, early 17-2 as well as late 5 screw pre 17. Serial numbers between k270xxx to 499xxx should do it.

Charlie

As an alternate take (especially as a shooter) current S&W revolvers are accurate and readily available and more importantly have a lifetime service warranty where S&W may repair but will not warranty older versions,
BTW they wont even touch anything made prior to Model marking (before about 1958).

As an aside while I do not own any newer 10 shot versions I have shot them and do recognize that while the older 6 shot versions mimick the trigger feel of a 6 shot 38 or 357 better you dont have to open and close the 10 shot cylinder to reload nearly as much at the range.
The older 6 shot version requires opening and reloading procedure 50 times in order to fire 300 rounds where the 10 shot version would be 30 times for the same 300 rounds.

I do like my 17-4 with the 3T's.

The 17-4 is my second K22 Masterpiece. I gave my 17-3 to a best friend Army buddy on his retirement. He had been admiring it for years after he'd killed a prairie dog with the 17-3 at 97 paces.

I also like the speed loader cut out on the target grips of 17-4.

S&W Model 17-4 in .22 Long Rifle






Thanks for looking at my K22 Masterpiece.

God bless,
Birdgun

Put me in the no under lug group, but I have several, 5 screw, 4 screw and later. All shoot good. Same goes for the premodel 18 and the 18-4 I have. Never met a K 22 I didn't like.

K22 with a shrouded ejector rod would be cool. I guess my model 53 is one.

Absolutely love my 47 year old Model 17-3 (1971). The entire family likes it when we bring it to range day. 3T's, that ribbed bbl, 1/8" blade front Patridge w/ adjustable rear just has all you could ask for...then or now.

Very accurate, super good looks, and sure as heck, the value is not decreasing at least in my area...so maybe even potential "investor" bucks somewhere down the line, but that will be a problem for my heirs....I'm not letting it go.

Attached Images

	S&W M17-3A.jpg (39.6 KB, 50 views)
	S&W M17-3B.jpg (37.1 KB, 46 views)

__________________
Charlie B
SWCA#3083, SWHF#570

I'm very happy with my 17-3. Accuracy, action, finish, P&R, TT, TH. I replaced the magnas with smooth Jerry Miculek grips.

and..if you can't hit with a K22 you might need to think about a new hobby.

Model 17-6 without the full lug! Ahrends Retro target stocks in Moradillo.

Yep. They did make a few of those, thank the Good Lord!

__________________
Jack
SWCA #2475, SWHF #318

...the finish on the late 50s to late 60s vintage guns just stand out above the rest. I have several 57s, a 53 and an 18 from the mid-1960s and when you lay them next to any other era gun they just glow...

Bob

I bet that is why the 17-6 full underlug is selling for $1200 .... LOL! I like them all and consider them one of the prettiest revolvers ever made.

Most likely the best 17-4 ever is the one I bought, along with a Colt GM and Colt Sporter, the day I became a Florida resident.....
and it’s not for sale.

This is the place to gain knowledge of how to check revolvers!!!

Note: while milling on a drill press has its issues.... making a scope mount for my K22, this time, will be on a little Taig mill and hopefully not take away from my favorite Smith’s pretty lines.

Dad brought this one home in 1963, its a 17-2. For many years it was our only handgun ... it put up with a lot. The wood handles wore out on the right side, so in the 1980's they were replaced with ivory...

I’m just a little partial.

Attached Images

D40A50AE-C486-46E2-B891-F7CF845B60AD.jpg (82.4 KB, 47 views)

A wider rib version of the K-22 first appears with the 17-5 revision which actually copies the K-38 "Heavy" Masterpiece rib that first appeared in 1950, S&W offered the 17-5 in 4", 6" and 8 3/8" barrel lengths and ceased producing the Model 18 line which ended with the 18-4 (until recently revived with IL).

Interestingly there was a short run of SS versions of the wide rib non underlug K-22 made for Ashland shooting supply which have become prized by collectors, The earliest 17-6's continued on with the the wider rib non underlug barrel but this changed to a full underlug barrel during the 17-6 run.

BTW at this same time the Model 15 changed to the wide rib non underlug barrel available in all 3 lengths and the Model 14 got the full underlug barrel in all 3 lengths.

Picture below shows the rib width differences between the 17-5 and older Model 18 (below)


Muzzle end shot

"Smith & Wesson utterly destroyed the aesthetic beauty of the K-22 Masterpiece Model 17 when they added the obnoxious full underlug to it in 1990 (17-6)."

agree!!!!

I am partial to my old 'one-liner'.....
Very much like the first one I bought as a kid.....

DSCF3636.jpg

No dash model 17 for me. Mine is said to be from 1959.
But I have never shot any of the other engineering change model.

Since I go for collectible shooters, a prewar gun is the only one for me. I wouldn't turn my nose up at a newer gun, but I specifically hunted for a prewar example in "shooter" condition.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

I really love this Model 17 'in the white'.

Blue's all gone. Ha.

Enjoy,

bdGreen