Yet these same people would not question a .357 revolver for +$500 or more. Would I be incorrect in assuming that production cost for a 22LR should be the same as any other caliber produced? Certainly performance is not lacking, in that 22lrs certainly are very accurate, yet many think of a 22lr caliber hand gun as "cheaply" made. What's with that?

I haft to admit, I always thought of 22s as cheap guns.. Because of this it took me awhile to get my M18..

Because they are cheap to shoot, make fine training tools for the next generation of shooters, they are an investment in days gone by of hand fitted parts and high polish finish.

Did I mention they are just fun to shoot. If you ever shoot a K22 made 50 plus years ago..they have stood the test of time and still deliver.

Next..

__________________
The American dream is alive

"yet many think of a 22lr caliber hand gun as "cheaply" made"

that's probably because alot of 'em are cheaply made, if they'd slow down long enough to pay attention to what they're looking at they may feel differently about some

Thats true. There are alot of lets say..inexpensive 22s out there. But when you get into the good stuff, the price is much higher. If i was looking for a high quality 22 I would have no qualms paying the going rate for a nice K-22 because I know what I would be getting for the dollar compared to the cheap stuff out there.

But, you can have alot of fun with the cheap stuff too. For example, my father-in-law gave me an old Herbert Schmidt single action .22 with a 4 inch barrel. Im sure its had tens of thousands of rounds put through it. But i can still knock a soup can around pretty good at 50 feet with it and have a ball doing it. Also, my brother bought one of those Heritage Rough Rider .22 and it is quite accurate and has given him zero issues whatsoever. Only paid $165 for it brand new. On the other hand, a friend bought a brand new Taurus DA .22 revolver and its DA pull is HORRENDOUS! SA not too bad though, and it looks pretty nice. Id say for the $300 he paid he did descent. There is a definately a "get what you pay for" element...

But I must admit, I REALLY like shooting my father's 4" model 63 no-dash! That little beauty makes me jealous of Dad every time i send a few downrange with it...just needs a bigger grip for my paw.

Probably because there have been a lot of them that were relatively cheap, because of lower pressure, etc. My first gun was a $6 (new) single shot bolt action 22 rifle, from Wards.

I don't understand the hesitance, either. The .22LR revolvers use more material and many times require machining for extra chambers as well. Finish and the rest are all the same as the centerfire versions. Supply and demand aside, and that's an impossible thing to do, they shouldn't cost any more or less than the centerfire versions.

Those who think 22s are *supposed* to be cheap just aren't thinking right. My two most expensive guns are both 22s, and seeing as how I shoot my 22s more than any of my other guns that makes perfect sense to me.

Gave $475 for my 98%ish K-22 last year - don't regret it one bit. It is an awesome shooter and looks great doing it. At 15 yards I can wear out a playing card just about as fast as i can pull the trigger. In SA mode, you think about pulling the trigger and it goes boom!

Airweight .38's are less than $400 and Airweight .22's are less than $600. Why pay 50% more for a .22?

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Supply and demand - they made way more 38s than 22s.

I use to think that way as well. Then I kept reading about the Model 617 and decided I was going to pay the extra bucks for it. I picked up a like new in box 617 no dash with all the paperwork and I paid for it.

Now I do not think that way at all and would throw down the money for a nice pre-lock 617 anyday.

Why do people look askance at an expensive .22?

The short answer is, for the most part, they don't. That is, people with any knowledge of handguns have no trouble recognizing that there is no necessary correlation between caliber and quality.

People who can't (yet) think intelligently about a question like this seem to imagine that a small-bore revolver ought not to cost as much as a .44 mag.

My guess is... If they charged less than $400 for an Airweight .22, they would sell just as many as the .38's. I would sure buy one.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Because some are actually worth it.

Jack O'Connor maintained that your 22 should be the best-built (and most expensive) gun in your armory because you shoot it the most.


Okie John

A 34,63,18,317 and waiting for the 43c. The 18 is the most I ever paid for any gun, new or used but nothing is more fun to shoot. It got me into 22 rifles, lever, pump and bolt. All reasonable to shoot.

Because there are other approximate replacements for far far cheaper. Whereas the approximate replacements for a centerfire handgun are similarly priced.

Many gun buyers are looking at getting handguns as opposed to specifically desiring a wheel or auto. When a .45 auto and wheel are similarly priced, and 38 and comparable 9mm options are similarly priced they would think rimfires would be too.

When one perfectly suitable, similar quality .22 handgun is available for $350 the $700 equivalent is deemed to be way too expensive.

They don't care about cost to make it, nor economy forces, and I don't blame them or think they should know better. If the desire specifically for a revolver isn't there they are overpriced.

My first 22 caliber pistol was a Stainless Ruger Mark II with a bull barrel and it shot lights out and I think I paid $225 for it back in the 80's. That was a fairly high price for a 22 pistol back then but it was well worth it as it was a tack driver and never mal functioned. I gave to my son earlier this year because he loved it and I've moved on to a Model K22,Model 18-3, Model 18-4, Model 17-2, Model 17-4, Model 617 no dash, and (2) S&W Model 41's.

Yes, I love shooting 22 pistols and I don't mind paying top dollar for an S&W revolver in top condition whether it's a 357 magnum or a 22LR. I shoot lots of different caliber S&W revolvers to at the range but the 22's are my favorites. Plus when my Grandkids visit I can let them shoot to their hearts content because the ammo is cheap.

When I was looking for a .22 I decided that I would rather pay $300 for a Ruger MKIII than $659 for a new S&W .22 revolver (both guns would have been cheaper used, of course). For some people it is just going to be a matter of economics based on what else is available and what they can afford to spend. While I would have preferred a revolver, I'm not sorry that I bought the Ruger at all, it has been a very good gun.
I definitely understand where people are coming from when they say that a quality .22 revolver is on par with a larger caliber revolver in terms of materials and may require a little extra machining, and the price is therefore justified, but I didn't want to spend that kind of money on a gun that I intended to be an inexpensive shooter/plinker, as opposed to something that I would defend myself with. For a defensive revolver I am willing to shell out the extra cash for a well made and reliable revolver because I am staking my life on it. For a competition revolver I would be willing to shell out the money to get a gun that would be accurate and stand up to the rigors of competition shooting. For something to shoot just for fun, I'll take decent quality and lower price. YMMV.

__________________
Ban lunatics and criminals

I have an alternate theory, for some folks at least. It's a nuance of human nature and I confess I don't know where the attitude comes from, but there are people that equate the caliber and size of the round with what, in their mind, the gun should cost. Doesn't make "walkin' around sense" as an old fellow I knew would say, but I have encountered such in my dealing and trading. To them, a 44 should be more expensive than a 357, and a 38 cheaper still, and a 32 less and a 22 the least. And when I've pressed one of them to explain why that is, the answer was " well, they just are - everybody knows that !"

......OOOKayyy . . . guess I didn't get the memo

Admittedly I don't know a lot about .22's beyond my childhood years when parents would buy them for their kids to use until they were old enough to learn how to use a "real" gun.

And that's the answer. Regardless of the facts and having been witness to some incredible shooters in that particular caliber, my upbringing classifies them as little more than toys. Sorry, I don't mean to hurt any feelings. I'm just being honest and admitting my prejudice.

I guess I just don’t get why the J frame aluminum .22’s cost as much as they do. Machining aluminum has to be the cheapest thing to work on. The machining bits and cutters should be lasting just about forever. I’m no machinist so this could all be bunk and I may need correction. But how they have such an upcharge on something that should be so easy to mass produce is beyond me other than the fact that they can and they do get away with it. I keep thinking of getting a 317 or 351 and when I pick it up and see what I’m paying hundreds of dollars for, it set it right back down. How can the MSRP on the 63 be ten dollars more than the 317??? I just don’t get it.

I've got enough defensive handguns.

Maybe I'm a bit loonie.

I like them cheap, and I like them expensive.

Most certainly didn't mind paying extra for a Model 17... I've shot enough to make up for that extra cost.

Recently picked up a Beretta 21A that is a blast to shoot.

A Bersa Firestorm is high on my list.

A Ruger, a Model 63/34, a Model 41... the list goes on

Because many .22s are cheaply made plastic and pot metal. The same thing goes for .22lr rifles. Some folks just can't understand you have to pay for quality materials and machine work. Why spend over $1000 on that Kimber 82c, Cooper Jackson Squirrel, or Anschutz 54 when I can get a new 10/22 or Marlin 60 for $239. Actually this argument can be equated to many things, Bic vs Monte Blanc, Timex vs Rolex, but in the end those that appreciate fine quality tools don't fret over price.

__________________
Regards,
Guy-Harold Smith II

After reading these posts I think I'll start looking for a revolver. In the meantime, this is the only .22 I own. I like to post pics of it. It was my dad's rifle from his ROTC days in the early 50's. I like shooting at 100 yards with it. It's a model 52 Winchester in 99% condition. I know this is a revolver forum but I'm sure everyone can appreciate this thing.

Attached Images

000_0012.jpg (81.0 KB, 154 views)

I own a number of .22 revolvers, semi autos and one rifle. None are "inexpensive" guns. My favorites in handguns are my SW 617 and Model 63. Both are extremely well made, dependable and loads of fun.

__________________
... ed ...

A consequence of three things, I think. First, .22 ammunition is cheap and that deludes people into thinking that the guns should be cheap, too. Second, there are in fact a lot of cheap .22s out there and people conclude from that that all .22s ought to be cheap. And, finally, a lot of people seem to think that .22 is not a "real" round and that rimfire shooting is just an imitation of the real thing.

I'm like a lot of you. I shoot two rounds of .22 for every other round that I fire. One of my personal favorite guns is my 617. I have no idea how many rounds I put through it but it's at least 200 per week and I've owned the gun for five years. And, the gun wasn't new when I bought it, it's a -1 made back in '93. So, obviously, I've put tens of thousands of rounds through it and whoever owned it before I did probably put a lot more through the gun. The gun still functions flawlessly, as good if not better than new. It's as solid a piece of worksmanship as any gun that I own. Was it worth the price that I paid for it? Yes, and in fact, it was an incredible bargain considering the use I've given it.

Actually there are a lot of people willing to cough up $500 or more for a S&W 22 revolver because in the past 2 years they have pushed the prices up about $200 on a clean used one. Two years ago I bought a 5 screw K22 with 6 inch barrel in 95% condition for $500. The last gun show I attended there were two in about 80 to 85% condition for $600. If there had been a 95 to 98% condition K22 at the show it would have easily brought $700 or more. I know because I would have bought it.

The P&R versions are very hard to find in 95% or better condition and they don't sit long before being bought when a dealer does get one.

Seeing these over priced at times makes the old H&R 922 and the new taurus 22 revolvers very attractive. I'm sorry but thats how i feel. I may pick up some of the used ruger SA revolvers in 22cal soon. I'm kind of glad a while back i grabbed two ruger semi auto 22 pistols used for dirt cheap all they needed was a good cleaning. Now the used ones are even priced thru the roof too. I think there is a nitch in the market right now for a simple, affordable, reliable 22cal revolver. The taurus at $300+ is the only one right now that i have seen but there maybe more. I'd like to get the new grandson one. I just want to teach the kids safe gun handling with the smaller 22's. Bill

BTW; With ammo prices so high we tend to shoot the 22's more so the prices are up on them too. Either way we pay in the end no matter which end or way we look at it right?

Thank's now you have me jones'n for a S&W 22cal pistol now too. They look AWESOME!!!!!!! Bill

None of my 22s are cheap. That HDM is a "blood gun"

I have been semi-looking for a model 18 ( P&R) for sure ,for several years without much luck. It's the cost of ammo, period! Saw a 98%beauty at the last show for $550 but I was heavy into series '70 Colt autos with not much $ on hand at the time. It sat there thru Sunday. Couldn't believe it at that price. Those of you who may remember the gas crunch of 1973? I sure do as I lived in L.A. at the time. Couldn't find a good VW beetle to save your life. It's the same for quality .22's (Colt,S&W and perhaps Ruger (no SA please) No, a Taurus won't do. Browning is coming out with a 3/4 scale 1911 in .22. Should sell very well. My dream is a S&W model 39 in .22 . Or at least a conversion kit like the Colt ACE. Come on S&W wake up! Again,it's the cost of ammo,and it's not going to get better. A box of .357's at $12.95 is gone forever.

Ischia

i am glad there are people that won't pay for a good quality 22. leaves more for the rest of us.

I once did have a conversion ace kit for my 1911. I was disapointed with the accuracy. Oddly, I have never owned a model 17 or 18. I should correct that. I started out with a single six and shot it a lot. At one time I could throw a can or bottle, draw, shoot and hit it in the air more often than not. BUT that was 50 years ago. Somebody once had me try it with his K-22. I couldnt miss that day. I promised myself I would get one but still havent!

Until just a short time ago I was guilty of saying to self, "If I can get a quality S&W .357 for $500.00, why should I pay more than $400.00 for a .22?"

My rational being that larger calibers, to many folks were more desirable than the .22s.

Until I started seriously looking into buying more S&W .22s.

The prices the older ones claim, and the utility over all other calibers make me willing to pay more for .22s than for .38s. Which I have done in the last three .38 Special buys.

__________________
Have guns...will shoot'em.

For .22 LR DA revolvers, I would rate the s&w model 17 and colts OMM the best. For SA, it`s hard to beat a early ruger single six. When ruger went to the "convertable" single six they also made all their barrels .224 from .222 to accomidate the .22 wmrf. I really belive the earlier tighter bores more accurate. Auto`s? I cant judge. There has been too many models made for one person to own and compare. I suppose one would have to search the old competition target shooter winners to get a good idea.
I think too many new shooters start out with 38/357 or bigger when I feel they would be far better off starting off with a .22 lr. Far cheaper ammo, low report, recoil and accurate!

This.

Sorry to all the die hard .22'ers out there. You are right...for YOU. For me? I find .38 Spl to be just like a .22, can take any small game I need it to AND has the versatiltiy to do defensive duty if needed. Reloading, while not as cheap, brings down the cost considerably.

But I will admit that a K22 or .22 OMM does get the juices flowing so to speak so I understand the allure.

For many friends it is the fact that auto's are so much cheaper. A 22A is $225, a ruger Mk 111 not much more. A comparable auto 9 is $400 or more and a 45 is higher yet. Yes a revolver will always be preferred for many of us but that isn't the case will all.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

I sent down range at least 250 rounds today with my Beretta 21a and Model 17.

Allowed a kid shooting a Ruger Mark 2 with his grandpa, to shoot a cylinder on my Model 17. I got a thumbs up from both of them.

Range time and targets were about $8. Throw in a few dollars for the half brick of .22 and I couldn't have had a better time.

And that's a valid point. While I greatly prefer revolvers and have no intention of parting with any of them, the one semi-auto I own is a stainless 6-7/8" Ruger Mark II target. It cost me less than half of what my .22 revolvers did, and it is exceptionally accurate, with flawless reliability.

But for some reason I have no intention of purchasing another Ruger, yet I'm drawn to every S&W .22 I see.

My 617-7 was worth every penny. I'll never wear it out and it is my "go to" backyard revolver. I have a small .22 range in the backyard and the 617 is perfect for it. $700 total or so for the 617 is a small price to pay to be able to walk 50 feet with a brick of .22 and go shooting for an afternoon, and to do it with a quality revolver capable of match grade accuracy.

My K-22 was also worth every penny, but it doesn't see nearly as many rounds as my 617.

I doubt that a K-frame sized frame knows whether it will be a 4" 67, SKU #162802 & 2010 Catalog MSRP $845, or a 4" 617, SKU #160584 & MSRP $940. The lockwork is essentially the same, possibly excepting the hand and hammer spring. The extra $95 MSRP buys a full lug vs no lug and more machining - ten .22 holes in the cylinder, etc.

As to the price - I paid $609 9/08 for my new 4" 617; less than $500 for a LNIB 5" 63 from a friend's estate sale 8/09, and nearly $650 OTD 11/10 for a new 3" 63. For the amount of enjoyment, even the most expensive one - the 3" 63 - was a bargain.

Checking S&W's site - the 3" 63 has a current MSRP of $769 - that's $10 less than my fancy/feature-laden 3" 60 Pro - and $10 more than a standard full lugged 3" 60 - how about that! My luck - I buy them - and then the price drops!

Stainz

PS Once you get a SS S&W .22 rimfire, you'll understand why they can get the same or more for it vs a .38/.357M - because they are worth it! One caveat - don't wait too long to find out for yourself!

I'll admit, I use to look at 22s "askance". That was until I decided to take a chance on a 1959 Marlin 39a for $350. Worth every penny and I'm looking to buy more, one for each of my kids.

This, in turn, has put my "buy" sign on the first pre-lock 617 I see. The problem is, around my neck of the woods, I've never seen one for sale in 5 different shops. Could go gunbroker, but I'd really rather check it out in person first. My "askanceness" has been nullified

I started out believing that if it shot, why would I want to spend the money for a Colt or Smith 22 revolver? It took a couple years to get a bit educated. After some experience and education, I bought a new Colt Diamondback in 22. I pretty much love the Colt Diamondback's in 22 and have developed a serious affection for the older Smith DA 22 revolvers in the last 5 years of so.

It is very hard to convince somebody to pay 2x the price for a Smith & Wesson Model 17 over a Taurus M94, but after you shoot the Taurus a while, you learn. If you are halfway intelligent, you at least can tell the difference. You learn real fast if you have problems with the Taurus product.

Yes, you can sort of get used to really heavy DA triggers and poorly finished revolvers, but after you get a good one, you never want to turn back the clock.

I bought my first S&W Model 17 about 5 years ago. Before that, I only had eyes for Colt 22 revolvers. I bought my first Model 18 shortly afterwards. I just bought a 4" M17 which I just couldn't resist when the gunshop dropped the price. They were asking $700 for it and it was in about 98%+ condition. We settled on a much lower price which is why I bought another M17 which I had no earthly need for. I recently bought a 5" M63 and really like this little steel J-frame. More than likely, I will pick up a 3" M63. Why so many? Just because is about the only reason I can come up with.

I talk guns sometimes with friends and some of them can not imagine paying $500 or more for a 22 revolver. Half their guns are pieces of junk. I don't even bother trying to explain.

I have a S&W 9mm that I want to sell. I offered the gun to a friend for half the market price and he just looked at me like I was trying to steal from him and my price ridiculous. I wanted him to have a "good gun". He simply does not understand. The same applies to good DA 22 revolvers.

People are people. Some buy revolvers/pistols the same way they buy cars, based on what they read in magazines and based on what other people think. It's not unlike folks who buy a new super-whizbang magnum alphabet soup model rifle for deer hunting then put a $99 scope in $20 rings/bases on top.

Quality, fit, finish, function and on target results are critical to any handgun/rifle regardless of caliber. For those who only want a bullet launcher, perhaps the only thing that matters is that it function. But even those sorts of of folks will sooner or later get bored with a low/poor quality handgun... or else they'll just quit shooting all together.

I bought my first .22 LR handgun while a student in seminary. It was a Ruger Mk. II. After graduation I read extensively about .22 LR handguns. Based on articles by Bob Melick, I bought a S&W 18. Since then I've had a plethora of .22 LR handguns. All of them are gone. I continue to keep a S&W 18-3 as I consider it just about the summa cum laude of all .22 LR revolvers. I paid for it the same price that a good S&W 19-3 would have brought. I consider it money well spent. I would not consider parting with it. If and when I see another similar 18-3... or maybe a 17 or 41 of some sort, I will happily pay the price and add another fine .22 revolver to my little accumulation of S&W revolvers. If a High Standard Victor comes along, I'll jerk my wallet out so fast it will rip my back pocket off my pants!

__________________
<><

I paid slightly more for a 1960 Colt Officers Model Match (.22) than I paid for a nearly identical 1959 Model 357 and never thought twice about it.

There are times I wish I could have back all the excess over $500 I've paid for 22s, and that's just for the ones I still own! Those of you who think K22s are costly, go price an original SIG P210-7 (22 only). I personally look askance at those who look askance at my 22 caliber buying and owning habits. What comes to mind is "what do they know?"

__________________
Dick Burg

I agree and the Sig 210-7 is a grail gun to most but I can't seem to be able to part with that much money for one. I do have a S&W Model 41 from 1968 that I got for $600 even though it's well used and a shooter at best.

I consider my K frame 617 worth every penny that my spouse paid to get it for me! [a present]. If I could, I would extend my collection to a K22 and a 22LR snubbie.

The only problems that I have ever had with my pistol is that it takes longer to clean the 10 cylinders than a six would take [or a SA from what others tell me] and I got some lead buildup after a long day of shooting. But I set aside time to clean properly, and other folks here at SW forum taught me how to get rid of the lead buildup.

This revolver was the first that I owned. It's heavy enough that it gives very little recoil while being so well balanced that I don't really notice the weight. It seems to almost target itself; I'm having fun shooting and am able to brag about the results.

I would like to pay less for a revolver, of course, but if I can talk my spouse into buying me another one....