Model 317 or Model 63 "kit gun"

wnr700 · Jul 6, 2011

Will likely buy one of the two kit guns in 3 inch.

Use... A)plinking and B)car/purse gun for my wife.

I have read some things about the 317 trigger being aweful. Does that apply to the 63?

Is there a noticable difference in the weight?

I could see alot of rounds going down range... guessing the edge in durability would go to the 63.

Tom C · Jul 6, 2011

I have both the 317 and the 3” 63. The weight of my 317 with Pachmary Gripper grips is 14.0 oz. The weight of the 3” 63 with the same grips is 27.2 oz. I like both but the lighter 317 is harder to shoot well due to the light weight. Mine had a problem burning the face of the cylinder. The second time I sent it to the factory, they replaced the barrel and replaced the cylinder with the stainless cylinder from the 63. The weight went up to 17.8 oz. Now it is tougher and more durable and has enough weight where it is easier to shoot well.

.22s tend to have heavier triggers due to the heavier mainsprings necessary to ensure reliable ignition with .22 ammo. The weight can be trimmed by careful polishing of the internals and perhaps reducing the weight of the rebound spring. I tend not to reduce the weight of the mainspring much if any.

Sportsterguy · Jul 6, 2011

For me it's a no brainer. Go with the 63. Much better made revolver and the added weight makes it a more steady revolver to shoot accurately.

There been a few threads running about 317's malfunctioning. My old 63 and my snub 34 have never had a malfunction.

snubbiefan · Jul 6, 2011

I did some serious research before I purchased the two 317's that I have. I found an early NL and the wife took it away from me, so I had to get me a new one.

Probably, the 3-inch barrel with the adjustable sights would not be a carry piece, so I would agree on the 63 over the 317. However, Tom C above had the only situation I have seen concerning the cylinder, which he noted on another forum. I was so enthused that I ordered a 63 SS cylinder just to hang onto. I have read where thousands and thousands of rounds have been fired through these 317's with no incidents, but I have also heard and read in more than one place where the aluminum cylinders don't like the subsonic rounds. All I can say is that both of mine shoots the short, shot-shell and the LR just fine.

TSQUARED · Jul 6, 2011

The J-framed guns have a coil mainspring which is not as easilly tuned nor as smooth as the flat mainspting of the K=L & N frames.hat being said it is virtually impossible to reduce the DA trigger pull ,on a 22LR revolver without encountering ignition problems. I have an older Model 63 which I have used for amny years and it has served me wekll with either 22 LR shotshell or normal ammo.

snubbiefan · Jul 6, 2011

+1 on that for any small frame 22. Both of my 317's have Wolff springs. The wife's has the hammer and reduced effort rebound, but mine only has the Wolff hammer spring. She can tell a slight difference between the two, but can still fire DA with either. They are pretty Godzilla-like in stock dress, but the Wolff kit does make it manageable. If she can pull the trigger with her itty-bitty finger, anybody can.

I am sure that in time and with lots of shooting, the reduced power springs may begin to show signs of weakness. So far....not a single FTF in either.

Stainz · Jul 6, 2011

I bought a LNIB 5" 63 several years ago. Miserable trigger! After talking with S&W - and learning that they only offered a 'simple' trigger job of smoothing innards - no springs - for $85 for the J-frame rimfires - I elected to 'go my own way'. I ordered the 3 piece Wolff J-frame hammer spring kit - and put the stoutest hammer spring and middle rebound spring in, polished the innards carefully, and was proud of my work... great improvement... bliss... until just before last Thanksgiving - and my long awaited 3" 63 arrived. Instant revolver-love! Despite the HiViz sight I had put on my 5" 63, I favored the 3"-er. One day - I - and some range mates - A-B ed the pair - the 3"-er came from S&W with a better trigger - and it improved with that first brick or so of el-cheapo Federals. It is now distinctly better than the 5"-er... and not that far from my 4" 617.

I decided against a 3" 317K after trying two with snap caps. The lite weight tricks you - it enhances that hard DA pull... makes it 'feel' more stout. That makes it hard to put/keep on target for the uninitiated. I'm sure it's a learned action. But - in all seriousness - if your wife needs a purse gun for protection - with little recoil - consider what Mas Ayoob suggests - a 351PD in .22 WMR. The 7-shooter is lite - has the same miserable (or worse) DA trigger as the 317 - and 7-shots of more energetic ammo. Better still would be a 637/642 loaded with 148gr LWC .38 Spcl target ammo - little recoil, but leaves a big hole. Of course, then you get to buy a kit gun extraordinaire - the 3" 63 - for trail & plinking fun.

Stainz

TACC1 · Jul 6, 2011

I had a 4" M63 with the heavy trigger. Got my gunsmith to smooth it up, and it was acceptable. Didn't fit my hands, though, so it's gone.
Currently I have a 3" M317. There seems to be something about the manufacture of these. I'd heard about all the problems, but got one anyway. It was good to go, right out of the box. Good trigger,and accurate. I wish I'd gotten it sooner.
That said, the weight factor is going to make any M63 a bear to carry around. The 317 won't even drag your pocket down. IMO, it's the
winner when it comes to carry. The 351 would be even better, except for the noise. TACC1

BruceHMX · Jul 6, 2011

TACC1 sent you an IM but not sure if it got through. Email me direct at [email protected] Thanks Bruce

Model 317 or Model 63 "kit gun"

wnr700

Member

Tom C

Member

Sportsterguy

Member

snubbiefan

Member

TSQUARED

Member

snubbiefan

Member

Stainz

Member

TACC1

US Veteran

BruceHMX

Member

Similar threads

Latest posts