IMO the issue is that some 22LR AMMO is Problematic.

I have a 1992 vintage 617 and extraction isn't a problem at all, however when shooting Winchester Wildcat or the 500 bulk pak, loading becomes an issue after about 50-60 rounds downrange. It will start with needing a firm push to fully seat a fresh cartridge and by the time 75 rounds have been fired it gets bad enough a hammer might be needed. Since I'm not about to use a hammer to seat a rimfire cartridge in the cylinder I'll just pack it up and take it home. Where cleaning it up well takes about 2 hours of work between soaking it and scrubbing the chambers. Oddly enough the barrel doesn't seem to lead up at all, it's just the filth that accumulates in the chambers that's the problem.

Now contrast the issues with that cheap Winchester with the Federal 550 Bulk ammo. With this ammo I can shoot 200 rounds without any issues with either ejection or loading. Start to finish and the casings come out easy and drop right into the chambers. Another plus is that cleanup takes only 30 to 40% of the work that cleaning up after shooting the Winchester takes. The only downside is that group sizes with the Federal run about 40% larger than with the Winchester.

Just found this forum and your posting, and would like to reply. I have three S&W .22 revolvers, including one model 63 and two model 317 AirLites. I have also had several Kit Guns and model 17 K-22s in the past.

Over the years, I have found that the only .22 ammo that reliably extracts from these revolvers is the Remington Hollow Point in the green box. Every other brand I've tried binds up in the chambers and is very difficult to extract.

I don't know why this is so problematic for me, but it is.

I'd be interested to see what you experience with the Remington ammo.

Upon further examination of my "repaired" Charter Bulldog,
the front crane latch, which did work, no longer engages properly.
I am going to have to send it back a second time
Once it is good I want to get the action improved.
It may be more than 6 months between the time I got the gun
and when I get to actually shoot it.
Feh.

...Nemo...

sorry for the rant

I typically shoot: the same remington HP you mention (green and yellow bulk pack), Remington T-bolt, CCI mini-mag (both HP and SP), Winchester bulk - Super X maybe, some CCI stingers and probably a couple others I can't think of right now - oh, and Federal blue stuff.

There's an old saying: "The only consistent feature of all your problems is YOU". So, I'm guessing I just need to work on it some more.

__________________
But then, what do I know?

I do and yes, there are those that have the same problems with Ruger's as well. I have only ever had 1 issue with a firearm and it was a Ruger MKIII. My Uncle put the mag in backwards. Cost him $150 after it was all said and done - basically a new gun in the end! I do not generally buy new guns though. The vast majority of my modest collection is used. Maybe 6-7 are new, all the others are used. I think we expect new guns to be free from defect and fail to inspect them as thoroughly as we do used ones. It is the same with new/used cars. QC is probably statistically the same as in the past, but seems more frequent due to the increased production. So, from a percentage standpoint all is status quo. From a purely numbers stand point, it is up and the dissatisfied bark alot more than the satisfied!

I belong to two Ruger forums, albeit not as long of a period as this forum. I see some of the same issues, Ruger seems to take care of them "relatively" well, one of the common gripes is when a gun is sent back with internal aftermarket parts installed (Wolff springs, Power Custom hammer/trigger sets, etc.) and it comes back with all factory parts... Ruger's policy as explained by CS, if a gun comes in non-factory, it goes out factory original specs, because they won't assume liability for anything happening due to the custom parts. If they left them in, it would be considered tacit approval by Ruger.

My own experience was with a new Ruger Vaquero with the "color cased" finish, a small area on the frame had no finish, just plain steel.

Sent it back (on my dime), it was return a few weeks later with a great finish and some extra work must of been performed as the sides of the hammer were polished and the action was smooth enough to generate one of those "particular" dreams... it wasn't that way when I sent it off.

I have 2 other Blackhawks, SP101, Speed Six, 10/22 and a Deerfield carbine... all are without a hitch.

__________________
Conrad
SWCA #1830 SWHF #222

I have a '50's vintage K22. It shoots with 100% reliability. The problem I have is with Remington Thunderbolts. They lead the bore so bad it is ridiculous. No other ammo does that in this gun so far. The bore itself if not rough by any standard.

I have over 25 Smith's and 1 GP-100 3 inch .357. The GP is the one I sleep with.

That is the exact reason why I will never buy a new gun from SMith and Wesson ever again. They have lost pride in workmanship and also have no quality control, its sad. Also, I will never send a gun to the performance center idiots to have work done again, those guys do not know craapp.
Eric

Hey guys,
Finally got to shoot the 617 two weeks after I got it back. This story has a happy ending after all. She's a fantastic shooter! And i'm happy to report no problems whatsoever.

YAY! You lucked out.

Seems the older I get, the pickier I get. Does that mean I
am now a curmudgeon? (That's a rhetorical question).

I am still slowly fixing up the revolvers I got in the 80's.
The one I sent back to S&W back then is spot on.
The one I sent for minor mods last year was
a) not fixed the way I wanted and
b) had the matte stainless finish screwed up on the crane.
FEH!

Support your local or regional expert gunsmith. The factories
no longer care.

...Nemo...

Congrats. Glad it turned out good for you. Enjoy.
Dave

Last week I was in a large local Gunshop that had hosted a Smith and Wesson Days. They had 4, 4" 617s and a 5 inch 63 and a 3" 63 in the case to choose from. Every one of the 617s had a huge gap 1/4", between the top of the Crane and the bottom of the barrel area of the frame like they had used the wrong jig to Machine it. The "finish" looked like they had been thrown in a bag of gravel and shaken up. One had an uneven barrel crown. The 3 inch 63 failed to carry upon three chambers in Single action with cases inserted. The 5" 63 practically needed a mallet to close it.

Blech, I had to pass on all of them, all brand new no QC what so ever. Very sad and disappointing.

I am not questioning what you are saying, because you were there to see and handle these guns first hand, and I was not. However, with that being said, I find tales like this strange, because in the past year I have purchased six new production S&W revolvers including two 642s, a 43C, a 325 NightGuard, a 627 PC UDR, and a Governor with ZERO quality control issues. I think I will continue to keep playing this card game until I get a bad hand. Maybe my luck will spill over to the lottery the next time it reaches $640 Million!

Old fashioned six shooter, I have no doubt you have bought nice ones that were just fine, even perfect. When there is poor QC you have some production runs that are great, and other production runs that are very poor.

I have two 629's, a pro-60, 627PC, 625PC, and four M&P's. I like them all and will continue to buy S&W's product (but not their stock).