I'm trying to understand the differences in these two models, and wonder which one is "better." I have heard that on some of these revolvers the charge holes are machined kind of tight and that often they have to be reamed to be functional. Can this be true?

Any guidance on choosing between the Model 617 and 617-1 variations will be appreciated.

FWIW, I don't like MIM parts, the IL, aluminum cylinders, 10-shot cylinders, or any of that stuff. I just want an accurate, solid .22 six-shooter with no inherent issues to struggle with.

Thanks again.

Attached Images

	Model 617.jpg (99.3 KB, 245 views)
	Model 617-1.jpg (119.0 KB, 240 views)

According to the SCSW4 the difference was: In 1993 change the rear sight leaf, drill & tap frame (for scope mount), change extractor, and synthetic grips were introduced.

I see nothing there that would keep me from buying either one. The grips on the no dash are considerably more valuable than the rubber Hogues on the -1.

I have a -6, and it is a fantastic shooter. Regarding the tight chambers, that is a continual historic situation with S&W .22's. I have reamed my 617-6, a 34-1, a 63-1, as well as my 17-4, and a 1931 K22 Outdoorsman, so the problem spans at least 85 years.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

Thanks for this, H Richard. I am not mechanically gifted. I shoots 'em, I don't fixes 'em. Is it a big job for a qualified smith to ream the chambers? Is S&W a good choice, or, another smith?

That is a beautiful revolver. Elk horn grips, I presume? Really very unusual color and an altogether drool-worthy package, sir!

617-nothing is a square butt gun with flash chromed trigger and hammer. Grips are wood combats

I believe the 617-1 comes in both round butt and square butt (early guns were square butt). Hammer and trigger are case hardened. Rubber Hogues on the round butt guns.

They are both great guns - it's just a matter of preference.

__________________
My sgntr is mor thn 30 chrctrs

No dash has been fine with me. No problems with case extraction.

Attached Images

098.jpg (169.1 KB, 145 views)

Better is a subjective thing, it all depends on what you mean by it....
From a shooting (accuracy) standpoint, there should be no real difference between the two, unless there is something really non-copacetic about one of them.
Hard to tell from your photo of the -1, but it could be a round butt grip frame, in which case personal preference (and grip selection) would be a factor. If it's a square butt, then the only real difference (and a deal maker for me) would be the visual appeal of the -1's newer style rear sight assembly. These were added when S&W went to the drilled and tapped frames, and - to me anyway- the way the leading edge of the sight being milled and imbedded into the top-strap looks more finished versus the older style of the no-dash.

Here's a M617-1 with round butt grip frame (with Spegel grips)



Here's a M617-1 with square butt grip frame (also wearing Spegel grips), you can see the rear sight assembly and how it's milled into the top-strap.

__________________
.............SmithNut

This is only tangentially related, but my friend bought a 10-shot 617 when they first came out. It has that non-standard cylinder finish (aluminum?) that I believe was only used in the first year of production. Are there any concerns with these cylinders, other than that they look a bit different from the rest of the gun? I am guessing it has no special collectors value (or does it?) She has actually never shot it!

I'm not sure what you have against MIM parts - I actually prefer them. From my experience, which comes from actually taking side plates off and doing trigger work on both pre and post MIM parts, MIM parts require little to no work in terms of polishing and very little for stoning. S&W must believe in them too, as they guarantee them for life, which they did not do with the older machined parts. Don't believe Internet Rumors or fear mongers, sometimes progress is a good thing.

__________________
So many S&W's, so few funds!!

There's no rational basis for my preference, sir. However, I am a devout Luddite and worship at the Temple of the Lathe and Bridgeport Milling Machine.

"Clements Custom Guns

I cannot do action work on newer guns with MIM parts. If the back of the trigger has cavities cast in it, then the gun is a MIM gun and not suitable."

Clements Custom Guns

A top shooter in my former club suggested to consider S&W -3 and up only. According to him, on -3 and later all parts are machined on CNC machines, and quality, and consequently accuracy, improved considerably.

Sounds like he has problems with caliber conversions, which is not the same as a simple action job, which S&W Performance Center does 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.

__________________
So many S&W's, so few funds!!

To answer BlueRidgeBoy's question, the process of reaming the chambers is not difficult, and any "gunsmith" worthy of that name should have no difficulty doing it.

I do not claim to be a gunsmith, but there are certain things I do (within my own limitations) and reaming cylinders was no problem for me. A Manson Standard chamber finishing reamer (with a tap handle) and a can of cutting oil are all that is needed. Remove the cylinder, put in a padded vice, pointing slightly down, and shove a wad of shop towel beneath it, squirt several drops of oil in the chamber and insert the reamer and slowly push forward and turn clockwise, (never turn backwards, even when taking it out). Every 6 or so turns remove the cutter and wipe off and put more oil in chamber and repeat. Stop when the cutter shoulder hits the chamber mouth (It won't go any further). But, don't let the cutter shoulder cut into the chamber mouth (or rim recess). Always use plenty of cutting oil, and keep the reamer clean. When done, clean the cylinder thoroughly with brake & parts cleaner or other appropriate cleaner, re-install and go shoot.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I was reading more of his website,,,
he now does NO S&W work, of any sort.

Heheh. You might as well be speaking ancient Greek, my friend. I am barred from touching tools that remove metal from firearms in 14 states. But, one of the great things about this Forum is the connections you make. Onty, who lives in Canada, has apprised me in his post that a world-class gunsmith who can do this, Dave Clements, lives and works about 25 miles from my house out here in the mountains! I think I shall pay him a visit.

That is not true, sir. Here is exactly what Dave Clements says about working on S&W revolvers on his website:

"S&W revolvers can be converted to several different calibers. .357 to .44 Special, .41 Magnum to .45 Colt, .44 Magnum to .45 Colt, etc. Factory barrel is rebored and cylinder linebored and rechambered. Endshake set to minimum. Barrel is refitted to frame after rebore to improve barrel/cylinder gap, recrowned, and forcing cone cut to 11 degrees. Base price is $550 on a stainless gun and $600 on a blue one. Action work and taller front sight, if needed, along with barrel shortening are extra. I can convert the M27 & 28 to .45 ACP or 10mm/.40 S&W. Cost for these conversions is $50 extra. Both would use moon clips.

I am currently only accepting N-frame cal. conversions. I cannot do action work on newer guns with MIM parts. If the back of the trigger has cavities cast in it, then the gun is a MIM gun and not suitable.

Barrel shortening- from $185 S&W has changed the front sight several times over the years. Sometimes I can remount the factory front, while other times a new front will need to be fabricated.

Action work- from $75
Recolorcase hammer and trigger- $25 each
Ball/crane lock- $40
Pinned blade front sight conversion- $90
Install new blade in guns with plunger type or pinned front sight bases- $50

Please call about any S&W work before sending gun."

That is a whole lot different than saying that David does no work on S&Ws.

Maybe Clements is confused. From his site:

Quote:

10. All services for S&W, Ruger Redhawk, or Super Redhawks have been discontinued.

Notes from David Clements

__________________
So many S&W's, so few funds!!

These were probably posted at different times. He's only 45 minutes away over a nice mountain road. I'll scoot over there and find out what's going on and report back.

My pick would be on of the Ashland 617-0 without the underlug. I never felt I needed it for field carry.
Steve

Some months ago i saved on my weapons database this link, that I read with huge interest.
Maybe it will help you.
1960 K22 chamber diameter vs. SAAMI sporting specs
Anyway, it appears that .22 chambers always had this issue.
I love vintage revolvers, pinned, recessed (OK, .22 always are) , shrouded /half shrouded and deeply blued.
Even some forumer said CNC machined MIM parts are better, I don't agree. When we speak about mechanics, nothing overtake a final hand fitting.
The same about blueing.

Speaking of barrel work on S&W 617, does anyone know of someone that can replace the 4" barrel on my 617 with a 8 3/8"? I have the gun but not the 8 3/8 in barrel. I collect the long barrel S&W's but the 617 with the 8 3/8" barrel is not longer sold in California. Any info would be appreciated.

Which is better? A red apple or a green apple? Both are great .22's.

__________________
S&W Accumulator