K-22 accuracy after reaming with a Finish reamer

S&W has been reaming the chambers tight on K-22's and "J" frame revolvers for many many years. I would think this was done for a reason. Has anyone noticed or done a study to see if the accuracy is affected after using a Finish reamer on their K-22? The same, not as good or better?

This is an excellent question, and one I have pondered.
Of course, there are other factors to consider, such as chamber-to-bore alignment, and variations from one chamber to the next, as well as things like bore condition and barrel choke, etc.

But, keeping with the topic, I've attached a chart showing just some of the many chamber dimensions that exist for the 22 LR (plus a few others).

Keep in mind that there are many variations not shown, in particular proprietary dimensions used in European target arms.

It's probably best that the S&W chambers run tight so they can be custom reamed according to the end users taste, if so desired.

PS: not having a K-22 myself, I cannot directly say more towards the OP. But, if I had, I would be sure to conduct the work with a Before/After test using a Ransom Rest, firing 10 or 12 shot groups at 25 yds, if not (preferably) 50 yds.
I don't think a casual offhand shooting, especially at short distances adequately addresses the concerns by the OP, nor does the usual silly "it shoots better than I do" comment.

After using a Manson Cylinder Reamer on my M18 I have NOT noticed any I’ll affects on accuracy. The Manson Reamer only removes a slight amount on the back half of the cylinder and does not alter the front half of the cylinder what so ever. Because of that accuracy has not changed at all however ease of ejecting spent cartridges is not a chore anymore.

The Manson Cylinder finish Reamer goes for around $50 and as long as it is used properly with plenty of Tap Magic cutting fluid and cleaned between charge holes they work quite well.

Make SURE you buy the 22 Rimfire CYLINDER Reamer as there are different ones! Use spent cartridges in the 5 other charge holes not being reamed at the time to hold the ejector steady as that will reamed also. Remove cylinder from the gun while doing the reaming. Clean holes with oil and a bronze brush and patches when done. If you do not have a T handle style Tap Wrench, buy one with the Reamer. Use Tap Magic cutting fluid. IMHO you should not use any Reamer that has been used a lot and lent around. You don’t want to use a chipped, nicked or worn tool!

Putting an end to having to jam in cartridges and smack the ejector rod hard to eject spent shells is a thing of the past and shooting the revolver will be fun!

I have a mid-1970's Model 17 that I pruchased new. It has never had hard extraction issues. About a year ago I aquired a Model 18 (1958 vintage) that had extremely difficult extraction with all ammo that I tried, some brands much more difficult to extract than others.

I used a Manson 513-051-220 rimfire cylinder finish reamer and Starrett T-handle (w/Viper Venom cutting oil). I first loosely placed the reamer into each cylinder of the Model 17 to determine the depth that the reamer would set. Then did the same with the Model 18. The reamer sat approximately 1/4" higher in each Model 18 cylinders. That information gave me the minimum depth amount that I should ream the Model 18 cylinders (I wanted to ream only the amount that was necessary).

The Model 18 now extracts casings freely just like the Model 17. I see no noticable change in accuracy either way.

In 2019 I purchased the Manson .228” finish reamer and reamed the cylinder holes on a Model 18 from 1970 that was a bugger for ejecting spent shells. I used the Viper Venom cutting oil also and polished the cylinder chambers with Flitz after reaming. I don’t know why I waited so long to do this. There is no difference in accuracy that I can see. As mentioned above the reamer just goes so far down into the chamber holes and doesn’t cut all the way, just far enough to give the spent cases the ability to be ejected in a normal manner. I also checked every S&W .22LR Pistol I own with calipers to determine undersize. I reamed and polished a 6” K22 Model 17-4 from 1982 also. No change in accuracy on either gun that I can see and they’re both shooters. You need to be especially careful and not go down far enough to touch the extractor star.There is much discussion on this forum on reaming the cylinders and I found out that trying to polish the cylinders really didn’t help much. Go ahead and get the reamer. You won’t be sorry.

Thanks for all the good info.

The Freedom Arms .22 revolvers I've shot eject easily. They're far more accurate than a S&W.

And exactly how did you determine that?

One of the reasons Freedom Arms revolvers shoot so well is tight chambers and a small cylinder gap usually around.003 not sure why anyone would want to enlarge the cylinders unless they are so undersized you can't chamber on a clean cylinder.

muzzlestuffer2012 said:

One of the reasons Freedom Arms revolvers shoot so well is tight chambers and a small cylinder gap usually around.003 not sure why anyone would want to enlarge the cylinders unless they are so undersized you can't chamber on a clean cylinder.

Click to expand...

I have never shot a Freedom Arms .22 Revolver but I am not doubting it is accurate. That said, the S&W M17's and M18's are sometimes so tight that inserting a new cylinder full of ammo is next to impossible! BTW...... please note that S&W themselves DOES (or at least DID) ream cylinders out if and when a customer returned one with this exact issue. How do I know, because I've got several M18's and they did one at the Factory 30 years ago that I could not load after shooting a few dozen rounds. My other ones were done by me.

Accuracy loss is a non issue when the proper Reamer is used correctly. You are only removing a minuscule amount of metal, (mostly what looks like dust) and ONLY on the rear portion of the Cylinder where the cartridge casing sits. The part that is responsible for aligning the bullet to the chamber is the front half of the cylinder and that is NOT being touched by the Reamer. Look at the chamber on most auto loaders..... the bullet will drop into the chamber and does not have to be pushed in. Same principle.

I have competed with S&W M18 that I reamed many years ago and I still can put 10 rounds in the 10 ring about the size of a Quarter at 50 feet, with its factory iron sights. And I am almost 70 and don't shoot as good as I once did. I've never found a more accurate Revolver and I've shot Colts, High Standard's, and taurus's as well. Again, I am not saying your FA isn't accurate, all I am stating is that after shooting many S&W rimfire revolvers, I find absolutely no truth to possible accuracy loss after proper Reaming of the rear of the Cylinder. I have also never read anyone here stating that either. So I do believe anything about accuracy loss is nothing but a rumor.

I had no idea they were that tight ! Freedom Arms will actually set you up with two cylinders one being a sporting chambers for hunting much easier to load and the other being a match chamber so snug you have to seat with a wooden dowel. Another mention for tight chambers is some ammo is just tighter than others like Norma it loads much tighter in my 617 than say a CCI standard I in no way am saying it's wrong to open up your cylinders if needed but I would do it as a last resort depending on my intended use. I would like to see some target comparisons to see how it affects accuracy and if so by how much.

I also believe that the vintage S&W M17 and M18 are the finest Rimfire Revolvers ever made in the history of revolver making. Yes - Colts are excellent also and I own some of them as well, but the Smiths take the that title IMHO. Sometimes a manufacturer will just get stubborn and never correct a situation that should have been many years ago. this is what I believe to be the case with these model Revolver's by S&W.

EXAMPLE:
Take the Ruger Mark Series of .22 target pistols. It took them 70 years to FINALLY make the Mark 4 that can be easily taken down in seconds instead of wrestling with the damned thing! They could have done that many many years ago - but never did. Look at the triggers they put in those guns... It's creepy, heavy, sloppy with way too much over travel and should NOT be on a pistol they roll mark "Target Pistol" - but they continue to do so!

So..... we can not always expect a Factory to do everything 100% correct - who knows exactly what and why they are thinking (or not thinking about) once a model is off the drawing board and into production. For all we know, maybe the people running the Company are actually unaware of the tight Chamber issues on S&W rimfire Revolvers. Nothing in Springfield surprises me anymore! Who knows?!

muzzlestuffer2012 said:

I had no idea they were that tight ! Freedom Arms will actually set you up with two cylinders one being a sporting chambers for hunting much easier to load and the other being a match chamber so snug you have to seat with a wooden dowel. Another mention for tight chambers is some ammo is just tighter than others like Norma it loads much tighter in my 617 than say a CCI standard I in no way am saying it's wrong to open up your cylinders if needed but I would do it as a last resort depending on my intended use. I would like to see some target comparisons to see how it affects accuracy and if so by how much.

Click to expand...

Some are worse than others but I've owned some that you need to hit the ejector rod with a gloved hand to eject empties or you will wind up with red marks on your hand after shoot session is over. Loading new ammo into chambers after a few dozen fired rounds sometimes requires literally jamming them in and cleaning the chambers every dozen rounds or so. Some are tighter than others - this has been an ongoing issue with these models since the beginning of heir production. S&W has never officially addressed or corrected it - therefore we have to.

Next time I go to the Range I will shoot my M18 and post pictures of 50 foot B-3 Targets.

chief38 said:

I also believe that the vintage S&W M17 and M18 are the finest Rimfire Revolvers ever made in the history of revolver making. Yes - Colts are excellent also and I own some of them as well, but the Smiths take the that title IMHO. Sometimes a manufacturer will just get stubborn and never correct a situation that should have been many years ago. this is what I believe to be the case with these model Revolver's by S&W.

EXAMPLE:
Take the Ruger Mark Series of .22 target pistols. It took them 70 years to FINALLY make the Mark 4 that can be easily taken down in seconds instead of wrestling with the damned thing! They could have done that many many years ago - but never did. Look at the triggers they put in those guns... It's creepy, heavy, sloppy with way too much over travel and should NOT be on a pistol they roll mark "Target Pistol" - but they continue to do so!

So..... we can not always expect a Factory to do everything 100% correct - who knows exactly what and why they are thinking (or not thinking about) once a model is off the drawing board and into production. For all we know, maybe the people running the Company are actually unaware of the tight Chamber issues on S&W rimfire Revolvers. Nothing in Springfield surprises me anymore! Who knows?!

Click to expand...

I agree my 617 no dash 8-3/8" is a tack driver I had to to a action job and some other little tricks but it will shoot cloverleafs at 25 yards with norma match and I can shoot steel silhouettes out to a 100 off hand open sights with that gun ! I also think it has a better trigger than my freedom arms revolvers I love that gun and it's not going anywhere !

BTW.... on another note, I find my Revolvers shoot best with CCI 40 grain High Velocity (mini mags) fodder and not the Standard Velocity CCI that I routinely use in my Auto Loaders. I can only guess that the barrel / cylinder gap accounts for enough velocity loss to affect accuracy on revolvers.

chief38 said:

BTW.... on another note, I find my Revolvers shoot best with CCI 40 grain High Velocity (mini mags) fodder and not the Standard Velocity CCI that I routinely use in my Auto Loaders. I can only guess that the barrel / cylinder gap accounts for enough velocity loss to affect accuracy on revolvers.

Click to expand...

My cylinder gap on my 617 is about .006 after i cleaned up the burrs on the cylinder throats and the forcing cone only reason i did the clean up is one of the cylinders would tend to throw one out of the 6 shots it had a anomaly on the cylinder throat so after doing that and cleaning up the forcing cone both inside and out it shot phonemically I never thought I'd like another revolver as much as my F.A. 252 but I do !

ms said:

The Freedom Arms .22 revolvers I've shot eject easily. They're far more accurate than a S&W.

Click to expand...

Uh oh. Those are fight’n words around here.

Off topic, but I sold my Freedom Arms .357 primarily because the BC gap was so tight I could only shoot about 30 rounds before it stopped rotating. The ejector rod was also too short. It did shoot well when clean.

Jeff423 said:

Off topic, but I sold my Freedom Arms .357 primarily because the BC gap was so tight I could only shoot about 30 rounds before it stopped rotating. The ejector rod was also too short. It did shoot well when clean.

Click to expand...

Interesting 30 rounds is a fair amount I would think a quick removal of cylinder and pin a quick wipe down and your back in business ?

I’m having trouble seeing how chamber finish would affect accuracy.

Ejection yes, but how accuracy?