1948 K-22 or 17-3?

[Jeff423]

I currently have a nice - but not pristine 17-3. I have an opportunity to buy a 1948 K-22 in about the same condition. My gun collection is such that I can only keep one. Neither one has a box or correctly numbered grips. I don't have any "Safe Queens" and shoot all my guns. I'm leaning towards the K-22 because it's a 5 screw. Is there anything else to consider?

Thanks,

Jeff

 

[keith44spl]

I like my early post war K-22...I think you might like that one as well.


Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[DGT]

No question, grab the K-22!

 

[Engine49guy]

First my vote is get both,
I know you have to choose so except for the 2 extra screws on the 1948 version unless you prefer an older K22 they are basically the same gun and without the original grips they are both shooter grade guns.

If your 17-3 is in excellent shape why sell it for a gun you do not know especially if you are coming out of pocket.
All things being equal for the same exact price I would choose the older 5 screw.

 

[Shooting4life]

Get the k22 5 screw. Especially if it has a large ejector knob or single line address. I take mine to the range every time.

 

[Iggy]

Do we see a pattern developing here?

Get the old one.

 

[YeshuaIsa53]

Make sure all the rest of the numbers match. It would be optimum if you could shoot and compare. If you truly can have only one of the two, you most likely will regret selling the dash three and if you don't sell it, regret not buying the Pre Model. Shoot and tell time.

I have become more and more partial as of late to the finish and feel on the older guns.

 

[CJS57]

K-22 over 17-3 is a no brainer!

 

[PMRet]

There's just something about those "nice - but not pristine" 5 screw K -22's...

 

[Cooter Brown]

The oldies are definitely goodies. I've got a 17-3 and a 1947 K22. I like both, but if I had to choose it'd be the '47. I really like the narrow rib on the older gun and mine shoots a little better than the 17-3.

If you can't afford both, get the '48, and make sure it's a good replacement shootingwise before selling the 17-3. If it's not it's a very high demand gun and would be easy to move.

I think you'll end up keeping it, though.

 

[DCWilson]

I have never been disappointed in a '40s era K-frame revolver. I don't think you would be either. I like the older specimens of a highly successful model. I would never criticize a model-marked gun with an advanced dash number, but I just don't feel the same magic with them that I do with earlier versions of the same gun.

Take a look at the speed hammer on the 1948 gun and tell me: has there ever been a more attractive hammer profile on a S&W revolver?

Get the 1948. Shoot it. If it is as accurate as your 17-3 or better, it's a simple decision which one to keep. If by any chance the 17-3 is the more accurate gun or just feels "better" to you in some nebulous way, then keep the one you have and let the Pre-17 move on. I doubt you would have any difficulty selling it on this forum. Seems to me the only way you could lose is to refrain from buying the Pre-17.

I don't even have a model-marked K-22. There are three prewar guns and three postwar Pre-17s in the safe. I love them all, even though I can't shoot some of them very well.

My avatar up there at the top left of this post frame shows a piece of my January 1948 K-22, the first Masterpiece I ever bought. It will probably be the last one I sell.

 

[OK Hog Shooter]

K-22 all the way baaaaby... I have, ummm, let's just say more than one. I've found the K-22s to be addictive and a joy to shoot. Any time I shoot, no matter if I'm at the range or the farm... I ALWAYS warm up with a '52 6". IMHO, there are no better ways to practice than with a K-22. By the way... my last K-22 addition was a '48.

Hog

 

[Muley Gil]

I have a finish challenged K22 that shipped in December 1947. It is a great shooter.

If you can only keep one, keep the one you shoot the best.

 

[paplinker]

I like my early 1947 k 22 as the trigger is really broken in. I think the more they are shot the better they get.

I also shoot a four screw and a long bbl m17 but my oldest shoots the best. If this 1948 looks used but not abused go for it.....quickly!

 

[Sprefix]

As long as the gun is sound and original, I'd be all over the early gun. You better be big and bad, or rich, to get my old beater away from me!! JMO

 

[rburg]

Well, lets see if we can think our way through this one. While they did make a whole bunch of them in the early postwar, how often do you see them? How much longer do you expect them to float around, unloved? Now lets examine the 17-whatever. They're all over. Not cheap, but you'll probably find a lot more of them in the next few years.

One wouldn't expect you to stay in the same financial straights forever. As we get a little older and a little smarter, we usually find the means to add to our collections. Say in 5 or 10 years, which gun of the two do you think it'll be easier to find?

Guns often can be replaced with another just like it. Maybe with the exception of that scoundrel Drew, it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference what serial # it carries. So common sense says buy the one that will be harder to locate in the future. Just my take on it.

And what's better than a 1948 vintage K22? Easy, a 1947 model. And what's better than that? Back to that chicken coop robbing scoundrel again with his 1946 gun. What's better than that? Hold your wallet.. a Masterpiece made before the war.

Never miss a cheap shot!

 

[Kavinsky]

K22, if it doesnt fit your hand get some packs for it or some latter wood grips so just work with it and go for it and forget the 17

just trust me on this, go for the K22 and forget the 17, I had a dog of one of those and I do not miss it, wouldnt fire 6 in a row no matter who it got sent to to be fixed. the K22 I got from the 50's that was treated as a true Kit gun and banged around as such worked even when it needed some gun smithing regarding the piece that locks the clyinder in place

and even before it got fixed I wouldnt have trade it for the world and it still fired everytime I pulled the trigger and it shows and feels like it was from a different era in a good way.

and that era sadly aint ever going to come back so grab them up while you can for a good price and not an insane price like the 60's era PPKs are going for because of the bond connection and the post 68 import ban.

 

[Vulcan Bob]

Im gonna jump onto the get the K-22 bandwagon! There is just something special about those early post war guns. It's hard to explain but you will know it when you hold one.

 

[DCWilson]

But Chicken Coop Guy found out that his low-numbered K-22 didn't ship until November of 1947! Lots of K-22s with higher three-digit numbers shipped well before his low-numbered gun left home to see the real world.

Cheap shots are fine as long as they are accurate.

Otherwise, yeah. Get the early gun for obvious reasons.

Well, lets see if we can think our way through this one. While they did make a whole bunch of them in the early postwar, how often do you see them? How much longer do you expect them to float around, unloved? Now lets examine the 17-whatever. They're all over. Not cheap, but you'll probably find a lot more of them in the next few years.

One wouldn't expect you to stay in the same financial straights forever. As we get a little older and a little smarter, we usually find the means to add to our collections. Say in 5 or 10 years, which gun of the two do you think it'll be easier to find?

Guns often can be replaced with another just like it. Maybe with the exception of that scoundrel Drew, it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference what serial # it carries. So common sense says buy the one that will be harder to locate in the future. Just my take on it.

And what's better than a 1948 vintage K22? Easy, a 1947 model. And what's better than that? Back to that chicken coop robbing scoundrel again with his 1946 gun. What's better than that? Hold your wallet.. a Masterpiece made before the war.

Never miss a cheap shot!

 

[Hondo44]

Always take a 5 screw over anything that isn't.