22 Mountain Gun

I have a standing order for the new MG in .357, .45c, and .22lr. So far it’s unfilled. My gun peddler says he’s hounding his rep regularly but he may just be too small time and not have the juice to get allocated stuff. I may need to cast a wider net.
 
Eventually I'll be picking one up. I think it's a very nice looking gun. It has the brass bead sight I prefer, and nice wood grips.

I can also use the same speed loaders I bought to use with my Ruger GP100.
 
For those not liking the price S&W could have kept the price down going with Hogue grips. And actually 22 caliber revolvers are more expensive to manufacture then their centerfire brothers.
 
What could a .22LR "Mountain Gun" possibly be? Sounds like marketeering hyperbole designed to separate the consumer from their money. Of course such a gun will sell out in minutes and every tacticool "operator" will explain to the unwashed masses why such an expenditure is necessary

Also..........This is why you can buy Red/Green/Gray and Blue Chevys ........Cuz not all of us like the same thing.
 
Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand the whole "Mountain Gun" concept, unless it's a marketing thing.

Second, after looking at the pictures of the new .22LR Mountain gun I fail to see the hideous contour that I anticipated to be glaringly obvious. :oops:
 
Reading this post is going to make me not sleep tonite or tomorrow till my local gun dealer is open. I had wanted a 10 shot 617 for a long time, but already had a full lug 6 shot, and couldn't justify it. Now I have already told wife this $1200 is no more then a $145 in 1970 purchasing power. And you know dear i spent more then that back then, on some of my purchases.

The hard part is the 10mm, if it uses full moon clips and can shoot 40 s&w also, I am going to have to do some quick thinking on why I need it too, lol. Oh boy will this be interesting. Hmm I have to have cause it matches most of my other SS revolvers or I will sell a couple of the others that don't match. I am sure i can justify it somehow.. I have it, dear, we are getting both, 1 for each of us on our wedding anniversary this month.
 
I love your post cowboy94916....not going to sleep tonight.....I love the passion. I hope you pick one up soon and post here.

The 629 is the one I am considering.
 
Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand the whole "Mountain Gun" concept, unless it's a marketing thing.

Second, after looking at the pictures of the new .22LR Mountain gun I fail to see the hideous contour that I anticipated to be glaringly obvious. :oops:

617s.jpg

One of these things is not like the other. The early 617 on the left has the traditionally graceful curve, the new one well, it's the new one. I see one S&W, and another revolver that looks like it was poorly copied in the Philippines.
 
One of these things is not like the other. The early 617 on the left has the traditionally graceful curve, the new one well, it's the new one. I see one S&W, and another revolver that looks like it was poorly copied in the Philippines.
I found the answer to my question in general about Mountain Guns here: https://smith-wessonforum.com/threads/anyone-not-prefer-mountain-guns.744413/

I assume you are answering my question about the hideous contour. Is this the area you are referencing?

S&W 01.jpg
 
Last edited:
I might have been interested, but then I see the side profile... ugh I just can't. It doesn't look like a Smith & Wesson. If there is no more lock, then why continue with that weird-looking curve/contour at the rear of the frame? To me, they just look like some poor foreign copy of a Smith revolver.
Completely agree. At SHOT show years ago, I spoke to a Smith rep about it and he seemed to have no idea about what I was talking about. Was it redesigned to accommodate the lock or the frame mounted firing pin? Or both? I had a Model 10 that was pre-lock, but had the frame mounted firing pin. The re-shaped curve of the frame where the hammer rests was not as extreme as on today's guns, but wasn't the same as the classic profile of a S&W with the hammer mounted firing pin. In any event, it's not as noticeable on today's N frames, but apparent on all the smaller frames. To me, it ruins the classic line and makes the "classic" models made today, which otherwise must be superb handguns, of no interest and I favor the old standards.
 
Completely agree. At SHOT show years ago, I spoke to a Smith rep about it and he seemed to have no idea about what I was talking about. Was it redesigned to accommodate the lock or the frame mounted firing pin? Or both? I had a Model 10 that was pre-lock, but had the frame mounted firing pin. The re-shaped curve of the frame where the hammer rests was not as extreme as on today's guns, but wasn't the same as the classic profile of a S&W with the hammer mounted firing pin. In any event, it's not as noticeable on today's N frames, but apparent on all the smaller frames. To me, it ruins the classic line and makes the "classic" models made today, which otherwise must be superb handguns, of no interest and I favor the old standards.
This is what happens when you don’t stretch the frame back with the internal firing pin. This was standard practice on the PC 627’s in the late 90’s that first got the floating pin before the lock and frame change….pic borrowed from s&wchad in the active 627 thread.
1752609937228.jpeg
 
I am glad that guy circled the hideous area. I have plenty of old smiths and a brand new MG 686. Pointed out I see the difference but in all honesty you guys are reaching. I agree it’s slightly different but that’s it. If you hadn’t pointed it out I wouldn’t have known wtf you were talking about. I pulled some old and new out of the safe and I still don’t care. lol
 
Back
Top