317 Heading Back Again

[snubbiefan]

Hondo...I was actually thinking about the SS cylinder for the model 63 myself, but did not mention it. If the 63 cylinder is pretty much a "drop in" on the 317....it just provides another option for those that have something against the aluminum cylinder. I don't, and have read post after post where people have put thousands of rounds through the 317 and the aluminum cylinder 617's without issue. I just know that many shooters simply don't like the idea of the aluminum cylinder.

I think I have read one post where a 617 owner had sent his aluminum cylinder 617 in for repairs and he got it back with a SS cylinder, for which he was thrilled. That is 10-shots of course. I am just making the point it has happened on the 617....or so the owner said.

I am just wondering if the 317 will function properly with the heavier cylinder, or may take some special factory modification, or fitment. I can't see why it wouldn't. Tom C has not posted again with any additional information. Maybe he will add some comments and maybe more details.

 

[mchech]

You didn't say what the original problem was in your 1st post but I gather from your above post it was the same thing. I hate to see anyone go thru this but any company producing so many thousands of guns will have issues some times; usually poor human workmanship. This was proved by the gun coming back with the same problem!

I don't know if you work on your own guns at all. But I have too many Smiths that are superior and at times the 'better part of valor' for such a small thing, is fixing it yourself but still lodge a written complaint. The barrel/cylinder gap is obviously too tight. The marks where it rubs on the front of the cylinder tell you exactly which part of the barrel throat has too tight of a gap. I would be very comfortable spending two minutes of attention with a fine flat file to solve your problem. Of course it's the principle of the issue that S&W failed to get it right, AGAIN! But I try not to add hassle to my life just for a small principle; only large ones.

But that's just me, I don't like to be w/o my guns and two minutes versus an hour or whatever to package up, wait for pickup and delivery, etc., is more time on the range or at the loading bench for me. Plus I have the satisfaction of getting it right myself.

I made the original post in the 1961-1980 section back in May. My mistake. I was paying more attention to writing than to where I was writing. The original problem was the same with the cylinder not indexing, cylinder froze and not allowing the hammer to cock even in single action, double action impossible and using excessive force to swing the cylinder open.

I do some work on my own guns. Scope mounting, recoil pads, stock finishing and glass bedding rifles is about it to this point. I should have returned the 317 to where I had bought it but I gave S&W a call figuring they had the sure cure. Now it is a matter of principle. The fact is S&W will fix it and do it right and I don't care if it bankrupts them in shipping costs.

Hopefully I can report back in a couple weeks that S&W fixed the 317 and once again I am as happy as a pig in slop. I am by no means anti S&W. As I wait for this repair I am pondering on my next S&W revolver. It will most likely be a 357 but it probably won't be some funky lightweight alloy.

 

[Hondo44]

mchech,
I wouldn't regret not taking it back to the dealer. They most likely would have told you it was a warranty issue and for you to send it back to Smith. That's what they usually do unless it was distributed by Davidson which has a policy to take it back and send a replacement gun to the dealer for you. It will be interesting to see if Smith gets it right this time. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

 

[Stainz]

I thought the little 3" 317K would be my second .22 after my 4" 617 9/08. I could really like the lite weight - but that DA pull was miserable. Then I read about problems... I bought a late range-friend's almost new 5" 63. It's trigger pull improved, with a little work - but it is big... I wanted a 3" - thought about the 3" 317K - then 2/10 S&W announced the 3" 63 - and I hounded them until they finally produced them last fall - and I got mine. It's trigger, right out of the box, was better than my tricked 5" 63. It is my most shot .22 now, although I still love the 4" 617.

Both 63's sport '60 Pro' grips from S&W Accessories. I whole heartedly endorse the 3" 63 as an alternative, should you decide to get rid of your 317K. Yes, it does weigh over twice as much... but, you'll never notice it as a carry piece in an OWB holster, like the DeSantis units available from S&W. I liked it so much - and those grips - that I bought a similar sized 60 Pro this year. Not all 3" J-frame .22's are as aggravating as your 317K has been. I hope they get it right this time.

Stainz

 

[mchech]

I thought the little 3" 317K would be my second .22 after my 4" 617 9/08. I could really like the lite weight - but that DA pull was miserable. Then I read about problems... I bought a late range-friend's almost new 5" 63. It's trigger pull improved, with a little work - but it is big... I wanted a 3" - thought about the 3" 317K - then 2/10 S&W announced the 3" 63 - and I hounded them until they finally produced them last fall - and I got mine. It's trigger, right out of the box, was better than my tricked 5" 63. It is my most shot .22 now, although I still love the 4" 617.

Both 63's sport '60 Pro' grips from S&W Accessories. I whole heartedly endorse the 3" 63 as an alternative, should you decide to get rid of your 317K. Yes, it does weigh over twice as much... but, you'll never notice it as a carry piece in an OWB holster, like the DeSantis units available from S&W. I liked it so much - and those grips - that I bought a similar sized 60 Pro this year. Not all 3" J-frame .22's are as aggravating as your 317K has been. I hope they get it right this time.

Stainz

Nice shooters!

Just after I bought my 4" 18 back in the 70's, I saw a 63. I do not remember the specifics except for the fact that my wallet was empty and I lusted the hunk of stainless steel. Waves of time and marriage wash us in different directions. Memories of that encounter with the 63 came back when I spotted the 317. Problem is I did my research AFTER I bought the 317 and not before. In hindsight I may have gone the 63 direction but S&W will correct my 317 and all will be fine.

It is a safe assumption that I will research first next time. Forums like this one make that possible and I am thankfull.

 

[snubbiefan]

Folks....big or small I like them all. The 317 certainly has it's place in the line up. There is simply no other gun out there that matches it for the use intended. I like the 63 myself, but if you are looking for a point-n-shoot 22 that weighs in at less than 11 ounces with fixed sights....I don't think you're going to find another one.....anyplace.

I think it's like any other model. You can find a lemon in any model and if we based our decisions on what to buy based on that....none of us would have a gun. Unfortunately, most of the bad stuff gets posted and not the good stuff....at's just the way it is.

I have shot the pants off both of my 317's and have never had an issue. I would like to get my hands on a stainless cylinder that would (for sure) fit just for kicks and maybe the 63 cylinder will. I plan to keep pursuing it until I know for sure.

 

[Hondo44]

Folks....big or small I like them all. The 317 certainly has it's place in the line up. There is simply no other gun out there that matches it for the use intended. I like the 63 myself, but if you are looking for a point-n-shoot 22 that weighs in at less than 11 ounces with fixed sights....I don't think you're going to find another one.....anyplace.

I think it's like any other model. You can find a lemon in any model and if we based our decisions on what to buy based on that....none of us would have a gun. Unfortunately, most of the bad stuff gets posted and not the good stuff....at's just the way it is.

I have shot the pants off both of my 317's and have never had an issue. I would like to get my hands on a stainless cylinder that would (for sure) fit just for kicks and maybe the 63 cylinder will. I plan to keep pursuing it until I know for sure.

I've ordered cylinders for S&Ws and found them so consistent that they are 'drop ins'. Even put a 5 shot 44 spl cyl from a 696 in a 586 .357 Mag (with a planned barrel change of course) and it worked perfectly. Also put it in my 296 and it fit perfectly. Worse case scenario, if it doesn't function perfectly you can take it to a local gunsmith or send it to S&W for fitting. If I were you, I'd go for it before they are not available. It's very frustrating to finally decide to to buy and find they are no longer available.

 

[snubbiefan]

I may take that approach Hondo. I will come-up with one sooner or later just to try. Why....I haven't a clue. We just do stuff like this.

___________________________________________________________________________________


PS: I just picked-up the phone and called Smith concerning the SS cylinder for the 317. For around $200...they tell me they can fit the 317 with a stainless steel cylinder. The cost of the cylinder is around $124 and the labor around $60. It's not just a drop-in and I pretty much knew that. It will either have to be shimmed, or have the yoke cut to set the proper end/head shake.

So...there is some good (and probably useless) information for anyone that has a terrible dislike for the aluminum cylinder. If you got the $...they have the time and skills.

mchech...I apologize for drifting on your thread, but somebody else may be interested in this.

 

[Triggernosis]

After returning my 317 to S&W three times for three different issues, not one of which was succesfully fixed, I gave up and sold it to a dealer at a gunshow.

 

[Hondo44]

After returning my 317 to S&W three times for three different issues, not one of which was succesfully fixed, I gave up and sold it to a dealer at a gunshow.

Tom,
What were the issues with yours?

 

[snubbiefan]

Can't blame you....the third time would have not been a charm. Does S&W have some sort of high-level decision-making process that would resolve multiple problems with a gun....like simply give you a new one or return your money?

 

[mchech]

After returning my 317 to S&W three times for three different issues, not one of which was succesfully fixed, I gave up and sold it to a dealer at a gunshow.

Buying quality firearms should not be a gamble. I always figured S&W to be a quality product.

I do not want to think about my 317 turning into a salvage operation as in resale or trade. The 317 was bought to fill a purpose and it does that very well except for one little problem, it doesn't work all the time..........yet. My printer has plenty of paper and ink for FedX shipping labels if needed and I always keep the return shipping box. It is all up to them as I got other shooters to play with.

 

[Triggernosis]

Tom,
What were the issues with yours?

Well, let me begin by saying that I absolutely loved the gun for it's size, light weight, and intended purpose (I bought it as a companion plinker for when I was out on the farm, hiking, etc..)
The three unresolved issues were:
1) It spit powder in my face about every two out of eight shots, randomly. (S&W "recut the forcing cone" which helped a little bit, but still didn't fix it.)

2) I never could get it to shoot low enough, regardless of ammo. (I use a center-mass hold) - S&W "tested" it an sent it back - no change. (I was hoping they'd put a lower front sight on it.)

3) I honestly can't remember what the third issue was, but I'm pretty sure it went back 3 times. It may have been because I couldn't group with it.

Anyway, after all that,

4) I finally noticed a "ding" in the crown that was there in production, because it was under the paint - I hadn't noticed it there when I purchased it. It may have been the cause of my accuracy issues.

I hated to get rid of it, but I'd become quite un-enamored with S&W not being able to fix it and lost confidence in S&W's current products as a result.
I replaced it with an older 3" Model 37 Airweight .38. Love that gun!

 

[chandleg]

I recently acquired a 317 with a 2" barrel as a trainer for my 442. I have fired about 600 rounds through it--maybe 200 Remington Thunderbolt, 200 Aguila Super Colibri (500 fps), and 200 regular (375 fps) Aguila Colibri.

When firing the regular Colibri I have encountered the problems of binding and so forth that you describe, but with the Thunderbolts and the Super Colibri, the revolver operates fine.

I don't know if this helps you understand the problem with your 317, but this has been my limited experience with my 317.

 

[snubbiefan]

When I purchased my first 317 (2-inch) the owner told me right up front that he had binding issues with the low power, or sub-sonic rounds. He said that he had taken a small wire brush and roughed-up the very edge of the cylinder bores and this seemed to have helped. That concerned me at first, but there is no evidence in the cylinder bores that he marked-up, or scratched anything. It was a NL and I jumped on it. I never shoot the sub-sonic or low power stuff...so I have never experienced the problem. My assumption is that there is not enough pressure developed within the round to expand the case against the cylinder chamber walls fast enough to make them "stick"...thus they back-out against the back-strap. Just my theory.

I have shot plenty of shorts and all of the long rifle and even the shot-shell stuff from both of my 317's and have never had any problem whatsoever. Both of them simply shoot....and shoot...and shoot. Maybe making sure the cylinder bores are completely free of any lubricant may help that issue, if you have it.

 

[mchech]

I recently acquired a 317 with a 2" barrel as a trainer for my 442. I have fired about 600 rounds through it--maybe 200 Remington Thunderbolt, 200 Aguila Super Colibri (500 fps), and 200 regular (375 fps) Aguila Colibri.

When firing the regular Colibri I have encountered the problems of binding and so forth that you describe, but with the Thunderbolts and the Super Colibri, the revolver operates fine.

I don't know if this helps you understand the problem with your 317, but this has been my limited experience with my 317.

I understand where you are coming from on the low pressure issue. My thoughts are the 317 should reliably fire any factory 22 LR regardless of pressure. This includes subsonic, standard, high and hyper velocity ammunition. That I believe is a real advantage of a revolver over a semi-auto. My other 2 revolvers, a 617 and an 18, function flawlessly with any 22lr ammo. I expect the same from the 317. In other words if the cartridges go in the cylinder and don't stick out either end the gun should digest them with zero problems.

 

[snubbiefan]

I agree. Nothing bugs me any worse than to call a gun manufacturer with a problem and be asked "What kind of ammunition are you using?". My answer has been....the caliber that the gun is suppose to fire.

I was not suggesting that one not shoot the subsonic, I just never have. I wonder how the charge of the subsonic differs in pressure and slug-weight from the 22 short? I also have a 617 that will digest it all but mine has a SS cylinder. I wonder if anyone that has a 617 with the aluminum cylinder has any observations to make on this problem, maybe one will chime-in here. I don't have any other reference...the 317 is the only revolver I own with the aluminum cylinder.

If it is a problem with the cylinder...S&W will fit a stainless from the model 63...on your dime for around $200, but I certainly don't suggest that the shooter needs to solve the problem on his own. Maybe call them and say you want to send it back for this problem and see what they have to say. Maybe it won't be..."What kind of ammunition are you using?"

___________________________________________________________________________________________

PS: I ordered a Model 63 cylinder just for kicks to see if it will drop in. The S&W rep. said it would, but may have to be adjusted to set the end-shake. That should be no big deal and it's not all that uncommon. I am sure that if I can't do that, I can find a good Smith that can. The good news is that it's ordered. The bad news is they don't have any in stock and the expected date of recipe is 60 days. So I have lots of time to think about it. I did not order it from S&W since I found it cheaper elsewhere, but S&W would have to order it anyway as the item is not in stock.

 

[mchech]

FedEx stopped with a package from S&W. Turn around time was 11 calendar days. It appears they installed a new cylinder. Today I took the 317 Kit Gun to the range. I am happy to report I fired 100 rds of CCI Blazer with NO PROBLEM. It appears that S&W fixed the cylinder "cramping" as they called it. I hardly ever shoot double action but I fired the last 3 cylinders in double action without a hitch. That was the true acid test and all went well. Heavy DA pull but I expected that.

The 317 isn't as smooth as my old 18 nor as accurate as my617 but it is what I wanted for the reasons previously stated.

I am now as happy as a pig in slop and I may even throw the FedEx box in the trash.

Now I am starting to think K-frame 357. It's good to have that " I think I need one more S&W revolver" feeling again.

 

[Tom C]

I agree. Nothing bugs me any worse than to call a gun manufacturer with a problem and be asked "What kind of ammunition are you using?". My answer has been....the caliber that the gun is suppose to fire.

I was not suggesting that one not shoot the subsonic, I just never have. I wonder how the charge of the subsonic differs in pressure and slug-weight from the 22 short? I also have a 617 that will digest it all but mine has a SS cylinder. I wonder if anyone that has a 617 with the aluminum cylinder has any observations to make on this problem, maybe one will chime-in here. I don't have any other reference...the 317 is the only revolver I own with the aluminum cylinder.

If it is a problem with the cylinder...S&W will fit a stainless from the model 63...on your dime for around $200, but I certainly don't suggest that the shooter needs to solve the problem on his own. Maybe call them and say you want to send it back for this problem and see what they have to say. Maybe it won't be..."What kind of ammunition are you using?"

___________________________________________________________________________________________

PS: I ordered a Model 63 cylinder just for kicks to see if it will drop in. The S&W rep. said it would, but may have to be adjusted to set the end-shake. That should be no big deal and it's not all that uncommon. I am sure that if I can't do that, I can find a good Smith that can. The good news is that it's ordered. The bad news is they don't have any in stock and the expected date of recipe is 60 days. So I have lots of time to think about it. I did not order it from S&W since I found it cheaper elsewhere, but S&W would have to order it anyway as the item is not in stock.

S&W put in a stainless cylinder the last time I sent it to them for my problem. It increased the weight (with Pachmayr gripper grips) from 14.0 oz. to 17.8 oz. (on my scale). I think that helps. It now has just enough heft to hang well. It is still too light to accurately tell if it shoots as well as my 617s.