63 or 617

[Mr.Cip]

Shopping for a .22 revolver. I'm liking the 63, but the four inch 617 feels good in the hand. I haven't shot either one, and probably won't be able to until I own one.
Has anyone gone through this decision?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[saemetric]

Depends on use. Hiking in field, I'd take the 63, much lighter. Here is what I use in field.

 

[22shtur]

Model 63

I have been selling off quite a few .22 revolvers and pistols lately, and still have a few left to sell. I am keeping my model 63 and a couple others. The 63 stays in my kit/hiking bag. If I take a centerfire pistol with me on a hike, I still leave the 63 in the hiking bag, it weighs so little. I suggest you consider the 63 closely.

 

[Bob1943]

Good question. I am going through the same decision, with the added choice of a Ruger GP100, .22LR. Anxious to hear what everyone has to say.

 

[trigger945]

I had a 34 (blued version of the 63) and I currently have a 617. I prefer the 617 as it fits my hand better and the action seems to be a tad better. The fit is a preference and the action is just based on feel. I am no expert so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Mr.Cip]

The 63 would be a great hiking camp gun or stuffed in a bug-out-bag. I don't camp much anymore and what are the odds I'll be bugging out anytime soon. But I do spend a lot of time at the range. Logically I should get the 617.
If ****-hits-the-fan I have other choices to pack out with.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[eveled]

Like the others said, it depends on the intended use. Sounds like you want a range gun. So the 617 is a no brainier, I love mine. If you have small hands go with the 63.

The 63 is the better kit gun to throw in a pack, but for that I would go with the 317 for an even lighter kit gun.

 

[Wee Hooker]

I've owned several of both ( and the new 4" Ruger SP101 as well). In my experience, the smaller framed guns carry a bit lighter but getting the same accuracy out of them (as compared to the 617) is a struggle. At the end of the day, the gun is made for shooting.In my experience, t's hard to beat the 617 in that department.

 

[BAM-BAM]

The choices in Smith .22s

Models 17,18,34,617 and 63...... ( I have 17 6",18 4", 34 4" and 4" 617) The 17,18 and 617 are built on the medium K-frame the 34 and 63 are on the small J-frame. Many think the K-frames have a better trigger than the J.


For a "Range gun" I'd go with a 6" 17 over the 617 as you don't really need all that extra under-lug weight on a .22.


For hiking/camping the 4" 63 would be hard to beat; smaller lighter and stainless ...... that said my "kit gun" is a 3" 60-10 .357/38 ..... think mini-686

 

[jack the toad]

IMO, the K frame 22's seem to shoot better or easier to shoot better than the J's. But being smaller/lighter, the J's do carry better. Also, my preference is not in full lug guns, especially in something as light recoiling as a .22 LR. Some recent posts showing a 617 Mtn. gun would be ideal to me.

 

[choombak]

I had both, and decided to stick with the 617, as the 63 proved too small for my medium-large hands and I had the trigger pinch. Also with 4" barrel, the 617 is a tad more accurate.

Best I would suggest handle both if possible and then decide.

 

[MichiganScott]

I've got a 6" 617 and my wife owns a 5" Model 63. The balance of the 63 is much better in my hands, but it is so small that it's almost impossible for me to shoot double action. Even with the 5" barrel, it is a superior belt gun. The 617 is simply too heavy.

 

[H Richard]

They have two different uses. The 617 is a Target and competition and hunting gun, where the weight helps the shooter. The 63/34 J Frame is almost 2nd to none for hiking, plinking, teaching women and youth to shoot. If I "Had" to get rid of one of mine it would be a terrible decision, but probably the 63, (because I also have a 34).

 

[KalamazooKid]

I have both 4" 617 and a 4" 34-1. The 34 is on my hip in the woods but the 617's always on the bench.

 

[Dave Lively]

Good question. I am going through the same decision, with the added choice of a Ruger GP100, .22LR. Anxious to hear what everyone has to say.

The problem I have always had with .22 revolvers is the trigger is often very heavy since .22s need a solid hit for reliable ignition. So when I saw Ruger's claims the .22 GP-100 had the same light trigger pull as the centerfire version I ordered one after reading a couple of positive reviews.

Right out of the box it squeaked in double action like a grocery cart at Krogers so I oiled it before measuring the trigger pull. Single action came in at 7 pounds and double action varies between 11 and 15 as the cylinder rotates. After firing it some and dry firing it some more those numbers are down to a little under 6 and 10-14. My "trigger pull gauge" is a fish scale with a padded hook so my numbers might be a little off compared to people with a better scale but for reference I measured about 2.75 pounds for my 610 and a little under 4 with my 69. Since I am going to use this strictly as a range gun I am going to try putting some lighter springs in it and see if I can lighten the trigger some without getting too many misfires. It has been many years since I have shot a GP-100 so maybe the centerfire versions are like this too but after shooting Smiths for so long the trigger was a disappointment.

The rest of the gun was not though. I like the sights and the way the gun feels in my hand. The trigger is not gritty or mushy, just heavy. Speaking of heavy, this is definitely a range gun, not a kit gun. Despite the trigger it shoots pretty well for me which is what really matters.

I am planning to keep the Ruger, at least long enough to shoot up all the .22 ammo I have that my SW41 does not like. But knowing what I know now I would have bought a 617 instead.

 

[Bastogne71]

I have a model 63 and a model 617. Both are no dash with four inch barrels. The 63 gets shot a lot and the 617 lives in the back of the safe. If I want a big heavy accurate 22 handgun, I don't pick up the 617 (41oz) rather I will pick out my model 41 (44oz). Personally, I find the 617 is just too big and heavy for a 22lr.

 

[Triathloncoach]

I've owned the 63, 34, 67 and the Ruger Sp, bearcat and single ten. The only 22 revolver I still own is a 17-2. The best of all worlds.

Pretty easy to decide between the 63 and 617: do you want large or small?? Both are great guns.

 

[usmcchet9296]

I can't speak to the 63 but its on my list as well as a 60Pro but I do have a 4 inch 617 I shoot steel challenge and 2-gun with and a 6 inch on consignment I can get in May. Love my 617 ....its a tank and after a few thousand rounds smooth as butter so like others have said what will your intended use for it be? Plinking get a 617 or lightweight field gun get a 63 or get both a 63 and 617

 

[usmcchet9296]

I have a model 63 and a model 617. Both are no dash with four inch barrels. The 63 gets shot a lot and the 617 lives in the back of the safe. If I want a big heavy accurate 22 handgun, I don't pick up the 617 (41oz) rather I will pick out my model 41 (44oz). Personally, I find the 617 is just too big and heavy for a 22lr.

Well the Army isn't used to heavy lifting but this Marine will tell you that the 617's weight is just fine ..... LOL

 

[Cardboard_killer]

If I could only keep one 22 revolver, it would be a m17. I do not like the full lug 617s as I find the balance to be uncomfortable to shoot, and it was a choice between a 617 and model 63, I'd go with the 63.

I enjoy my 63 (and my 35 and my 34), but the 17 is just more fun to shoot. Oh, I almost forgot my 18. Hmmm, tough decision between the 17 and 18.

The Ruger is right out.