A very disappointed camper.

[cgv69]

Originally posted by DonD:
This is a new data point for me, never knew DA revolvers in .22LR had this sort of issue.

Maybe I'm reading your response wrong but just so you know, this is not an issue with all DA .22 revolvers. I have a 4" 617-4 pre-lock 10 shot pistol just like the OP. I have fired a number of different type of .22LR ammo through it and have never hand any extraction issues.

Accuracy on mine seems pretty good too but I'm no "master" level shooter nor have I ever shot it off of a bench. I have a M41 too. Both are great gun but obviously completely different in nature. If I had to sell one it would be the 41 before the 617 but mostly because 41's are much more common then pre-lock all steel 10 shot 617s!

Wheelgunner840 - Please call S&W and then keep us up to date on how they handle this and what the final result is? Thanks

 

[Kevin Gibson]

617’s in general don’t shoot on par with the old school model 17’s and no where near as good as a 41. Regardless, the 617 is far from an inaccurate revolver. I have what I consider to be a rather average 617 that will average about 2.25” with just about any cheap load I put in there (at 25 yards). If I feed it CCI Mini Mag’s, Federal Gold Match or Winchester T-22 Target, it will shoot 1.5” or smaller groups.

I looked at my barrel with a bore scope and it was ROUGH, rough, rough. Thought about fire lapping it, but decided that the accuracy is good enough for me and anything I want to do with it. I routinely shoot at clay pigeons against a backstop at 150 yards and hit them enough that I don’t complain.

So much for accuracy, I’m happy. Now, on the FUN side, you just can’t beat the 10 shot 617 for some very fun DA shooting.

 

[stevieboy]

I have 2 617s (a no-dash 6" and a -1 4") and a 17-5 8 3/8" model. None of them give me problems with extraction and they all seem to be quite accurate. By "accurate" I mean off hand, double action groups of 1" at 10 yards, 2" at 25. I've shot CCI standard and minimags and they've done well with them, but they actually shoot the cheap stuff from WalMart just as well, so that's what I'm shooting now.

My revolvers can't keep up with my wife's 41 (or, maybe, she's just a better shot than I am), but I come closest with my 6" 617. With that revolver I can match her at 10 and 15 yards. At 25, she's got a definite advantage.

 

[Gebe]

As far as the extraction problem, I have 2 S&W .22 revolvers, (K-22 Masterpiece 4" and 617 6 shot 6"), that I bought new in the early '90's. BOTH were a real bear to extract shells from when new and especially the K-22 which felt like the rounds had fused themselves to the metal.

As I shot them more, the extraction problem eased up substantially. Accuracy is decent on the 6" 617, (about what you're experiencing), but the 4" K-22 is a tack driver.

 

[bountyhunter]

Originally posted by Old Navy:
Never seen a revolver out shoot a nice auto loading model in same caliber. The automatic design is in itself more accurate.

The reverse should be true if the revolver is properly built. Autoloaders are inherently less accurate for one simple reason: the barrel moves. It moves with respect to the slide which means it moves with respect to the sights as well. It's why tuners spend thousands of doallrs fitting the barrels on 1911 bullseye guns until they lockup the same every time.

BTW, the most accurate .22 pistol on earth is an autoloader, but it violates the normal auto design because the barrel does NOT move with respect to the sights: the Ruger MkII barrel and frame are all one piece, the blowback design feeds it through a moving piston. That way the barrel, frame and sights are all a one piece unit.... just like a revolver.

 

[AKsRule]

Just pick up a can of this.......

 

[Ron H.]

Originally posted by bountyhunter:

Originally posted by Old Navy:
Never seen a revolver out shoot a nice auto loading model in same caliber. The automatic design is in itself more accurate.

The reverse should be true if the revolver is properly built. Autoloaders are inherently less accurate for one simple reason: the barrel moves. It moves with respect to the slide which means it moves with respect to the sights as well. It's why tuners spend thousands of doallrs fitting the barrels on 1911 bullseye guns until they lockup the same every time.

BTW, the most accurate .22 pistol on earth is an autoloader, but it violates the normal auto design because the barrel does NOT move with respect to the sights: the Ruger MkII barrel and frame are all one piece, the blowback design feeds it through a moving piston. That way the barrel, frame and sights are all a one piece unit.... just like a revolver.

Sir, I think Mr. OldNavy was referring specifically to .22 autos, most of which use a fixed barrel and straight blowback.

FWIW, in my own limited experience with .22 autos and revolvers (a couple each of Browning Buckmarks, Colt Woodsmen, Ruger Mark I's, Smith K-22s, and Ruger Single-Sixes), the autos have been more accurate and less "ammo finicky" than the sixguns.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

 

[Alx]

I personally prefer my .22 wheelguns to the semi-autos, but it is a misconception that the barrel and sights on a semi-auto are moving and less accurate.
In fact, the sights and barrel on most target .22's, including the Smith 41, the Hammerli, Browning, Colts, etc. are fixed to the frame solid, and the slide is moving but not affecting the rear sights which are solid with the barrel.
In fact,it's the bullet's transition from one of several actually different chambers across a (minute but significant) varying space and into the forcing cone on a revolver is what makes it inherently less accurate than a semi-auto where the chamber is always the same and integral with the barrel.

 

[Golddog]

I've owned a couple dozen S&W .22 revolvers, and only one had extraction problems. My 35, a bunch of 17's, and three 617's were quite accurate, although none would approach a 41 for accuracy. (However, the 17's often had crane or endshake problems that tied them up until the factory fixed them.)

And no 41 I've ever shot would approach a 617 for reliability. 41's have been the most ammo-sensitive .22's I've shot. Despite their wonderful triggers and amazing accuracy, I won't own another. I don't want to spend most of the rest of my life trying to find a reliable load for a 41.

 

[durco]

A few years ago I bought a 617 4", 6-shot without the full lug under the barrel. While I never had an extraction problem, it "sprayed" bullets all over the place. Worst shooting 22 revolver I ever fired. I have a 1947 era K-22 and two early 1950's era Pre-18's and they all extract fine and will - as my great uncle used to say - "knock out a rooster's eye at 50 yards".
I don't care if you're speaking of Colts or Smiths, the quality is not what it was 50 years ago. Once in a while, you can still luck out and get a really good new one, but I would never buy a new one without carefully going over it..... Mike

 

[bountyhunter]

Originally posted by Ron H.:

Originally posted by bountyhunter:

Originally posted by Old Navy:
Never seen a revolver out shoot a nice auto loading model in same caliber. The automatic design is in itself more accurate.

The reverse should be true if the revolver is properly built. Autoloaders are inherently less accurate for one simple reason: the barrel moves. It moves with respect to the slide which means it moves with respect to the sights as well. It's why tuners spend thousands of doallrs fitting the barrels on 1911 bullseye guns until they lockup the same every time.

BTW, the most accurate .22 pistol on earth is an autoloader, but it violates the normal auto design because the barrel does NOT move with respect to the sights: the Ruger MkII barrel and frame are all one piece, the blowback design feeds it through a moving piston. That way the barrel, frame and sights are all a one piece unit.... just like a revolver.

Sir, I think Mr. OldNavy was referring specifically to .22 autos, most of which use a fixed barrel and straight blowback..

Maybe. I don't know what he is thinking, just what he said:

Originally posted by Old Navy:
Never seen a revolver out shoot a nice auto loading model in same caliber.

I have personally never seen an auto outshoot a well made revolver in the same caliber. With the exception of the Ruger MkII.

 

[jspick]

I have had dozens of 22 hand guns over the years. The only one I ever had problems with was a High Standard Double nine with the aluminum frame. I had one with a steel frame and it shot great.
I have had several S&W 17's and a few 617's. All shot very good with no extraction problems. I have had about 15 Ruger MK-I's and MK-II's with a competition target being the most accurate 22 handgun I have ever had. At 25 yards the gun would shoot all the shots into one ragged hole with a 2X leupold scope off the bench. I have a Ruger single six that shoots pretty well but it is a bicentennial gun so I will keep it.
There was a 70's vintage model 41 that shot real well and a Colt 2nd series Woodsman match target that shot well but not so much so that I didn't sell it when someone offered me a ridiculas price for it. My 17-3 is a great and flawless shooter.

I say send your 617 to S&W and they should make it shoot before you accept it back.

I use Win Power Points for all my shooting. I find it the most accurate non target ammo I have ever shot. It will out shoot Eley Match EPS at 100 yards out of my Rem. 40X sporter(I sporterized myself). The 40X with the Win PP will shoot 3/4" to 1" at 100 yards. My best group was 3/8" at 100 yards.

Sorry I got carried away here, but I love 22's.
John

 

[durco]

Originally posted by jspick:
I have had dozens of 22 hand guns over the years. The only one I ever had problems with was a High Standard Double nine with the aluminum frame. I had one with a steel frame and it shot great.
I have had several S&W 17's and a few 617's. All shot very good with no extraction problems. I have had about 15 Ruger MK-I's and MK-II's with a competition target being the most accurate 22 handgun I have ever had. At 25 yards the gun would shoot all the shots into one ragged hole with a 2X leupold scope off the bench. I have a Ruger single six that shoots pretty well but it is a bicentennial gun so I will keep it.
There was a 70's vintage model 41 that shot real well and a Colt 2nd series Woodsman match target that shot well but not so much so that I didn't sell it when someone offered me a ridiculas price for it. My 17-3 is a great and flawless shooter.

I say send your 617 to S&W and they should make it shoot before you accept it back.

I use Win Power Points for all my shooting. I find it the most accurate non target ammo I have ever shot. It will out shoot Eley Match EPS at 100 yards out of my Rem. 40X sporter(I sporterized myself). The 40X with the Win PP will shoot 3/4" to 1" at 100 yards. My best group was 3/8" at 100 yards.

Sorry I got carried away here, but I love 22's.
John

Well, I'm glad you had great luck with your 617's. but, as for me, mine shot badly. Mike

 

[Dale53]

I have a 617 (6" barrel 10 shot) and it extracts perfectly with a variety of ammo. There should NOT be extraction problems. I definitely suggest that you send it back to S&W for checking out.

Mine shoots well, also. I have not compared it to my Model 41 in a Ransom Rest, but it seems quite good. I have no difficulty scoring well on standard NRA targets.

I would hope that my experience is the norm and that the defective revolvers, if sent back to S&W, will be fixed properly. There is little excuse to put up with a sub standard revolver.

Dale53

 

[tomhenry]

I got rid of a model 48 for the very same problem (difficult extraction).

 

[oldtimer]

I have a 17, and remington won't fir in cly. I use Blazers or Wildcat.

 

[Guest]

I would contact the Factory but I wouldn't mention that you have taken it to a Gunsmith for anything other than a good 'cleaning and inspection'. By doing this you have actually 'voided' the Warranty(small print) - unless this was a Factory Service Center - and Smith may choose to charge you for the necessary repairs. It sounds like your 'smith told you what the problems "might" be and you should have thanked him and paid for the cleaning and contacted the Factory.

As for the Original Seller, well, different people have different "expectations" from a new gun and whatever ammo he was using may not have had any extraction problems.

 

[rwschill]

Send it back to S&W either at there or your expense and they will fix it. Sent my 617 in for various issues and got back a great gun.

 

[fly rodder]

sometime is wrong. i have a prelock 617, 10 shot, 6". Never have any extraction problems. and from a rest it will do an 1" or less at 25yards using cci standard velocity

 

[Andy Griffith]

I agree on sending it back...

However, you may want to put a fine gold bead front sight on there to help with fine target work.

I have always hated the coarse black-on-black sights if you are going to use them for anything.

On a four-inch 617, the front sight completely fills the rear sight.

I can't find the part number, but Brownells sells replacement sights of the correct height for the 617 (which is the lowest of any S&W).

Anyway, just a suggestion- for when you get it shooting well.