Best choice for .22lr revolver: Classic m63 or new Ruger SP101?

[bigun]

Although I'm also a Ruger fan, I'm considering between either a classic S&W early, model 63(No dash)4" .22lr revolver or the newly introduced Ruger SP101 4.2" .22lr revolver?

It seems to me that the best choice could be to go for the older S&W model 63(no dash)although I have never had any experience owning and shooting one of these? Although, Ruger has made some good revolvers in the past, at this point, I'm unsure as to whether or not the new SP101 .22lr revolver would be as good as the Model 63 in terms of quality of construction? So, I'd like to ask those in the know regarding the early J-frame M63 and M34 .22lr revolvers what your opinions might be regarding this? Oh, the price for the S&W model 63 in question is $550 and is close in price to the new Ruger SP101 .22lr revolver. I already own a M617-1 4" .22lr revolver-so my interest lies in the two Kit gun size .22lr revolvers as already noted!

 

[InTheWoods]

Hard to say. I have a 63 no dash and a 34-1, and love both. I handled the new Ruger 101 at Cabela's a couple of days ago. It was also very nice and seemed very well made. I believe it is a little heavier than the Smiths and this could be a consideration for you (+ or -). With the Smith you get a chance to play with a huge variety of grip options, something you might not get to do as much with the Ruger.

I guess one reason not to get the Ruger is that it is simply not a Smith and Wesson.

 

[vytoland]

ive fired the new ruger 101 .22 caliber. very well balanced, i liked the factory grips alot, felt good in the hand. the trigger pull is very heavy and the gun itself @ 30 ozs. weighs more than a S&W "J" frame.
i would also believe that a S&W model 63 no dash would have a higher degree of quality workmanship.

 

[bigun]

I would certainly like to receive a few more opinions here? I do appreciate the above two opinions, though! Thanks!

 

[Titan]

If you want new production, Ruger provides (IMHO) the only option in a reasonable weight 22LR revolver.

I'm not aware of a current production 22LR offered by S&W, other than the 617 and I consider that too heavy for a 22LR.

I find that a full underlug is overkill on the barrel of a 22LR and makes the 617 unnecessarily heavy.

I really like the barrel profile of the new Ruger and will pick one up as soon as it's 'approved for sale' (GRRRRR) in my state.

 

[Allen-frame]

I have a friend at a gun show tell me a couple
weeks ago of going to a shop to see 2 new ruger sps in 22 l.r.

He said that the fit and finish was so bad that he passed.

Just 1 mans experience. Take it as you will.

Allen

 

[nossew]

M-63 is still in production with 3 inch barrel and 8 shot capacity if you can find one. I put on in lay-a-way a couple months ago. Yeah, it has the lock.

 

[getoff]

i love my sp's, but the fit and finish is just ok. the smiths will look better. if your looking for a gun that will handle about a million rounds, buy the ruger. if it is only going to shoot like 500,000 you could get the smith... hee, hee. i love my smiths, but would bet my life on my sp101. just my two cents.

 

[Stainz]

One of my range-friends bought one of the new 4" x8 SP101s - paid over six for it. That is about what I paid for my new 3" 63 a year ago when it finally hit the stores. We met at the range recently - he with the new Ruger and me with my year old 63. The trigger of the 63 obviously was far better - lighter and smoother than the new Ruger. Balance was better, too - the 63's lighter weight (26 oz) and shorter barrel making it point better, too. The finish of the Ruger was far better than that of the new .32 H&RM 4" SP101 I had years before, even if the roughness of the action was reminiscent. The fully adjustable rear sight was a nice touch, the cheesy windage-only rear sight on that earlier .32 SP101 being such a detriment. Knowing what causes the 'roughness' and, after years of buying new Rugers, having become adept at alleviating the QC shortcomings, you'd think I'd have grabbed the .22 SP101 I saw a week or so later - for $499... but no thank you. My 3" 63 is a lot nicer - more accurate - and the 63/317 x8 speedloader from DS-10 works fine with my 63 - a no-go with the Ruger.

Don't get me wrong - I am at home in an S&W's innards - and had to take the screwdriver to my new 3" 63 when I brought it home over a year ago. I had to switch grips - I love the 60 Pro grips!

I have a 5" 63 also. I recently bought a lnib 4" 651, a .22 WMR version of the 4" 63. If the early 4" 63 is as nice as my 651 - or either of my 63s - I have no doubt that it would be a better choice than the Ruger. Of course, what can you expect - this is the S&W forum!

Stainz

PS While some professional reviewers have observed decent groupings, many have not - and there has been some talk about poorly done forcing cones. Check the Ruger forum and rimfirecentral for more info. Keep in mind that I was a Ruger guy - I am now clearly an S&W guy.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

I own both, a 63 (old style) and an SP101. Just sent the SP101 back to the factory-horrid trigger with some bumps and tics on both single action ans double action let off. Like I told the Ruger people, I dry fired that gun untill I was blue in the face to try to smooth out the bearing surfaces and it didn't work and for what I paid for it, I sure as heck ain't gonna spend another 60 for a gunsmith to stone the bearing surfaces. They sent me a shipping label.
I hate to say this because
1) I was really excited about this little revolver, and
2) It means that I was Wron......

But in all candor even with a good Ruger trigger this gun absolutely does not replace the kit gun and for those who want a heavier and chunkier large capacity revolver, the 617 is a much better choice as it is not that much larger than the SP and has a much nicer trigger than the Ruger could ever aspire to ( I also own a 617-4 ). To me it is neither fish nor fowl and that is truly sad, because I really wanted to like this little revolver.

I'm gonna hang on to mine for the simple reason that I don't think I can come close to getting back the $550 I spent for it.
But if someone in Louisiana wants to pay me $550-I'll eat the shipping ( ie meet you half way)

 

[Camster]

If you want new production, Ruger provides (IMHO) the only option in a reasonable weight 22LR revolver.

I'm not aware of a current production 22LR offered by S&W, other than the 617 and I consider that too heavy for a 22LR.

I find that a full underlug is overkill on the barrel of a 22LR and makes the 617 unnecessarily heavy.

I really like the barrel profile of the new Ruger and will pick one up as soon as it's 'approved for sale' (GRRRRR) in my state.

How about the 63,17, and 18? All currently offered.

 

[WNC Seabee]

I have a 34-1 4" and the new SP101.

For me, the SP feels much better in the hand, balances better and has better sights. The accuracy is a push. The Ruger's fit/finish was good to great. It's not a fine 30 year old S&W, but it's not made to be either.

Unlike Cajun Bass, I found the trigger to be smooth. Very heavy, but smooth. I swapped the heavy factory hammer spring for a 10# Wolff spring and it made a world of difference. ~400 rounds later, no FTF with the lighter spring.

If I had to sell one, it would be the M34.

 

[MTKTM]

I'm surprised to hear what people are paying for the new Ruger SP101 .22s. I picked one up at a large local shop for $499 out the door just the other day. As others have said, the DA pull is a little heavy, but not too awfully bad. The SA has some creep before it goes bang. I'd like to see what might be done to fix that up. The gun is accurate and very very sturdy. I had a nice 4" 63 that I bought back around 82. I ended up giving it to my son as it was the first gun he ever shot when he was a little guy. Wouldn't mind finding another one, but am happy with my 6" 617, the 3" 317, and now the SP. I feel I'm reasonably well equipped for rimfire revolver fun!

 

[LOBO]

When I was looking for a .22LR revolver years back I ended up going with a S&W 18-3, 4". I have yet to regret the decision.

 

[H Richard]

I have a 63-1 4", and love it. I have fired the Ruger, and while it was O.K., it isn't a S&W. The weight difference is substantial, and the 63 carries much more easily. I hated the fiber optic front sight on the Ruger, it hopefully will have a replacement option at some point. I couldn't group well with the Ruger, and blame it on the fiber optic front sight. The trigger on the one I shot was fair, but gritty and long. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another 63, but would pass on the Ruger.
As was mentioned earlier, the S&W has a large selection of grips available to fit anyone's hand. Good luck with the Ruger.

 

[Will Carry]

I remember when Taurus introduced their new 9 shot 22 magnum revolver. It weights 55oz, That is more than their 454 casull Raging Bull! The Ruger SP-101 22 weights in at (reportedly) 30 oz. The model 63 weights 26 oz. I would say that the Ruger is not too heavy but the Smith would be my choice. I would rather have the model 18 combat masterpiece over any of them. The only 22 revolver I own now is a Ruger Single Six "Buntline" with a 9.5" barrel. It will deliver amazing performance from the 22 magnum cartridge.

 

[LOBO]

When I was looking for a .22LR revolver years back I ended up going with a S&W 18-3, 4". I have yet to regret the decision.

 

[DRYHEAT]

My vote: Old School 63...

Actually found in a local gun store for $419 O.T.D. It CAN happen.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

[QUOTE=Titan;1362125

I'm not aware of a current production 22LR offered by S&W, other than the 617 and I consider that too heavy for a 22LR.

Titan. Smith currently offers the J frame in .22...........2 flavors of alloy(317) and stainless(63) 3".

 

[Titan]

Titan. Smith currently offers the J frame in .22...........2 flavors of alloy(317) and stainless(63) 3".

Thanks. I was under the belief that the 63 was out of production, and I don't care for the alloy frame of the 317.

I'm a stainless guy, and will definitely check out the 63.

ETA: I still may go with the SP101 based on aesthetics. I'm not a big fan of the large gap between the front of the 63's cylinder and the frame (short cylinder in a larger frame).