Model 63 .22/32

[Revolver M65]

Well I have done some looking at some 22 LR and I really like the 63 .22/32 Kit Gun does anybody have one that can give me the pros and cons and I fell stupid for asking but what does the 32 stand for?

Greg

 

[jkc]

The original "Kit Guns" were chambered in .22 rimfire, on what was then known as the ".32" frame, as I understand the nomenclature. The "kit" appellation arose from the concept of having a small handy gun suitable for carry in a tackle box or etc. The original stainless Model 63 was offered in the more common 4" barrel, and the prized-by-collectors 2" version commissioned by the distributor Lou Horton. These are "cute" and interesting little guns, but with factory grips, generally too tiny for adult male hands, and so light as to be difficult to hold steadily, and functionally eclipsed by the markedly more "shootable" 10-round 617 K-frame.

 

[ColbyBruce]

I own a 4" barrel version that was wearing Pachmayr's when I bought it. I now have a set of Herrett stocks on it. It is easy to carry and fairly accurate. I have considerably less money in mine than they sell for, as I bought it damaged and had the factory repair it. I do not like it enough to pay $500.00-$600.00 for one.

 

[jhde69]

63 kit

The one smith that I want is a 63 shooter. It was a tackle box gun. One of my hunting and fishing local heros had one in his box to "shoot the northerns along side the boat". Wow those must have been the days.

 

[deanodog]

Here is one pimped out a little. They are great guns but I think the K frame models are easier to shoot accurately but bigger to carry.

 

[Camster]

The original "Kit Guns" were chambered in .22 rimfire, on what was then known as the ".32" frame, as I understand the nomenclature. The "kit" appellation arose from the concept of having a small handy gun suitable for carry in a tackle box or etc. The original stainless Model 63 was offered in the more common 4" barrel, and the prized-by-collectors 2" version commissioned by the distributor Lou Horton. These are "cute" and interesting little guns, but with factory grips, generally too tiny for adult male hands, and so light as to be difficult to hold steadily, and functionally eclipsed by the markedly more "shootable" 10-round 617 K-frame.

K frame .22s are my thing,but the 63s do benefit immensely by the addition of either factory target or combat grips....especially the combats.

 

[InTheWoods]

They are harder to shoot well than the k-frames, but a good set of large grips helps a lot. I target shoot with my my k-frames, but carry my 63 in the field. They are wonderful guns.

 

[TSQUARED]

I keep one loaded with birdshot for dispatching snakes. The DA trigger with it's coil springs is not as smooth as that of the larger K & N framed revolvers. It works well for informal plate shoots wit a set of larger grips.

 

[jrs70]

This summer I got a 63 NIB (1995) because it was almost $300 less than a new 4" 617. Besides I like J frames. One day I'll find a good used 617 4" or 18 to shoot.

Paul

 

[larryofcc]

The M63 carries well in a crossdraw holster while riding on my 4 wheeler and motorcycle in the back country. I find mine to be very accurate, as accurate as my 22 Combat Masterpiece, for general plinking off my quad. A little lighter too. These are really nice revolvers and I highly recommend them. Big Larry

 

[Stainz]

My 5" 63-4 was purchased ANIB from a friend's estate several years ago - my 3" 63-5 was purchased just after it finally arrived just over a year ago. Both sport '60 Pro' grips from S&W. The 4" x10 617 & 5" 63 sport added HiViz sights; the 3" 63 came stock with one. The 617 has Ahrends retro targets - no fondness for rubber here. The 4" 617 & 5" 63 have replacement springs - the 3" 63 is box stock - and lighter in DA than the 5" 63. The 4" 617 has the lightest DA trigger, as expected.

No doubt the 4" 617 is the better of the three for range use. The 3" 63 is like an extension of your hand - and is nearly as close, group-wise, as the 617. It would be my choice to tote. Here it is with it's .357M 3" sibling, a 60 Pro, in a 3" J-frame S&W/DeSantis holster. The 3" 63 fits perfectly, too.

Both recent 63's, the current 3" and previous 5", are eight-shooters. DS-10 does make loading baseplates and x8 speedloaders that mate the x8 63's (and the x8 317's!). The 3" was $631 new last year - a lot, no doubt. Add the $43 for the wood grips, and it gets up there quickly. A year later, considering the 'fun factor', it was a bargain! Check your favorite S&W pusher/enabler for a new 3" 63, SKU #162634 - it really is nice. Worth the price - that's up to you.

Stainz

 

[rockquarry]

model 63

Currently have a 63 and have had a couple of other J-frame .22s. Though quite accurate, these guns are difficult for most persons to shoot well. The factory grips are small, the guns are light, and a shooter's shortcomings / bad habits become blatantly obvious when firing these revolvers. Larger grips help many shooters, but some of the compactness is lost with anything bulkier than the factory stocks. Practice a lot with a 63 at 25 yds. offhand and you'll probably be happy with it.

 

[22shtur]

Model 63

S&W introduced the Kit Guns to compete with Colt's Woodsman pistols. Every outdoorman/woodsman would have a kit - tackle box, camp box, trappers box, etc. - so the gun to go with their kit would be the Kit Gun.

I bought a mod 63 new in 1978. I shot it very good, harvesting 100's of rabbits for myself and buddies with it. Later I put Herretts grips on it, which make it easier to grip steadier. Before the internet, I shot everything through it, not knowing what was good or bad ammo. The most rabbits I have seen together is 2, and maybe 3 forest grouse at once. So the six shots are plenty for me. The reason I don't get a different .22..if it ain't broke, don't fix it.