My Pre-Lock 317 AirLite Snubby 22lr. Why?

[HarrishMasher]

I'll give you a reason/purpose for that little revolver. Think of it as your carry gun for when you don't want to or can't carry a gun. Take note of the fact that you group size with the 317 is about the same as with your fancy (no offense intended) target pistols. (smile)

Dave

I have a 342PD .38 that weighs 11 ounces. Less than an ounce heavier than the 317. I would choose the .38 for sure for that purpose.

Not busting your chops, I have thought through most of these scenarios and still come up empty.

 

[HarrishMasher]

If your goal was to use it just as a trainer maybe a Model 63 would have been better. Even with a heavy trigger it would still be easier to hold on target since the gun weighs twice as much. Although from the way you describe it your trigger sounds unusually heavy even for a J-Frame. Maybe even a Ruger LCRx in .22 would be more to your liking.

To me the value of an Airlight .22 is something you can carry without even noticing its weight. In winter it might be useful as a alternate gun carried in an outer coat pocket if you can't get to your primary fast enough.

I agree that may work for someone. But I live in South Florida and I can't remember the last time I wore a coat.

As mentioned above I have a 342PD .38 that weighs 11 ounces. Less than an ounce heavier than the 317. I would choose the .38 for sure for that purpose.

Not busting your chops, I have thought through most of these scenarios and still come up empty.

I guess it is no big deal. I will just keep it as a curiosity. And use it at the range a few times a year. I just really wish the trigger was lighter, it would really be a lot more useful. If I thought it would still be reliable, I would do a trigger job. But experience shows me otherwise.

 

[silversnake]

I agree that may work for someone. But I live in South Florida and I can't remember the last time I wore a coat.

As mentioned above I have a 342PD .38 that weighs 11 ounces. Less than an ounce heavier than the 317. I would choose the .38 for sure for that purpose.

Not busting your chops, I have thought through most of these scenarios and still come up empty.

I guess it is no big deal. I will just keep it as a curiosity. And use it at the range a few times a year. I just really wish the trigger was lighter, it would really be a lot more useful. If I thought it would still be reliable, I would do a trigger job. But experience shows me otherwise.

I understand that. Everyone is different in terms of what they'll carry and why. Most shooters today probably wouldn't understand carrying any revolver.

I wish you could try my pre-Model 43 and tell me what you think of the trigger, the reaction I get is often "they don't build them like that anymore." I have no way of knowing if it felt like this new or if it smoothed out over time. Occasionally it does take a second strike to get a primer to ignite but I take that as a given with any .22.

 

[typetwelve]

Some here may disagree with me...but I think of almost all small J-frames as belly guns. They're not fun to shoot, they're not real accurate with the awful sights they come with...they have a purpose, short range, don't aim. They are not fun range guns, not in the slightest.

If that is the case...then a .22LR makes even less sense.

I look at 22LR as only have two purposes...plinking, small game hunting. You're really not going to want to do either with that 317. Can it do those things? Sure. Will it be fun? Not really.

Fun is my Ruger SR22...fun + accurate is going to be a Ruger Mk series or Browning Buckmark.

 

[murphydog]

You have it and may find a "use" for it someday. It has a lanyard attachment on the butt (as shown in one of the above photos) and it would be a decent gun for carrying under a shirt with that.

Now that I think about it, I would have about 98% fewer guns if I had to answer the "why" question for each of them...

 

[typetwelve]

You have it and may find a "use" for it someday. It has a lanyard attachment on the butt (as shown in one of the above photos) and it would be a decent gun for carrying under a shirt with that.

Now that I think about it, I would have about 98% fewer guns if I had to answer the "why" question for each of them...

I try my best to have a "why" answer for each of my firearms. Sometimes the answer is function (like a shotgun...which I despise shooting, but it has a real role to play), or even for "fun".

I mentioned my Ruger SR22 before...it really is just a fun gun. It does serve a purspose of being a trainer for my 8 year old little girl but outside of that, it's not real useful.

I've sold off quite a few firearms over the years simply because I didn't have a use for them, it freed up funds for other purchases that I knew I would use more.

 

[ABPOS]

My 442's trigger was 13 pounds when I got it. I do test it with a fish scale though, so it's not a perfect science. But it is heavy. It has lightened up a little bit into the 12's as of now.

Mastering a 14 pound DA trigger would make you awesome on any gun. It will probably lighten up with shooting. But I typically don't think .22's are good trainers, but a DA .22.... Well that's just helping one master the DA trigger. And can actually shoot stuff, a lot cheaper than .38's in the process.

 

[eveled]

We

I have a 342PD (38 Centennial style) with Eagle Secret Service grips that weigh 1 ounce. I think it comes in at 11 ounces total. Just about the same as the 317 (10.3 ounces). So you can go just as low in a larger caliber. If weight was the deciding factor I would take the 38 over the 22.

My 317, and my 342 are noticably different. The 317 feels like it's floating the 342 is a tank in comparison.

I know what the OP is getting at, I got my 317 for a bargain, it was so gummed up with frog lube it would not function. I couldn't say no, but it doesn't get a lot of range time.

I keep it around, because I like it. That's enough for me.

Edit:: Just realized it is the ammo that is making the difference in the perceived weight. Empty they weigh almost the same loaded there is a big difference.

 

[HarrishMasher]

My 442's trigger was 13 pounds when I got it. I do test it with a fish scale though, so it's not a perfect science. But it is heavy. It has lightened up a little bit into the 12's as of now.

Mastering a 14 pound DA trigger would make you awesome on any gun. It will probably lighten up with shooting. But I typically don't think .22's are good trainers, but a DA .22.... Well that's just helping one master the DA trigger. And can actually shoot stuff, a lot cheaper than .38's in the process.

I totally agree that practice with a heavy DA revolver trigger makes anyone a better shooter. I know for a fact that I shoot as well as I do is because all of my self-imposed training shooting revolvers the last 6 or 7 years. And shooting them 100% DA only.

If the 317 actually had usable sights, I would agree it would make an excellent trainer. The harder the better as far as I'm concerned. Master a gun with a 14lb trigger and you are the master of many guns. But with the current sights that can't be changed, it is pretty much useless.

I would be much better served with an all steel 4" 22lr revolver. Maybe I should trade the 317 for one

 

[HarrishMasher]

My 317, and my 342 are noticably different. The 317 feels like it's floating the 342 is a tank in comparison.

I know what the OP is getting at, I got my 317 for a bargain, it was so gummed up with frog lube it would not function. I couldn't say no, but it doesn't get a lot of range time.

I keep it around, because I like it. That's enough for me.

It guess it is cool to have the lightest S&W revolver ever made. I'm pretty sure the 317 Snubby wears that distinction. It is fun to stick in someones hand and see their reaction. Heck it makes me smile everytime I grab it. It makes a nice conversation piece.

 

[silversnake]

I totally agree that practice with a heavy DA revolver trigger makes anyone a better shooter. I know for a fact that I shoot as well as I do is because all of my self-imposed training shooting revolvers the last 6 or 7 years. And shooting them 100% DA only.

If the 317 actually had usable sights, I would agree it would make an excellent trainer. The harder the better as far as I'm concerned. Master a gun with a 14lb trigger and you are the master of many guns. But with the current sights that can't be changed, it is pretty much useless.

I would be much better served with an all steel 4" 22lr revolver. Maybe I should trade the 317 for one

Since you say you usually carry a K or L Frame anyway that's probably a better idea. Have you ever handled a Model 18? IMO the best DA .22 you can get (other than possibly a Colt Diamondback).

 

[BUFF]

Sometimes, "Gee whiz, would you look at that?" is a good enough reason.

I remember when S&W introduced them. I bought mine new with wood stocks in April, 1997. Somebody was running an advertisement for them with a model wearing a pair of them as earrings!

I later bought the 3 inch 317-1 version with adjustable rear sight in August, 1998. Probably a better shooter because of the sights, I don't know because I sold the longer one and haven't shot the shorter one yet.

The "Gee whiz" is strong for me with these guns.

 

[PALADIN85020]

In answer to your "Why?" question:

1. It's light - very light. That's the reason I bought one. In the summer, going to events that require dress slacks but where there is no need for a jacket, the only logical option for me has been the ankle holster. For ankle holster wear, the little 317 has been perfect. Doesn't feel like a boat anchor tied to your foot.

2. Eight shots - not 5, not 6, but 8.

3. No ugly hole or associated components.

4. There is no one I know who wants to get hit in the face with even one round of hi-speed .22 LR - and seven more shots are there for the asking.

Check the picture above. Notice a couple of things different from yours?

A. The optional factory Dymondwood (laminated wood) stocks - more than a tad lighter than those Goodyears.

B. The hammer is different, too. Like you, I despised the DA trigger pull. I complained to S&W customer service, and they had me send it back to them. They installed a Ladysmith hammer and spring. Made a noticeable difference. Recognize that with such a small handgun, the hammer spring has to be pretty stout to throw the light hammer with sufficient power to assure ignition of all the various makes of .22 LR. While lighter, the Ladysmith arrangement will still give reliable ignition for most .22 ammo out there. Test it with what you intend to carry, and if it fires every time, you're good to go.

Hope this helps you re-think your purchase. It's a great little gun, with purpose-built features.

John

 

[silversnake]

B. The hammer is different, too. Like you, I despised the DA trigger pull. I complained to S&W customer service, and they had me send it back to them. They installed a Ladysmith hammer and spring. Made a noticeable difference. Recognize that with such a small handgun, the hammer spring has to be pretty stout to throw the light hammer with sufficient power to assure ignition of all the various makes of .22 LR. While lighter, the Ladysmith arrangement will still give reliable ignition for most .22 ammo out there. Test it with what you intend to carry, and if it fires every time, you're good to go.

Hope this helps you re-think your purchase. It's a great little gun, with purpose-built features.

John

I'm curious, what exactly does the Ladysmith hammer change? If it was just lighter springs I would have thought you could keep the same hammer. Does it change anything else in the action?

 

[PALADIN85020]

I'm curious, what exactly does the Ladysmith hammer change? If it was just lighter springs I would have thought you could keep the same hammer. Does it change anything else in the action?

For one thing, the thumbpiece on the hammer has more (traditional) surface area for easier SA cocking than the stubby original. I believe the geometry of the connection to the hammer spring strut is a bit different as well. The hammer has been lightened with cuts, and seems to have little longer throw from full cock. Combined with the LS spring, it does make a difference.

John

 

[silversnake]

For one thing, the thumbpiece on the hammer has more (traditional) surface area for easier SA cocking than the stubby original. I believe the geometry of the connection to the hammer spring strut is a bit different as well. The hammer has been lightened with cuts, and seems to have little longer throw from full cock. Combined with the LS spring, it does make a difference.

John

I wonder if there's something similar going on inside the 43C, which some posters have said has a better action than the 317 (although I have not tested them side by side to confirm).

 

[rich5674]

Lovin It

If it were mine I'd stuff it with either 60gn Aguila or 45gn Winchesters and call it done. Love the green grips. I'd go with the wood boot grips too.
Thanks, now I gotta find one

 

[HarrishMasher]

My 317, and my 342 are noticably different. The 317 feels like it's floating the 342 is a tank in comparison.

I know what the OP is getting at, I got my 317 for a bargain, it was so gummed up with frog lube it would not function. I couldn't say no, but it doesn't get a lot of range time.

I keep it around, because I like it. That's enough for me.

Are you sure you have a 342PD? Mine weighs virtually the same as my 317. We are talking less than a third of an ounce.

Look how deep the flutes are on the 342PD compared to a typical 5 shot .38 cylinder. Those are some serious cuts. Though some of the 342PDs shipped with the Ti cylinder with regular cuts. I used to have one, but I sold it to get this one with the proper cuts.

Look how freaking deep the flutes are on the 342PD compared to the standard 442 Airweight!

 

[ABPOS]

It sounds to me like you are wanting to get rid of it. Because, C'mon, the sights aren't that bad. One guy already suggested a fix for that. My main carry gun is a 442 with the stock sights and I don't get too hung up about the small sights. I did just paint my front sight white to see if I can pick it up better in low light. but it's a sight. Dudes used to have to deal with a lot smaller sights than these and do it in combat.

To me better sights will just help you with speed under stress, type of a thing. If you're just shooting a .22 to practice that DA trigger, you can take your time. Or try and push yourself. Either way you line them up the same way as you do any other sight. I don't see how lining them up and then overlaying them on the target is any better with ones that are bigger and brighter. In fact, sometimes I think a smaller sight might actually help accuracy. I've got no proof of that. But it's a thought.

I really don't see anything wrong with your 10 yard group. Looks pretty good to me. Maybe you are wanting it to be a 1 ragged hole group?

I totally agree that practice with a heavy DA revolver trigger makes anyone a better shooter. I know for a fact that I shoot as well as I do is because all of my self-imposed training shooting revolvers the last 6 or 7 years. And shooting them 100% DA only.

If the 317 actually had usable sights, I would agree it would make an excellent trainer. The harder the better as far as I'm concerned. Master a gun with a 14lb trigger and you are the master of many guns. But with the current sights that can't be changed, it is pretty much useless.

I would be much better served with an all steel 4" 22lr revolver. Maybe I should trade the 317 for one

 

[TomkinsSP]

Horrible, awful. useless gun. Who needs it? [Anyone who currently owns a .22lr LCR;-)]. Lucky for you I run a free ugly or useless gun disposal service. PM me and I will send you the address of an FFL holder here who will as a public service legally transfer that useless gun out of your legal posession;-).