Opinions On The New 43C .22LR Revolver?

[Gebe]

I was looking at the new 43C .22 revolver on the S&W site. Looks like it would be a nice addition to folks who own 442 and 642 revolvers. Seems to look like it would be a fun plinker and you could get lots of practice handling your 442/642 without the expense of shooting .38 special ammo.

What's your opinions?

 

[Camster]

I suppose if you own the other models,it has some value,but to me, a lightweight,non-adjustable sight .22 snub in double action only,doesn't hold any appeal.I almost never use double action on my Smiths,and with that little weight,a no doubt fairly heavy trigger pull, it's hard to see even plinker accuracy.The cost would buy a good amount of 38 ammo.

 

[Gebe]

The cost would buy a good amount of 38 ammo.

Couldn't agree more but I've always been a sucker for lightweight little .22's, in fact, ALL .22 rimfires.

Personally, I wouldn't pay what they're asking for one but I do like the fact that it would be a nice compliment to a 442/642 and a concealed hammer .22 pocket revolver has appeal.

We'll see how successful it is but S&W sure sold and is selling a lot of the exposed hammer Model 317's with 1 7/8" bbls. and non adjustable sights.

 

[Camster]

I suspect that they sell more 3 inch 317s with adjustables,...I could be wrong. I owned a 317 3 incher,(which was sold to a forum member-.a neat little gun,(especially liked the provision for a lanyard) was surprisingly accurate if you concentrated on your hold.I just prefer steel construction,along with it's heft.I replaced it with a 34 and 63..

 

[racuda]

I want one. It should be a perfect trainer for my M&P 340. As far as accuracy with a lightweight, double action revolver, that is a function of practice. And practice with .22's is CHEAP.

 

[Gearhead Jim]

Are they actually available yet?