ohiocarry
Absent Comrade
Anyone have an opinion on the model 317 or any other recommended revolver for plinking and trigger training ? Thanks, ohiocarry
S & W 22 REVOLVER
- Thread starter ohiocarry
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
The 317 is an alloy J frame and cylinder and is a very light pistol. The trigger pull on J frame pistols is a very heavy pull and are not the best for target plinking or trigger training.
The 317 makes a wonderful carry gun, since it is so light. If you are not planning on carrying the pistol but instead just target shooting and plinking, I think you would do much better with a K frame revolver, like the Model 17, 18 or 617. K frames also have a much better trigger pull.
Just my opinion.
The 317 makes a wonderful carry gun, since it is so light. If you are not planning on carrying the pistol but instead just target shooting and plinking, I think you would do much better with a K frame revolver, like the Model 17, 18 or 617. K frames also have a much better trigger pull.
Just my opinion.
TexasRider
Member
The original S&W Model 17s are one of Smiths most popular models for a reason. If you want the K frame and lighter weight that is the way to go. My wife likes the feel of my older 17 no dash .
The 617 is heavier. Mine is the 6 shot , but there are 10 shots available. It has the full underlug. Just a tad heavier really. The 617s are stainless steel guns.
You cant go wrong with either really.
The 617 is heavier. Mine is the 6 shot , but there are 10 shots available. It has the full underlug. Just a tad heavier really. The 617s are stainless steel guns.
You cant go wrong with either really.
mc5aw
Member
The 317 is an 8-shot no weight revolver ... it's barely noticeable in a pocket. I've found it is best suited for J-frame snub practice without having to burn through .38 ammo. Plinker? Maybe, but as stated above, a 17 with the longer barrel will be better.
K-22 / model 17 / model 18. Check all of them out. You'll love them.
qrachel
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 235
617 Impressions
My 617 6" is a great gun, especially to learn DA shooting and all round target practice and sharpening technique before stepping up to a 357Mag or 45ACP and practicing fundamentals.
I'm very happy w/my 617 . . . no problems and delightful to handle and shoot.
Take care,
Rachel
My 617 6" is a great gun, especially to learn DA shooting and all round target practice and sharpening technique before stepping up to a 357Mag or 45ACP and practicing fundamentals.
I'm very happy w/my 617 . . . no problems and delightful to handle and shoot.
Take care,
Rachel
Ohiocarry, I'll have a model 18 for sale at Berea today. Nice gun. If interested let me know here and if I don't sell it we live close to each other. Also have a 4" 617 10 shot I'd let go. Next Sat is the NE Ohio bunch meeting at North Olmsted sportsman club. You're welcome to come and enjoy a day of S&W's. Details are in the public lounge. Larry
S&W .22 Revolver
I bought a 317 revolver, about a month ago. It fits my needs for an extremely lightweight, .22lr. My rural property takes hours to mow and its fun to have the little 317 along to dispatch occassional yard pests. For plinking, I'd recommend the model 63. It's the same J-frame revolver in a sturdy, stainless package. The size will fit anyone and the trigger can be learned easily... I've owned 17s and an 18 over the years. They are simply too heavy and bulky for .22lr ammo, which does not recoil. I would not recommend any K-frame, or larger revolver for this reason. Cleaning a .22lr revolver is tedious, too. For plinking fun and convenience, buy a semi auto in this caliber.
I bought a 317 revolver, about a month ago. It fits my needs for an extremely lightweight, .22lr. My rural property takes hours to mow and its fun to have the little 317 along to dispatch occassional yard pests. For plinking, I'd recommend the model 63. It's the same J-frame revolver in a sturdy, stainless package. The size will fit anyone and the trigger can be learned easily... I've owned 17s and an 18 over the years. They are simply too heavy and bulky for .22lr ammo, which does not recoil. I would not recommend any K-frame, or larger revolver for this reason. Cleaning a .22lr revolver is tedious, too. For plinking fun and convenience, buy a semi auto in this caliber.
Cpo1944
Member
Ohiocarry,
The M-18 is one of my favs and I searched for a very long time before I finally found one.You a lucky man Jebus is right there in Ohio and has both an 18 & a very desirable 617.
Heck I might have to talk him out of the 617 and keep it for myself.
The M-18 is one of my favs and I searched for a very long time before I finally found one.You a lucky man Jebus is right there in Ohio and has both an 18 & a very desirable 617.
Heck I might have to talk him out of the 617 and keep it for myself.
snubbiefan
Member
The 317 can be "triggered-down" with a 13-pound rebound and 9-pound hammer spring. When I put a 317 in my wife's hands.....that was the end of her gun-search. Weighs less than most things in her purse, but they are tender (in some respect's) little guns and have become downright expensive to boot. But then....everything has become downright expensive.
I am looking for another 317 NL to replace one I sold last year, but I am not going to pay $700 or better for it. Guess I'll be waiting a while.
The 617 and others mentioned above are good and much more durable guns. Don't know if I saw the 63 mentioned or not, but that's a good choice as well if you want adjustable sights.
I wish Smith had made the 317 in an all stainless version. An M640, 649, 60.....etc. chambered in 22 would be a dream for me. Fixed sights and all stainless.
I am looking for another 317 NL to replace one I sold last year, but I am not going to pay $700 or better for it. Guess I'll be waiting a while.
The 617 and others mentioned above are good and much more durable guns. Don't know if I saw the 63 mentioned or not, but that's a good choice as well if you want adjustable sights.
I wish Smith had made the 317 in an all stainless version. An M640, 649, 60.....etc. chambered in 22 would be a dream for me. Fixed sights and all stainless.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,020
- Reaction score
- 7,101
It seems that the geometry of the J frame just makes a really great trigger nearly impossible. The extreme light weight of the 317 just do not "lay" out there very well when plinking (I suppose it might for others, but not for me). In my opinion, best training and accuracy is obtained by a heavier revolver in K frame.
Everyone should learn on the K22 (I use that term interchangeably for 17, 18 and 617). The Ruger 22 Auto in steel frame, not these new super light ones, are excellent also, however, the revolver allows the use of surprise loading (leaving a charge hole or two empty) which quickly reveals to all concerned the problem of anticipating the shot (incorrectly called "flinching" by some).
Good luck!
Stainz
Member
I think the currently available 3" 63 is a great plinker with the attribute of being easier to carry than my beloved best .22 plinker, my 4" 617, which weighs about 65% more. Both are shown below, along with a 5" 63, which is no longer available (No real matter - it's my least favorite rimfire revolver!). The 3" 63 came with the HiViz sights - all three sport aftermarket (S&W on the 63's.) wood grips.
Of course, if you want one for the pocket - with a lot more bark and flash - hopefully, more bite - there is the 351PD, 11.5 oz loaded with seven 45gr Hornady Critical Defense .22 WMRs:
Stainz
PS Re the bottom feeder vs revolver rimfires: ten years of MKII KMK-678GC ownership ended 9/08 - and I bought my 4" x10 617 new locally with the proceeds - on blind faith. Despite my eight mags for the MKII, I've sent more rounds downrange in less than three years with that 617 than I did with the MKII in over ten. While I have aged to the point that bullseye shooting is not as important to me as pure plinking, I will concede that the MKII may have been better at bullseye, possibly due to the scope it wore. I put the HiViz on my 617 early in it's life here - as well as bought a DS-10 speedloader and baseplate for it and resprung/regripped it, too. It is an excellent plinker. The 3" 63 is handier - but still quite a plinker. Even in rimfires, revolvers rule. Cleaning is a 'right of passage', too. What do you expect in a revolver-based sub-forum??
Of course, if you want one for the pocket - with a lot more bark and flash - hopefully, more bite - there is the 351PD, 11.5 oz loaded with seven 45gr Hornady Critical Defense .22 WMRs:
Stainz
PS Re the bottom feeder vs revolver rimfires: ten years of MKII KMK-678GC ownership ended 9/08 - and I bought my 4" x10 617 new locally with the proceeds - on blind faith. Despite my eight mags for the MKII, I've sent more rounds downrange in less than three years with that 617 than I did with the MKII in over ten. While I have aged to the point that bullseye shooting is not as important to me as pure plinking, I will concede that the MKII may have been better at bullseye, possibly due to the scope it wore. I put the HiViz on my 617 early in it's life here - as well as bought a DS-10 speedloader and baseplate for it and resprung/regripped it, too. It is an excellent plinker. The 3" 63 is handier - but still quite a plinker. Even in rimfires, revolvers rule. Cleaning is a 'right of passage', too. What do you expect in a revolver-based sub-forum??
Last edited:
TexasRider
Member
Not to tell anybody what to do ....
But I cant count how many guys, gals, and kids I have started shooting with a 22 revolver. And then up to a 38 etc.
My Model 17 is from 1957 and it shoots perfectly and sometimes better ( recently putting 4 of its 6 right together at 50 Yards with the other 2 close - you get lucky some days )
, it looks almost as good as it did the day it left Smith and Wesson, and it continues to gain in price . I dont know what else I could ask for .
But I cant count how many guys, gals, and kids I have started shooting with a 22 revolver. And then up to a 38 etc.
My Model 17 is from 1957 and it shoots perfectly and sometimes better ( recently putting 4 of its 6 right together at 50 Yards with the other 2 close - you get lucky some days )
, it looks almost as good as it did the day it left Smith and Wesson, and it continues to gain in price . I dont know what else I could ask for .smokey04
Member
I have a 317 1&7/8" that I 'm very pleased with. Several people have posted about heavy trigger pulls etc. ,but for once,I seem to have hit it lucky,and got a great trigger. I bought the short barrel because I don't particularly like the fiber optic sights.That was my option in my LGS at the time and because I primarily bought the gun for snake and varmint control. The shorter barrels throw a better pattern with shot than the longer ones ,in my opinion.So far, over the last two years it has accounted for several Rattlers 5' and under,and two Copperheads, one 4&1/2 ft. and one about 3 ft.This year I hope to get a 7' Rattler. Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming but, in 1969 about 4 miles from here I killed a Diamondback Rattler that was nearly 8'!He/it was the biggest Rattler I ever saw! Nick
I learned DA shooting with a 642, so learning the trigger on a 317
was not dificult. That said, I've had and sold a K-22 and a M63
that didn't seem to fit my hands. I do have a 4" kitgun with
a round butt frame. That fits and suits me. For carry/plinking,
for your needs, I'd suggest a M63, 3" round butt. Nice and compact,
sturdy, and stainless. I'll stick with the 317, 3". JMHO,
TACC1
was not dificult. That said, I've had and sold a K-22 and a M63
that didn't seem to fit my hands. I do have a 4" kitgun with
a round butt frame. That fits and suits me. For carry/plinking,
for your needs, I'd suggest a M63, 3" round butt. Nice and compact,
sturdy, and stainless. I'll stick with the 317, 3". JMHO,
TACC1
S&W 22 REVOLVER
My next purchase will probably be a model 63, given my satisfaction with the 317. I suspect the stainless 63 is ultimately more durable but the "weightless" 317 accompanies me on all my outdoor chores. I've found the J-frame .22s much more inviting to new shooters, also. There are no recoil issues and the easy handling encourages more trigger time. I don't need a full sized V-8 car for most purposes and I don't need a 40-ounce revolver to plink .22 long rifle rounds. My only disappointment with the 317 and 63 are their HI VIZ front sights which are incompatible with many stock J-frame holsters. Still, I believe the 3" J revolvers, with their generous eight shot capacities are the best choice in .22lr caliber.
j
My next purchase will probably be a model 63, given my satisfaction with the 317. I suspect the stainless 63 is ultimately more durable but the "weightless" 317 accompanies me on all my outdoor chores. I've found the J-frame .22s much more inviting to new shooters, also. There are no recoil issues and the easy handling encourages more trigger time. I don't need a full sized V-8 car for most purposes and I don't need a 40-ounce revolver to plink .22 long rifle rounds. My only disappointment with the 317 and 63 are their HI VIZ front sights which are incompatible with many stock J-frame holsters. Still, I believe the 3" J revolvers, with their generous eight shot capacities are the best choice in .22lr caliber.
j
I'll bring the 4" 10 shot 617 to the meeting Sat. Sold the other one at the show. sent you a PM for your phone number to fill you in on the meeting. Larry
Of the 17, 18, 617, 317 I currently own, the 317 is my least favorite for plinking and shootability due to the trigger more so than the 3" barrel and lightweight of the 317, even with RP springs.
It's J-frame size and ultra light weight make it a pleasure to carry though compared to the others mentioned.
It's J-frame size and ultra light weight make it a pleasure to carry though compared to the others mentioned.
S&W 22 REVOLVER
With the booming CPL industry, many folks are learning how to shoot and are carrying handguns for the first time. Clearly the trend has been toward lightweight platforms in .380, 9mm and .38 Special. Polymer frames have an enormous following and law enforcement officers are carrying semiautos with large capacity that weigh significantly less than a loaded K-frame, .22lr revolver. I can understand the popularity of the models 17 and 18 (I owned them, myself), in the bygone age of revolvers. But unless the new shooter is training himself to fire centerfire, magnum rounds from large L or N-frame revolvers, I don't see the point in spending huge cash on a 40-ounce, .22lr revolver, for training purposes. The eventual graduation to a lightweight, alloy or polymer weapon of choice will be especially challenging to the newbie who learned to shoot with a heavyweight, large framed revolver. This is why I prefer the "J" revolvers, in .22lr. They most closely represent the size and weight of carry weapons most folks ultimately buy for themselves.
With the booming CPL industry, many folks are learning how to shoot and are carrying handguns for the first time. Clearly the trend has been toward lightweight platforms in .380, 9mm and .38 Special. Polymer frames have an enormous following and law enforcement officers are carrying semiautos with large capacity that weigh significantly less than a loaded K-frame, .22lr revolver. I can understand the popularity of the models 17 and 18 (I owned them, myself), in the bygone age of revolvers. But unless the new shooter is training himself to fire centerfire, magnum rounds from large L or N-frame revolvers, I don't see the point in spending huge cash on a 40-ounce, .22lr revolver, for training purposes. The eventual graduation to a lightweight, alloy or polymer weapon of choice will be especially challenging to the newbie who learned to shoot with a heavyweight, large framed revolver. This is why I prefer the "J" revolvers, in .22lr. They most closely represent the size and weight of carry weapons most folks ultimately buy for themselves.
