S&W M17 vs 617?

[Peak53]

I´m looking for a good revolver in 22lr and on my list are the M17 or the 617. Obviously the 617 is newer and the current models have 10 shots - but how is the trigger compared to an old M17? I have heard that the trigger on the M17 (or was it on th K-frame?) is always better than on the 617?

I´m waiting for a 627 in 357 mag. and I´m thinking that the 617 will be more like that in feel, size and weight, wich would be a plus..

Welcome to the forum! There are lot's of good preferential opinions above. Pick one that suits you. Triggers are finicky in that every gun is different. In my experience, I don't think you can say that older or newer is "better." Well, maybe if you are talking pre-WWII "long action" revolvers. That is a different story.

But, I do want to correct one possible misunderstanding. You say you are waiting for a M627. That is probably a great choice. It is the large, i.e., N frame, which is a completely different animal than either the M17 or M617, which are both K frames or "mediumish" in size. The only difference is the color/steel - blue carbon steel or stainless steel. The number 6 as the first number in any SW revolver or pistol model number designates stainless steel. That is definitive. That will be the ONLY similarity to your M627 .357 magnum N frame, a much larger gun.

 

[lscocoa]

I have been looking at a current production M17-9 6" that feels pretty good . If looking new it's an option but 6 shot . My 617-6 4" weighs similar but holds 10 rds. I also have a 17-3 8 38",17-4 6". 17-6 6" pre full lug and a pre 18 combat masterpiece. Obviously I like k22's and the 17-3 is my favorite. Trigger wise whatever you get ,have a 14ld rebound spring installed and shoot it a lot. You could also scan the S&W website for weight similarities such as closest to a 627 .

 

[snowman]

Model 17 versus Model 617.

The model 17 is notorious for difficult cartridge extraction (and inserting cartridges). After about 50 rounds it can become very difficult to extract/insert cartridges from/into the model 17 whereas the 617 can handle 300+ rounds before the chambers get dirty enough extraction or insertion is difficult.

This seems to imply that the extraction problem is true for all 17s(Pardon me if that isn't what you meant.). My 17-3 does NOT have this problem, and there has been no reaming of the chambers. I've fired as much as 150 rounds with no problem in extraction, and could have continued firing a long time had I had the time. There are one or two chambers in which the rounds will need a gentle push after so many rounds fired in order to get them completely in, but it's never been a problem.

What percentage of the guns have the problem and what percentage don't? No one knows. I know that the problem is common; I just wanted to make sure the OP knew that not all 17s have it.

Regards,
Andy

 

[BB57]

I have a 3 T Model 17-4 (bottom) as well as a third model K-22 / Pre-Model 17. I like them both but I prefer the K-22. It has a slight edge in accuracy at 100 yards, which is of course the cool thing about these revolvers, you can shoot offhand at 50 and 100 yards and hit what you are aiming at.

I have not tried the 617, but I did own a Ruger SP101 in .22LR, actually two of them as Ruger replaced the first one. The replacement was a mediocre shooter and I sold it.

 

[dmthomp32]

I purchased a well loved K-22 Outdoorsman this year for $400 on GB. I wasn't sure if it would be for me, worn bluing and 6" barrel. Turns out the condition was better than I thought, the lockup is very tight and the trigger is amazing (also I love the recessed cylinder). I'm still confused by today's companies claiming that .22 revolvers need to have such heavy triggers due to the tough primers on rimfire ammo. The old revolvers have amazing triggers and go bang every time! That said my father in law as a 4" 617, the trigger isn't quite as nice but it is a great ten shot revolver.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MajorD]

To me S&W perfection would be the old school 17/18 series in blue finish with a 10 shot cylinder. I don't care for stainless or full lug barrels. My mid 60's era 17 in 10shot would be all the .22 handgun I would ever need.
Funny story I was shooting 200+ Yards steel with a .22 rifle the other day and a friend of mine said that would be really impressive if you did it with my 617!
I responded by hitting a 200+ yard gong 4 of 10 shots with his 4" 617.

 

[jstanfield103]

I don't own a 17 period, but I would like to say on my 6" 617 that the full heavy lug makes that sight just sit on targets when firing free hand.

 

[Green Frog]

The biggest advantage of the 617, IMHO at least is the great utility of stainless. For me this trumps most other factors in such a comparison. OTOH, that full underlug on most of the 617s is really unnecessary extra weight in most applications. My ideal, do-it-all K-frame 22 would be one of the early Ashland special order examples with 6" standard type barrel. Until then, I'll keep shooting my old 1948 vintage K-22. JMHO, YMMV.

Froggie

 

[Cardboard_killer]

I have had both 4" and 6" model 617s, and both are obnoxiously barrel heavy, making them uncomfortable to shoot. The only 617 I have now is that rare 4" "half lug" model. And even that is heavy, but much better balanced.

I've had six model 17s, from a pre-war K22 to a full lug 10 shot, to a "classic" line. I still have two. I've never regretted buying or shooting one, while I regretted both model 617s with full lugs.

On the other side of things, I am not a fan of the model 34/63. They are too small and light for my taste. And the triggers are necessarily heavier than the 17/617.

Now, if only they'd make a 12 shot N-frame 22lr, I'd be all over it.

 

[raylan007]

Oranges and Apples

I´m looking for a good revolver in 22lr and on my list are the M17 or the 617. Obviously the 617 is newer and the current models have 10 shots - but how is the trigger compared to an old M17? I have heard that the trigger on the M17 (or was it on th K-frame?) is always better than on the 617?

I´m waiting for a 627 in 357 mag. and I´m thinking that the 617 will be more like that in feel, size and weight, wich would be a plus..

It will certainly varie from gun to gun with the M17 depending on its history. The last K22 I had was perhaps the nicest of all the .22 S&W revolvers I have owned but it really is luck of the draw on the M17 or K22. The 617 is a totally different animal but would be my choice and I have owned a few 6 round and a NIB 10 round. You will never experience the amount of frustration with sticking cartridges with a 617 as you might with the older 17's or 18's and you will have the pleasure of a 10 round cylinder. What you won't have is potentially a slick trigger to be had on the M17. See? Just what I said apples and oranges. If possible I would suggest buying both. You won't regret it and there are some good deals to be had at the present.
P.S. The 4" is the way to go as the 617 is built like a tank.

 

[Cardboard_killer]

That will be the ONLY similarity to your M627 .357 magnum N frame, a much larger gun.

I think that the M627 weights about the same as the M617, something like 44oz.

 

[jack the toad]

Posted before but too bad these weren't full production items...

Two 6 & two 10 holer 617's...

 

[TAROMAN]

After purchasing my 617 10-shooter, the 17-2 and -4 have become safe queens.

And the lock hole bothers me not in the slightest.
Funny, but I can't even see it when shooting!

 

[joe44va]

It's not a matter of whether or not this will cost me, it's a matter of how much. Sandy Claws is bring me a 617 for Christmas or I won't let him on my new roof. Any suggestions on 6" or 4"?

 

[TAROMAN]

Any suggestions on 6" or 4"?

Aside from the obvious answer of "get both" it comes down to the mission you have in mind for it.
IMHO, the 4" balances better, the 6" full lug is pretty weighty.
As I planned on an optic, barrel length was irrelevant.
If I was planning to shoot open sights, the 6" might get the nod for its longer sight radius.
My 8-3/8" -4 was purchased specifically for IHMSA rimfire matches, a game at which it excelled.
Just wish they had made a 10-shooter like it.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Lobster Picnic]

My 17-3 with TT and TH is beautiful, accurate, and has a trigger as nice as any centerfire. Very accurate and no sticky chambers. It would be tough for any modern revolver to match the look, feel and craftsmanship of this one. I have no desire to "upgrade".

 

[STCM(SW)]

My 17-3 with TT and TH is beautiful, accurate, and has a trigger as nice as any centerfire. Very accurate and no sticky chambers. It would be tough for any modern revolver to match the look, feel and craftsmanship of this one. I have no desire to "upgrade".

Just what I have and agree totally!