S&W Model 63 .22LR

[ron4735]

MAY purchase this revolver soon for outdoor plinking and indoor target practice. Is anyone aware of ANY problems of any kind with this gun? Please be brutally honest and nit pickey. 2nd choice is a model 617 4" barrel only because it is much heavier than the model 63. I shoot my wife's model 642 AirWeight some times. I have friends with a Ruger GP100 who want me to consider it too. Thanks very much in advance to all who respond.

 

[OKFC05]

Well Ron, you have covered a lot of ground with your choices, and it mostly depends on what you want the gun to do.
I have all but the Ruger.
Model 63: Light, easy to carry, very accurate (all .22s have preferences in ammo you have to discover), reliable, smooth shooting.
Model 617: I have a 6" for metallic silhouettes, and the added weight makes it easier to shoot. However, I have no intention to carry this weight for a casual outdoor stroll.
Model 642: Pocket carry defense .38. Always room to carry along on a quick trip to the store. Not good for target shooting.
The Ruger is a full sized service revolver; I prefer a K or L frame S&W, but the Ruger is sturdy and well made.

 

[ColbyBruce]

I own a 4" barrel S&W 63, a snubbie 317 AL, a 650 .22 mag as well as a Charter Arms Off Duty snubbie. I use standard velocity ammo in the LR guns and swap the stocks to better fit my hand. I can hit reasonably well with them, though I shoot semi autos better.

I had a K22, pre model 18 a few years ago and did not care for it. If I had to carry a gun that size then I would rather tote a 10 or 64.

 

[RGVshooter]

I think any S&W revolver is a no brainer good choice. Main difference between the 617 & 63 is the 617 is built on the larger heavier K frame, is 10 shots vs the 63 is on a smaller J frame & holds 8. If you're planning on target shooting, maybe get together with the guys for a informal match, I would suggest the 617. if you just want to plink, have it with you out in the woods, hiking/fishing etc, I say go for the 63... Either one is a good choice IMO

 

[loeman]

I currently own a Md 63 that I bought new around 1979. And I've owned another that I no longer have. They are great guns, light, easy to carry, accurate and really cool! My only complaint regards the standard magna stocks. They just don't fill my hand enough, but they sure look good. A grip adapter or a set of aftermarket stocks is an easy fix. I also have a Md 17, Md 18 and several other .22s. But for outdoor plinking or small varmint control, I prefer the Md 63. The downside about not having one is how much it costs to get one. Prices seem to indicate this fine little gun has quite a following.

 

[kraynky]

I don't own a 63 (yet), but hope to one day. I have a 10 shot model 617-6 4" and a 6 shot model 17-2, and love them both. But both are a bit heavy for everyday yard carry, and my woods walking is usually with something larger. I think a 63 would be the "Goldilocks" of the 22 revolver world.

As a side note; I am a big fan of the Kel-Tec PMR 30 for this purpose as well. 30 rounds of WMR and so light you forget you have a gun on. It gets dirty, wet and scratched up, but it was ugly when it was brand new. I can wipe it down with a sweaty bandana and not worry about it. But it ain't got the class of a S&W revolver.

 

[H Richard]

The Model 63, (and it's counterpart Mod 34) are the est training tools. Not too big And heavy, not too large. Youth and women take to them and love them. I have both, and a 617-6 and a 17-4. The K Frames age better for more formal target shooting, but heavier. It depends on what you are going to do with it. To me the best all around would be the Mod 18, K Frame 4" barrel .22.

 

[Drm50]

The 63 is a fine plinker, same gun as 34 only SS. Depending on
what you want it for you might want to consider a 17 or 18.
The K frame is easier for most people to shoot because of size
and weight. All are top notch revolvers.

 

[Cardboard_killer]

The K Frames age better for more formal target shooting, but heavier. It depends on what you are going to do with it. To me the best all around would be the Mod 18, K Frame 4" barrel .22.

To be as negative as I can about the model 63: A model 63 uses a coil spring hammer spring, and the trigger weights less. A model 63 always requires a heavier trigger pull to ignite a round than a k-frame. The light weight also causes me to have a harder time keeping the gun steady. It also has a shorter sight radius.

To me, the model 617 will do everything a model 63 will do and do it better except it is a far heavier gun. A model 17 or 18 weighs less than the 617 (stainless steel weights more), but is still heavier than the model 63.

I have two j-frame 22s, and they are hardly ever used compared to my model 17s. I don't shoot my model 18 as much as it is in such good condition that I want to keep it that way. However, I don't particularly like model 617s as they are poorly balanced and weight too much for anything but range use. Given the choice of a 6" 617 and a 4" 63, I'd buy a 63. But an old model 18 would be my preference, or a 17 failing getting an 18.

 

[D Brown]

If you have a line on a Model 63, get it! They're much harder to find than any of the other models you mentioned. They're all good, but the 63 is a blast to shoot!

 

[Old cop]

My 63 is a 4" w/adjustable sights and oversized S&W target wood grips, very much like the one pictured above. I shot it a couple of days ago and this is one I'll never let go.

 

[Telecaster]

I bought one recently and absolutely love it. I had the trigger smoothed out right away and it made the pull weight feel a lot lighter. One of my favorite guns of any type. Zero problems.

 

[Lobster Picnic]

I have the current model 63-5 8-shots with 3" barrel. It's a very nice gun, feels great and balances well. I think 8 shots in a compact frame size is a good compromise. The finish is very good and tolerances are tight. The cylinder especially is beautifully machined and finished.

It has been 100% flawless and reliable with all ammo. I have not had even a hint of sticky ejection, and not had a light strike.

I have one nit-pick and a general complaint. The nit-pick is that the fiber optic front sight was not bright at all. I've seen pictures of the 63-5 where the front sight really pops, but mine was quite dull. Not a huge deal, and I can replace it or put a glob of glow paint on it.

The general complaint was the heavy DA trigger. It wasn't monstrous or anything but was pretty stiff. I know this is required for reliable rimfire ignition, but this is one of the few Smiths I own that is a candidate for a trigger job. I do realize as a hiking, trapping or plinking gun it will most often be used in single action, and the SA trigger is quite good. So I may just let the DA trigger smooth out on its own over the years.

I also own a very fine 6" K-22 which is notably more accurate in my hands than the 63-5. This is to be expected. If you want the best accuracy, the 617 will easily top the 63-5. The benefit of the J-frame is the size and weight.

 

[KSDeputy]

I will say of all the handguns I have, the last one I would sell is my model 63. I have had it since they were introduced, and I still love it.

 

[S&W ucla]

For mainly target shooting, 617. For carry, plinking, some target shooting (light weight and shorter bbl makes it a little harder to hold for me) , 63. As Lobster Picnic says, 8 shots 3"bbl makes a really handy and fun gun! I rarely shoot DA so stiff pull doesn't bother me. SA is nice. I may change to a plain ramp front as not too fond of fiber optic (It was also a little loose but locktite fixed that). I have changed to Hogue bantam grip since pic was taken.

 

[BE Mike]

I have the 63 and it is a great small gun, especially for introducing youngsters and ladies to handgun shooting. Having said that, why aren't you considering the Ruger SP 101?

 

[VaTom]

Love my Model 63 with pinned barrel (1981 Vintage). As another poster said they are hard to find and if can get one at a fair price jump on it. The older models are 6 shot - I believe the newer ones are eight? Never a problem. Shown here with a vintage S&W holster. I also found some NOS J Frame target grips for it on ebay. Makes it easier to shoot for those with bigger hands.

 

[Wee Hooker]

As others have mentioned, it really depends what you wnat to do with it.

I used to have a 63 and 34. They were a nicely built guns but I struggled with their small ( J frame) sizing . I just couldn't shoot these little guns as accurately as I knew they were capable of . I also rarely field carried them so sold them off for lack of purpose.

I now have "a couple" of 617's and 17's. For me, their larger frames, increased sight radius, smoother triggers and extra weight make them tack drivers. I think the K frames are the perfect match for the .22 cartridge.

As for the Ruger DA 22;s. I've had a couple of SP101's in .22 that were big disappointments. I've recently handled the new Ruger GP100 in 22 and have to say it seems nice. However, the GP100 does not match the trigger smoothness of my S&W 22s so I have (so far) passed.

 

[wundudnee]

I like my 63, but my hands are large so I put on these Badger grips. I use my model 18s more.

 

[saemetric]

I've had mine since 1991.

 

[Nightowl]

I bought an older used 63 several months ago. It came with the target stocks, which I consider a must. When I got it, it had a .101 rear sight blade on it and shot several inches high at 7 yards!! I ordered a .126 rear sight and received a .146 rear sight. So, I installed it, and it was right on. I have seen very few 63 around over the years. They are fun guns to shoot, so if you can latch on to that one for a reasonable price, that would be a good thing.

Edit: Added photos of new .146 rear sight blade, pinned black ramp sight and whole gun with target stocks, Safariland holster. I had the holster for some time, as it was advertised for a 4 inch K frame and it is a J frame holster. I also changed the trigger to a .312 smooth combat trigger. A fun gun!!

 

[britbike1]

As I mentioned on another post about 63's it the last one I'd sell.
I have smallerhands so the J's fit me better. Here is my woods outfit. A Canadian Russel and my 63. Bianci holster.

 

[shocker]

I put my 63-5 in the will never sell till I'm in the nursing home category. I really can't complain about it other than J-frame holsters for 3" barrels aren't common.

If I want target shooting type accuracy I go to my Browning Nomad - glass rod trigger and long sight radius.

 

[D Brown]

I have the current model 63-5 8-shots with 3" barrel. It's a very nice gun, feels great and balances well. I think 8 shots in a compact frame size is a good compromise. The finish is very good and tolerances are tight. The cylinder especially is beautifully machined and finished.

It has been 100% flawless and reliable with all ammo. I have not had even a hint of sticky ejection, and not had a light strike.

I have one nit-pick and a general complaint. The nit-pick is that the fiber optic front sight was not bright at all. I've seen pictures of the 63-5 where the front sight really pops, but mine was quite dull. Not a huge deal, and I can replace it or put a glob of glow paint on it.

The general complaint was the heavy DA trigger. It wasn't monstrous or anything but was pretty stiff. I know this is required for reliable rimfire ignition, but this is one of the few Smiths I own that is a candidate for a trigger job. I do realize as a hiking, trapping or plinking gun it will most often be used in single action, and the SA trigger is quite good. So I may just let the DA trigger smooth out on its own over the years.

I also own a very fine 6" K-22 which is notably more accurate in my hands than the 63-5. This is to be expected. If you want the best accuracy, the 617 will easily top the 63-5. The benefit of the J-frame is the size and weight.

I can't think of any reason why you shouldn't be able to lighten the DA pull on your Model 63. I put a Wolf spring kit in mine many years ago and it has run flawlessly ever since. I can't honestly say I've never fired mine in single action mode; I might have many years ago, and have since forgotten doing so. I can say that for at least the last fifteen years, my Model 63 has only been fired double action, and that includes shooting multiple raccoons, possums, and other vermin around the house.

 

[D Brown]

I bought an older used 63 several months ago. It came with the target stocks, which I consider a must. When I got it, it had a .101 rear sight blade on it and shot several inches high at 7 yards!! I ordered a .126 rear sight and received a .146 rear sight. So, I installed it, and it was right on. I have seen very few 63 around over the years. They are fun guns to shoot, so if you can latch on to that one for a reasonable price, that would be a good thing.

That's interesting. I haven't ever measured my rear sight, but when I first purchased my Model 63, it shot low with the rear sight raised all the way to maximum elevation. Luckily, I had a gunsmith friend with a milling machine and it only took him a few minutes to mill a sufficient amount off the top of the front sight to clear up my elevation problems!

 

[df06]

I have a 63,3" and a 617, 4". Had a 6" but sold it for the 4".
Have had zero problems with them. Both are great pistols.
The 617 is a lot larger and heavier and holds ten rounds.
I shoot the 617 better but if I was going to pack it around much, I'd get the 63.
You can't go wrong with these two.

 

[glenncal1]

OP- shoot them all if you can and see which one you like best, there is a difference in trigger between a J and a K frame. The GP100 is like the 617 a big relatively heavy gun (I have a 4" and it is a very nice and accurate gun). For me a 4" K-frame sized gun (S&W or Ruger) would fit the bill, but I am tall with larger hands so I don't mind the size. For CCW I carry a J frame fwiw.

 

[fkd713]

I am fortunate to have a M17, M617 (6"), M34 (4"), M18, M317 & a M63. Both M317 and 63 have 3" barrels w the fiber optic front sight. Remainder have black partridge or blade sights. All are a joy to shoot. More precision available with the 617 & 17 due to heft and barrel length although black sights are difficult on some targets (black). 34 really tough to use for precision shooting with the blade but still fun. M18 with Baughman ramp is an easy shooter and is a good go between. M317 & 63 are a bit of a challenge for me to maintain good accuracy due to their barrel lengths although the front sights are easy to acquire. My wife loves the 63. I tend to shoot the 617 more if for no other reason it has 10 shots and there is less reloading. You can't make a bad decision here. Or go semi auto and get a PC M41 and put a red-dot sight on it if you really want a tack driver. Good luck in your decision.

 

[glenwolde]

I currently own a Md 63 that I bought new around 1979. And I've owned another that I no longer have. They are great guns, light, easy to carry, accurate and really cool! My only complaint regards the standard magna stocks. They just don't fill my hand enough, but they sure look good. A grip adapter or a set of aftermarket stocks is an easy fix. I also have a Md 17, Md 18 and several other .22s. But for outdoor plinking or small varmint control, I prefer the Md 63. The downside about not having one is how much it costs to get one. Prices seem to indicate this fine little gun has quite a following.

Me too! Except it was 1980. I agree on the grips, if you want some control try..

Pachmayr grip for Smith & Wesson J frame SQUARE BUTT ONLY frames | eBay

They helped me a lot. I hate the damn red ramp front sight.

 

[adwjc]

Ron,

I can bring up one issue that no one else here mentioned - sticky extraction.

As soon as the cylinder heats up, you can't get the empty shells out w/o pushing them with a (cleaning) rod. Got this one around 1979-80.

I don't have this problem with my (K frame) Model 18 or 34.

Tried all the recommended cures, none worked.