Why Are 617s In Such High Demand

[Kernel Crittenden]

bdGreen,

What's the story on the 4-inch 10-shot no-lug? Never knew there was such a beast.

The 6-shots are from a well known limited order to Ashland Shooting Supply in 1991. 4-inch and 6-inch (200) of each were made.

 

[H Richard]

Hint, Hint S&W, why not make more of these 4" and 6" stainless 10 round 617's without the full under lug!!!!

 

[Big Cholla]

617/10/4

[QUOTE

Why are these such a hot item with the price point they command? Plus .22LR ammo is nearly impossible to get in AZ. I would think that most folks would be looking for a little cheaper gun for a .22LR.[/QUOTE]

Try one for a little bit and IMHO you will find they are worth the price. .................... Big Cholla

 

[Neumann]

There are no shortcuts in the 617 compared to any full-sized Smith revolvers. There was a brief stint with an aluminum cylinder, which has fortunately been abandoned. No other brand has as nice lockwork as the 617, DA or SA. History indicates that you can get your full purchase price (or more) for it in the future, if you are foolish enough to sell.

I passed on a 617, but snapped up a 17 no dash at a good price. I like the balance of a 6" 17, which is comparable to a 4" 617 with a longer sight radius. After punching out a 1.5" group at 10 yards, the rangemaster was unimpressed. "With a barrel that long, it's practically resting on the paper."

A .22 revolver is, to me, a paper and plinking gun. I'm not remotely tempted to carry it in the field, much less for self defense. I could dispatch a snake or varmint just as easily with a .357 or .45. A .22 revolver is fun to shoot, ears optional, and ideal for teaching neophytes the basics of sight alignment and trigger control in the absence of recoil.

The 17 has an adjustable trigger stop, no longer available for a variety of reasons. The trigger is burnished to a 2.5# pull with about 0.030 travel - just enough to clear the notch with about 0.010" to spare. It's like it never happened.

 

[TTSH]

There was a brief stint with an aluminum cylinder, which has fortunately been abandoned.

Help me out here. What versions (or production years) had the aluminum cylinder? I was not aware that it had been discontinued.

 

[5Wire]

Help me out here. What versions (or production years) had the aluminum cylinder? I was not aware that it had been discontinued.

Somewhere around 1997 - 1998 with the dash three. I had a dash two with a stainless cylinder. They appear to have been mixed in during the transition.

 

[at_liberty]

There was a brief stint with an aluminum cylinder, which has fortunately been abandoned.

You can't post things like that and not be challenged, when effectively condemning someone's prized gun. So what's your story about the aluminum cylinders?

 

[Usmc5811]

I have a 6" 617-2 and love it. I don't mind the aluminum cylinder it is harder to clean without marring the finish, but not that bad. Considering I payed less than $550 for it I am very happy. And it is a good trainer for my 6" 686-5 plus. The deals are out there, I also picked up a 63-5 and a 6" 17-4 for $550 or less. These have all been in the past 5 months. It seems that a lot of people are selling their 22's for good prices since they have trouble finding ammo for it. But it seems like 22 is getting easier to find so I see the prices going back up. Just my 2 cents

 

[Engine49guy]

Other SS variations exist that seem to turn up more in Europe .

 

[Camster]

You can't post things like that and not be challenged, when effectively condemning someone's prized gun. So what's your story about the aluminum cylinders?

Gunnies like all steel construction for it durability,metal with the same finish,metal where the same level of care can be applied overall,and similar weight behavior of the parts.Swinging out a lightweight cylinder on a two pound gun is just wrong. ;-P
No condemnation-just stating the facts concerning a short run of ten shot guns before they got their metalworking capabilities of 10 round .22 stainless cylinders up to par.
The alloy cylinders will function fine with proper care-the stainless versions will just do it a little better and longer.
I'm not a fan of the alloy cylinder 617s.I am even less of a fan for the alloy cylinder 17s.

 

[TTSH]

Somewhere around 1997 - 1998 with the dash three. I had a dash two with a stainless cylinder. The appear to have been mixed in during the transition.

Thanks very much. Guess I should be paying more attention to the brand new guns and not just used pre-locks.

 

[TANZER]

617PC

My 617PC [ profile barrel ] is located in GA. It made the trip back to the USA from Germany.

 

[Camster]

My 617PC [ profile barrel ] is located in GA. It made the trip back to the USA from Germany.

At one time,I thought about having the lug on my 6 inch 617 milled back a few inches to lighten the front end weight,sort of an unrefined magnum lug profile.
I think that if S&W made another run of lugless 4 and 6 inch 617s,they'd fine a ready market with collectors and shooters.

 

[5Wire]

Gunnies like all steel construction for it durability,metal with the same finish,metal where the same level of care can be applied overall,and similar weight behavior of the parts...

The stainless steel cylinder replaced the alloy cylinder for cosmetic reasons as far as I know, the alloy didn't sell well.

Reintroduced in October of 1997 with an all-stainless steel 10-shot cylinder due to poor sales with the alloy cylinder.
Supica, Jim; Nahas, Richard (2006-12-20). Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson 3rd (Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson) (p. 238). F+W Media, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

And as far as collectability goes, here's how the BBGV 35th Edition sees it, (emphasis added):

Add $50 for 8 3/8 in. barrel (disc. 2002).
Add 10% for 10 shot aluminum cylinder.
Add 100% for special limited production variations.
Subtract 5% for 6 shot cylinder.In 2000, this model included target hammer with 8 3/8 in. barrel. 4 and 6 in. barrels were standard during a limited production period in 1991.

 

[MattJames]

I have a -2 with the aluminum cylinder. I think that it is kind of neat in a way and it functions just fine

 

[at_liberty]

I have a 617 no dash stainless polished and a 617-2 with an all bead blast finish....both pre-lock. I suspect the 617-2 has an aluminum cylinder (#series CCJ), and thus the bead blasting being the better finish. It has only 100 rounds through it. It was getting a cramped cylinder when warm, possibly the tight tolerance parts heating at different rates, but S&W fixed it for me without cost. They called it "excess material", with the gun appearing to have had the face of the cylinder honed.

 

[raylan007]

No Comparison

Recently, I had to settle for a brand new Ruger SP101 8-shot .22 LR revolver in lieu of a used S&W Model 617 4" pre-lock, which is what I really wanted. The few used 617 pre-locks that come up for sale around here are almost always 6" but I don't like the extra weight or balance. The very few used 4" pre-locks that come up for sale go extremely fast and for the big bucks. And I won't spring for a new or newer IL gun under any circumstances... no thanks Smith & Wesson.

Yes, I would have preferred to buy a pre-lock Model 17 or Model 18 or a pre-17 K-22 but it just wasn't in the cards. I looked all over and couldn't find one that I could afford in reasonable (undamaged, corrosion-free) condition.

I to purchased the Ruger SP 101, as a necessity on GB. I failed to do my homework and was stunned to find that the S/A was 12 lbs. I find that to be very impractical for a firearm that has the potential to fire many, many rounds. I also found that the option to lessen the 12 LB S/A trigger is not possible by even 1 or 2 lbs. without misfires. On the positive side I starting shopping for S&W models 17,18, and finally a new M617 with the IL that has kept you from enjoying many a day at the range or plinking with a revolver that can only be described as smooth as silk. I own all of the above noted .22 L/R and would not choose one over the other, I love them all equally. As far as the IL that has the potential to save the life of a child that suffers death or injury at a rate of 5 per day due to pure negligence I will accept the aesthetic imperfection it causes my M617. I find the IL a heck of a lot less offensive and purposeful than the ridiculous warning that Ruger plasters on the barrel of there revolvers Don't get me wrong as I think Ruger makes a fine revolver but in the case of the M617 and the SP101 you are getting more than what you pay for with the M617. Hope you get a chance to experience the difference at some point. Regards

 

[shawn mccarver]

Why are these such a hot item with the price point they command?

I will take a stab at this one: Because the 617 is one of the finest revolvers ever made, and it is a very worthy successor to the K22, Models 17 and 18.

 

[TTSH]

I too purchased the Ruger SP 101, as a necessity on GB. I failed to do my homework and was stunned to find that the S/A was 12 lbs. I find that to be very impractical for a firearm that has the potential to fire many, many rounds. I also found that the option to lessen the 12 LB S/A trigger is not possible by even 1 or 2 lbs. without misfires.

I was aware that the SP101 trigger pull can be a bit on the heavy side and no match for a Smith & Wesson. Once the gun is broken in, I'll let you know how the numbers look. If they are not in spec, back it will go to Ruger for fixing.

On the positive side I starting shopping for S&W models 17, 18, and finally a new M617 with the IL that has kept you from enjoying many a day at the range or plinking with a revolver that can only be described as smooth as silk. I own all of the above noted .22 L/R and would not choose one over the other, I love them all equally.

I don't blame you. The lack of even one full-size S&W .22 revolver represents an embarrassing hole in my S&W revolver collection that I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to fill for a very long time.

As far as the IL that has the potential to save the life of a child that suffers death or injury at a rate of 5 per day due to pure negligence I will accept the aesthetic imperfection it causes my M617. I find the IL a heck of a lot less offensive and purposeful than the ridiculous warning that Ruger plasters on the barrel of their revolvers.

So noted. The IL is a non-starter for me... a discussion for some other place and time.

Don't get me wrong as I think Ruger makes a fine revolver but in the case of the M617 and the SP101 you are getting more than what you pay for with the M617. Hope you get a chance to experience the difference at some point. Regards

I'm sure I will. But for now, a proper pre-lock 4" 617 is financially out of the question. Even stretching (financially) for the $500 SP101 was awful tough for this retired old fool.

 

[Mark6005]

Try to figure it out we can't find 22lr ammo most of the time and can't find a quality s&w to fire it from if you have it. I did get a brick of aguila 22 (sp) yesterday for $39 for 500.