A Lust-Worthy .22 Wheelgun

[bunnspecial]

Originally Posted By: billt460
.454 Casull. 65,000 PSI! That's more than a .460 Weatherby Magnum. It's not uncommon to have around 15% to 20% of factory ammo split the cases on the first firing.




If you want even more over the top, the 460 S&W Magnum adds some length to the 454 Casull case. The peak pressure is the same, but all else being equal case volume is king. A 460 Mag can manage well over 2000 fps with typical ~250 grain bullets.

I'm still kicking myself for not buying the Freedom Arms in 454 I found in a pawn shop a few years back for $900. It was in beautiful condition and still in its factory wood box. I don't think they knew what they had, as Freedom basically makes bespoke guns and starts at around $3K. It was-without a doubt-the nicest finished revolver I've ever handled(and I've handled my fair share of Pythons and the like). The cylinder gap was so tight that I could barely see through it(it had to have been .002), there was no perceptible end shake, and the action was bank-vault tight. The action was slicker than snot.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
I have this gun. Rough. Trigger sucks, to put it bluntly. I have smoothed it out a decent bit with clean up and spring kit. The forcing cone looks like it was manufactured by a group of hungry chimpanzees. It's the least accurate .22 I have. I REALLY wish I had bought the Ruger.
Mine is nothing like what you describe. Easy shooter and accurate as well.

 

[john_pifer]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
I like the S&W 617:

I have this gun. Rough. Trigger sucks, to put it bluntly. I have smoothed it out a decent bit with clean up and spring kit. The forcing cone looks like it was manufactured by a group of hungry chimpanzees. It's the least accurate .22 I have. I REALLY wish I had bought the Ruger.


That's surprising. Never heard any Smith & Wesson described this way.

Usually the Smiths are known for that butter-smooth DA pull. That's often quoted as being an advantage S&W revolvers have over their Ruger counterparts.

 

[john_pifer]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Not a high end gun, but I always liked the H&R Sportsman. Why? Because I am a sucker for a top break revolver. I wish someone out there still made a sa/da top break.

Man, that's a cool gun.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I have this gun. Rough. Trigger sucks, to put it bluntly. I have smoothed it out a decent bit with clean up and spring kit. The forcing cone looks like it was manufactured by a group of hungry chimpanzees. It's the least accurate .22 I have. I REALLY wish I had bought the Ruger.

Mine is nothing like what you describe. Easy shooter and accurate as well.


Originally Posted By: john_pifer
That's surprising. Never heard any Smith & Wesson described this way.

Usually the Smiths are known for that butter-smooth DA pull. That's often quoted as being an advantage S&W revolvers have over their Ruger counterparts.


I know, I expected much better - It was not low cost. I should have sent it back. I didn't want that hassle, I guess I probably still could. The trigger now is pretty decent. Honestly I have NOT had good experiences with new S&W's. In 2011 I bought the little Bodyguard .380. It was the only new gun I ever got a full refund on. Story for a different thread.

 

[john_pifer]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I have this gun. Rough. Trigger sucks, to put it bluntly. I have smoothed it out a decent bit with clean up and spring kit. The forcing cone looks like it was manufactured by a group of hungry chimpanzees. It's the least accurate .22 I have. I REALLY wish I had bought the Ruger.

Mine is nothing like what you describe. Easy shooter and accurate as well.


Originally Posted By: john_pifer
That's surprising. Never heard any Smith & Wesson described this way.

Usually the Smiths are known for that butter-smooth DA pull. That's often quoted as being an advantage S&W revolvers have over their Ruger counterparts.


I know, I expected much better - It was not low cost. I should have sent it back. I didn't want that hassle, I guess I probably still could. The trigger now is pretty decent. Honestly I have NOT had good experiences with new S&W's. In 2011 I bought the little Bodyguard .380. It was the only new gun I ever got a full refund on. Story for a different thread.



Yeah, interestingly enough, the Smith and the Ruger .22 revolvers are now exactly the same MSRP as listed on their websites - $829. Street prices are, of course, significantly lower. From what I've seen, the Smiths still go for a bit more.

I have a Smith & Wesson Model 686+ .357 Magnum. I'm a bit disappointed that the ejector rod keeps coming unscrewed. Wonder if that's a common problem. Talked to a gunsmith today who said I just need to use some softjaws to tighten it up.

 

[billt460]

Around here the Ruger GP-100 in .22 goes for between $50 and $75 less then the S&W 617. Davidson's shows about the same with most of their "Gun Genie" listings. They've got a ton of the 617's in stock. Few to no Ruger's.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: john_pifer
I have a Smith & Wesson Model 686+ .357 Magnum. I'm a bit disappointed that the ejector rod keeps coming unscrewed. Wonder if that's a common problem. Talked to a gunsmith today who said I just need to use some softjaws to tighten it up.
I have one of those too and I love it-- especially the seven shot capacity. I have never had any issues with any of my Smith & Wesson revolvers-- all of them function flawlessly and the fit and features are perfect too. However, most of my revolvers over 10 years old. Perhaps something has happened to the manufacturing process within Smith & Wesson that is attributing to all of these issues.

 

[john_pifer]

I think it's pretty common and easy to explain - the top dogs (S&W in this case) get complacent and lax, and the up-and-comers (Ruger) get better and better.

I'd challenge anyone to make the argument that the Smith is better anymore.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: john_pifer
I'd challenge anyone to make the argument that the Smith is better anymore.
Better than what and in what way? Like most everything else, such things are very subjective depending on the person, need, desire, expectations, etc. I have never liked Ruger revolvers or Glock semi-automatics, but that does not mean they are not great firearms, just my personal preference.

PS...OP - apologies for the hijack and OT material.

 

[Slick17601]

I get a kick out of how everyone says the Rugers are stronger than a S&W. They should be as caliber for caliber they have more metal to compensate for the cast frame. And there has never been a Ruger DA revolver that remotely looks as good as a Smith. In my book, S&W DA revolvers beat Ruger every time, especially when the price is nearly the same.

Ruger's sweet spot is SA revolvers. I also have a convertible Single Six that is a fine shooting .22 and hoot with .22 magnums.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: john_pifer
I'd challenge anyone to make the argument that the Smith is better anymore.


I tend to agree with that. People always like to compare todays, "child proof" S&W's to the pre Stainless years. When many of their brilliantly blued Magnum models were registered, and every one sold came in a blue velvet lined, wooden presentation case. I have many of those, and there is zero doubt they were beautifully crafted weapons that received much "hands on" skilled manufacturing. The bluing was polished to a Weatherby Mark V like shine. The lock work was as crisp as any Colt Python out there. They had to be. They were in competition with each other. Those Smith & Wesson guns were a much different breed of revolver, than what is being sold today under the Smith & Wesson name.

I'm not saying or suggesting the revolvers sold today by S&W are garbage. But they are nowhere near the same weapon. And it's not because S&W has become complacent or "lazy". It's simply a matter production cost. The more polishing, fitting, and handwork a firearm receives, the more costly it becomes. One only has to look at the Remington 870 Wingmaster, and compare it to a 870 Express. Basically they are the same gun parts wise. With the exception of the substitution of a few polymer and MIM manufactured parts. But the Wingmaster costs over twice what the Express model goes for. And not every gun shop stocks them. Especially the, "buy em' cheap, and stack em' deep", big box stores that move the Express models like a local Mini Mart moves coffee and breakfast burrito's.

The reason is all of the hand polishing, deburring, and fitting that it receives. Highly polished rust bluing is a very labor intensive process when compared to the cheaply applied matte finish, that covers every flaw like a heavy coat of latex paint. And has every "tacticool", 20 something mall ninja creaming in his jeans. Meticulous hand deburring, polishing, and fitting of internal parts takes time. And in manufacturing time costs money. Also, nicely finished Walnut is far more costly than cheaply stained hardwood or injection molded plastic.

The bottom line is Smith & Wesson still builds a nice weapon. As nice as they can afford to make it. And therein lies the difference. But like many guns that are no longer in production because of manufacturing cost, they're not the same revolvers they were 50 years ago. There are some things that just cannot be automated.

 

[bunnspecial]

FWIW, I bought a used Model 19-3 from a gun shop, and didn't realize when I bought it that the ejector rod was stripped. It locked up tight the first time I shot it.

The shop sent it to S&W for me, and about 3 months later it came back to me with a new ejector star, ejector rod, and recut forcing cone at no cost. For anyone so interested, the ejector star is a hand-fit part on an S&W revolver, and it is crucial to the lockup and timing of the gun.

The fact that they replaced it is even more significant, as a 19-3(actually up through the 19-4) is a "pinned and recessed" revolver. The recessed part means that the case heads sit flush with back of the cylinder. S&W quit doing this on centerfire handguns in 1982(it was only ever done on rimfires and magnums). They were able to install the correct recessed star on my gun(in 2015) and then cut it to fit the gun.

The fact that it had been through who knows how many owners in 40 years didn't change the cost-$0.00.

I don't currently own any post lock S&Ws, and the only MIM gun I have is my 629 Mountain Gun. Even so, the post-lock guns I've owned have been fine. The Airweight 438(38 Special "body guard") frame I bought new in 2012 was as good as you could ask for from a J-frame action.

I'm still sticking to pre-MIM guns and preferably P&R when possible, but the new S&Ws I've bought have been great.

 

[bunnspecial]

Originally Posted By: billt460
I tend to agree with that. People always like to compare todays, "child proof" S&W's to the pre Stainless years. When many of their brilliantly blued Magnum models were registered, and every one sold came in a blue velvet lined, wooden presentation case. I have many of those, and there is zero doubt they were beautifully crafted weapons that received much "hands on" skilled manufacturing. The bluing was polished to a Weatherby Mark V like shine. The lock work was as crisp as any Colt Python out there. They had to be. They were in competition with each other. Those Smith & Wesson guns were a much different breed of revolver, than what is being sold today under the Smith & Wesson name.


As a side note, the lovely wood-boxed 27-2 and 29-2s(I have a couple both with and without the wood box) are not "Registered Magnums."

The Registered Magnum was the first 357 Magnum revolver that was produced after the cartridge was developed jointly by S&W, Elmer Keith, and Phillip Sharpe. There were 4000 produced, and they were completely custom ordered. Although not a true bespoke gun, you could still order any order barrel length in 1/4" increments between 3 1/2" and 8 3/4". You also ordered sight type, grip type, and how you wanted the gun to come sighted from the factory. Each gun was "registered" to its owner by the factory.

They truly are a work of art. A friend of mine had 37 of them at one time, but paired down his collection to where he only kept two(with sequential registration numbers). I never saw the collection in whole, but he'd throw us a bone and bring one or two to a gun show every once in a great while.

That's not to denigrate the wood box guns. Among my favorite and best shooting guns is an 8 3/8" 27-2.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: bunnspecial
As a side note, the lovely wood-boxed 27-2 and 29-2s(I have a couple both with and without the wood box) are not "Registered Magnums."


Correct. I didn't mean to infer they were. But they were a much better fit and finished revolver than todays wire brushed, child proof, Stainless models. The S&W of those days went away after Lear Siegler sold the company to Tompkins PLC. Then, after the Ed Shultz / Clinton debacle, when Safe-T-Hammer bought the company from them some years later, (post X-Frame), quality actually improved.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
I like the S&W 617:

I was going to ask - how this Ruger would compare. I love my S&W 686, and I've had my eye on a 617.

I have a ruger single six .22, but it's a different animal. Wonder how this subject ruger compares to the S&W 617?

 

[totegoat]

I have enjoyed my K22 since 1966.