Good, cheap revolver

[kazztek]

Hi group,

I have a Ruger Mark III and its a great pistol, but it jams frequently with hollow points, of which I have two bricks. I wanted to get a simple revolver to shoot as well and teach my son about, and clearly this gun won't jam with these hollow points.

I dont understand why some of these are approaching $500 for a simple pistol - can anyone explain why a .22 revolver is more than a S&W M&P ?

Where can I get an inexpensive revolver for this purpose ?

Thanks.

[Kyle Reese]

Hi group,

I have a Ruger Mark III and its a great pistol, but it jams frequently with hollow points, of which I have two bricks. I wanted to get a simple revolver to shoot as well and teach my son about, and clearly this gun won't jam with these hollow points.

I dont understand why some of these are approaching $500 for a simple pistol - can anyone explain why a .22 revolver is more than a S&W M&P ?

Where can I get an inexpensive revolver for this purpose ?

Thanks.

These here are inexpensive (http://shop.reedsammo.com/Czech-Point-4-22-Long-Rifle-Revolver-CZPT241.htm), but it doesn't appear that you're going to get S&W quality. If you're just looking for an inexpensive plinker, this might fit the bill.

Here's a thread from about a year ago discussing the Czechpoint revolvers, for full disclosure on them.

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?6825-Czechpoint-revolvers

[Tamara]

A S&W .22 revolver is the hardest thing to sell to the average consumer in the handgun showcase.

We are conditioned by a generation of .22 plinker self-loading pistols to think that a rimfire should naturally be cheaper than a centerfire, right? But even a classic Ruger Mark II has a barrel threaded into a piece of tubing, mounted atop a gripframe that's just a couple of big stampings joined together; it's essentially a well-polished Sten gun with fancy stocks.

Meanwhile, over in the revolver case, the only real difference between the Model 617 .22 revolver and the Model 686 .357 Magnum is the size of the hole drilled in the barrel, but having walked past the auto case to get there, our brains tell us that the price should be lower for the .22 because it's just a .22. It's more expensive than an M&P auto because, with the exception of its barrel and rather elaborately-machined slide, the M&P is a collection of injection molded parts and stampings that are much cheaper to make than a Hand Ejector revolver.

This is the same sort of economics that killed the Woodsman and relegated the 41 to an esoteric niche product, despite an attempt to come out with a sort of de-contented matte blue Highway Patrolman-esque version in the late '50s.

It's kind of ironic that the inexpensively-constructed Ruger self-loaders are themselves threatened from below by products of injection molded polymer and cast zinc alloy, for people who don't want to shell out the bucks for a "high end" Mk. III auto.

There are inexpensive .22 revolvers on the market, but most tend to be fairly crude constructions of painted zinc, like the Heritage. If all you're looking for is a plinker as opposed to an heirloom, and understand that you could certainly wear one out with a high enough volume of shooting, then I reckon they'll do.

[NETim]

I guess you could try picking up an old High Standard Sentinel. They're about half of what an old S&W is going for these days but they're still not cheap.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=393109182

[Tamara]

I guess you could try picking up an old High Standard Sentinel. They're about half of what an old S&W is going for these days but they're still not cheap.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=393109182

My roomie is becoming quite the collector of Double Action Rimfires What Aren't Smiths, and the Sentinel is her absolute favorite (http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2013/05/sunday-rangeday.html). She notes that even for the nicer of her Sentinels, she paid about a third of what she did for her K-22 (and she got a screaming deal on that pre-18.)

[LSP972]

A S&W .22 revolver is the hardest thing to sell to the average consumer in the handgun showcase.

We are conditioned by a generation of .22 plinker self-loading pistols to think that a rimfire should naturally be cheaper than a centerfire, right? But even a classic Ruger Mark II has a barrel threaded into a piece of tubing, mounted atop a gripframe that's just a couple of big stampings joined together; it's essentially a well-polished Sten gun with fancy stocks.

Meanwhile, over in the revolver case, the only real difference between the Model 617 .22 revolver and the Model 686 .357 Magnum is the size of the hole drilled in the barrel, but having walked past the auto case to get there, our brains tell us that the price should be lower for the .22 because it's just a .22. It's more expensive than an M&P auto because, with the exception of its barrel and rather elaborately-machined slide, the M&P is a collection of injection molded parts and stampings that are much cheaper to make than a Hand Ejector revolver.

This is the same sort of economics that killed the Woodsman and relegated the 41 to an esoteric niche product, despite an attempt to come out with a sort of de-contented matte blue Highway Patrolman-esque version in the late '50s.

It's kind of ironic that the inexpensively-constructed Ruger self-loaders are themselves threatened from below by products of injection molded polymer and cast zinc alloy, for people who don't want to shell out the bucks for a "high end" Mk. III auto.

There are inexpensive .22 revolvers on the market, but most tend to be fairly crude constructions of painted zinc, like the Heritage. If all you're looking for is a plinker as opposed to an heirloom, and understand that you could certainly wear one out with a high enough volume of shooting, then I reckon they'll do.

Well-stated truth. Its all about perception. Revolvers are "old school"; therefore they should be less expensive... or so thinks the nimrod.

Actually, I would think that the .22LR LCR might fill the OP's need, with the most "bang for the buck".

.

[JHC]

Locally I've stalked a couple of older Model 34 kit guns but it's a hard $700. I'm going to look around for a High Standard Sentinel. Kinda cool too.

[SGT_Calle]

I've enjoyed shooting my step-dad's ruger single six but I think they are still in the higher price range.

[Chuck Haggard]

One of my best investments has been my 317.

I have a .50cal ammo can of all the odds and ends of plinking days from back when all I could afford was shooting .22s, many of the rounds in that can are shorts or longs, back when those were easy to find and actually cheaper than long rifles. I can scoop rounds from that can with abandon when shooting the wheelgun. Can't do that with my semi-auto .22s

The .22lr LCR I bought is a decent little gun, and fun to shoot, and the sights aren't too difficult to improve, but I think teaching a kid to shoot with one might be a bit frustrating for the kid due to the gun being DAO


Ruger needs to make that exposed hammer LCR in .22lr and with a 4" barrel.

[UNK]

Try a new magazine. If that doesnt make a difference then try a different ammo. The Ruger should run on something...

Hi group,

I have a Ruger Mark III and its a great pistol, but it jams frequently with hollow points, of which I have two bricks. I wanted to get a simple revolver to shoot as well and teach my son about, and clearly this gun won't jam with these hollow points.

I dont understand why some of these are approaching $500 for a simple pistol - can anyone explain why a .22 revolver is more than a S&W M&P ?

Where can I get an inexpensive revolver for this purpose ?

Thanks.

[TheTrevor]

I have a Mark II which feeds pretty much anything I throw at it. No kidding, it will function 100% on stuff that causes 50% FTF/FTE failure rates in semi-auto rifles I've worked on for other folks. You may want to read this and take a close look at the magazines you're using:

http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/10/mkii-magazine-tweak.html?m=1

If you want to get a revolver regardless, and who wouldn't, the LCR and Ruger Single family are both excellent options.

[LSP972]

I think teaching a kid to shoot with one might be a bit frustrating for the kid due to the gun being DAO




Point taken; and agreed with. Didn't consider that.

My 317 shot feloniously high at anything past arms reach. I had the snubbie; I understand the three inch example is much better for a plinker/field gun. But man... I've shot Hi-Points that had lighter triggers. Even an Apex kit didn't do it much good.

.

[Tamara]

But man... I've shot Hi-Points that had lighter triggers. Even an Apex kit didn't do it much good.

.
Totally agree.

In my experience, there's just not much you can do with the trigger on an I/J-frame deuce-deuce and still bust caps reliably. :(

[Tamara]

Incidentally, this is one of the situations that makes me wish I could recommend Taurus unconditionally and with a clean conscience. Smith's abandoned the basic steel small-frame revolver market, and if Taurus could just get consistent with the QC on their 94, I'd be recommending them left and right.

[jetfire]

Ruger makes an Sp101 with a four inch barrel in .22LR.

[ford.304]

Ruger makes an Sp101 with a four inch barrel in .22LR.

And an amateur polish job will make a night and day difference on an SP101 trigger.

[Tamara]

Ruger makes an Sp101 with a four inch barrel in .22LR.

Of course, while an SP101 is cheaper than a Smith 617, it's still far from "found at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box" in the price department.

If anything, I had a harder time selling those versus 317s and 617s because, not only were they .22s, but they were Rugers! ("This 22/45 is only this much, so how come this .22 SP101 is so much more?")

[MGW]

Buddy of mine just picked up a cherry stainless model 60 for less than 4 bills with 100 rounds of factory ammo. It seems to meet the definition of good and cheap. Probably a difficult deal to reproduce though.

[BN]

Good. Cheap. Revolver.

Which one of these words does not belong. ;)

[NickA]

Good. Cheap. Revolver.

Which one of these words does not belong. ;)

I was thinking along the same lines, as in "Pick two."
I managed to score a 317 last year for $400, but that was an inside deal from an estate sale.
If the unicorns ever deliver more 22lr ammo I might even get to shoot it again :mad:
(I don't know what was done to the trigger, but it's nice. Didn't get to run enough ammo through to really check for reliable ignition though).

[NETim]

Buddy of mine just picked up a cherry stainless model 60 for less than 4 bills with 100 rounds of factory ammo. It seems to meet the definition of good and cheap. Probably a difficult deal to reproduce though.

I got my 66 last year at an auction for $475 and thought I did well.

Those darn Smith collectors are ruining it for all of us. :)

[jetfire]

Of course, while an SP101 is cheaper than a Smith 617, it's still far from "found at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box" in the price department.

If anything, I had a harder time selling those versus 317s and 617s because, not only were they .22s, but they were Rugers! ("This 22/45 is only this much, so how come this .22 SP101 is so much more?")

This is why I could never really work in consumer facing firearms retail.

[MDS]

I paid full price for my 617 and am happy. I was blown away by the quality and the trigger. At the time, anyway. Now that I'm an expert by virtue of reading bill's thread about Todd's sig, I'm sure it leaves a lot to be desired. I just wish I knew what.

Anyway, I've shoot a few cheap revolvers and my suggestion to the OP is to sell that iffy ammo to fund a 617 or 317.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Ruger makes an Sp101 with a four inch barrel in .22LR.


And an amateur polish job will make a night and day difference on an SP101 trigger.

And it's got adjustable sights, and can be fired either DA or SA. It ain't cheap, but not too terrible for what you're getting. I've seen them new in the LGS for around $530 or so.

[JonInWA]

Let me ask the original poster a question: Since your dissatisfaction with the 22/45 seems more to do with its reliability, as opposed to its action type per se; instead of trying to find, as others have mentioned, a heavier-triggerpull DA revolver, why not just address the reliability issues with your 22/45?

Ruger is usually exceptionally good at standing behind their guns-I'd call their Customer Service Department, and the odds are they'll expedite getting yours back to them for them to thoroughly go through and resolve the issues.

Best, Jon

[stand watie]

JonInWa,

AGREED 100%.
(My brother-of-the-heart used to work for Bill Ruger & that was his advice to another shooter, who had a similar problem.)

Ruger is VERY good at resolving customer complaints in the customer's favor.

yours, sw

[LSP972]

it's essentially a well-polished Sten gun with fancy stocks.



I am SO stealing that to bust the chops of a co-worker with. I missed it the first time.

I laughed for a full minute; so funny, yet so true…

.

[NEPAKevin]

If its of any interest, there is a S&W 22/32 Kit Gun 4" RB (http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=396367661) in the PRNJ listed on Gunbroker.

[TR675]

Good. Cheap. Revolver.

Pick two.

[Wheeler]

I have two .22 revolvers, a Harrington & Richardson Model 999 Sportsman with a 6" barrel which rivals my S&W 17-5 8 3/8" in fit and finish. The 17 I bought too early, the H&R was an inheritance.

[Al T.]

I picked up a M63 S&W, 3 inch barrel. Love it. Paid ~ 400ish.

[45dotACP]

Fairly certain you can still pick up smith model 10's and 64's for 300 ish...load some nice light handloads and you've got the next best thing to a .22

[TR675]

Fairly certain you can still pick up smith model 10's and 64's for 300 ish...load some nice light handloads and you've got the next best thing to a .22

I was kidding, kind of. I got a 3" 10 for 260 not long ago.

[ScotchMan]

I had a 4" 617, let it go because it was a pain to reload (tiny boolitts in tiny holes), and a pain to clean in the 10 shot version. I am now in the market for a new .22 revolver, mostly to have on standby for squirrel duty when I don't want to haul out the Savage. I will probably go for a SP101 (already has a highly usable front sight), there was a used one in the case last time I stopped in to the fun store.

Not sure what I'm contributing to the thread here, other than a good Smith or Ruger is a life acquisition, so "buy once cry once" might apply. If not, aren't the Charter Arms Pathfinders pretty ok? Those aren't too expensive and are common as anything where I am.

[45dotACP]

I had a 4" 617, let it go because it was a pain to reload (tiny boolitts in tiny holes), and a pain to clean in the 10 shot version. I am now in the market for a new .22 revolver, mostly to have on standby for squirrel duty when I don't want to haul out the Savage. I will probably go for a SP101 (already has a highly usable front sight), there was a used one in the case last time I stopped in to the fun store.

Not sure what I'm contributing to the thread here, other than a good Smith or Ruger is a life acquisition, so "buy once cry once" might apply. If not, aren't the Charter Arms Pathfinders pretty ok? Those aren't too expensive and are common as anything where I am.

I'd go with the Ruger.

Side note: Part of me desires a pair of Ruger LCR's...one in .22 and one in .38
I mean, the .22 would be my "shoot all day" gun. .38 would be the carry pistol. Maybe I'd end up shooting a DA trigger as good as Caleb? :D

Heck you can even get a version with an exposed hammer (which is sad and ugly looking, but I digress)

[Chuck Haggard]

My LCR .22lr is a decent little gun. Fun to shoot, good trainer for the centerfire guns.

[Dagga Boy]

I am also a big fan of the LCR's. I carried an SP101 a lot back in the day as well. I have always liked "carrying" the little Smith's, but when it came to shooting the small 5 shots, I much prefer the Ruger's for actually training.

[Kyle Reese]

http://www.krebscustom.com/products/75/Smith-and-Wesson-Target-Revolver-.22LR

[Dagga Boy]

http://www.krebscustom.com/products/75/Smith-and-Wesson-Target-Revolver-.22LR

Enabler......:eek:

[Tamara]

http://www.krebscustom.com/products/75/Smith-and-Wesson-Target-Revolver-.22LR

Don't let my roommate see that.

[Chuck Haggard]

I was kidding, kind of. I got a 3" 10 for 260 not long ago.

I hate you.

[TR675]

Well, I didn't say it was a nice Model 10. Mechanically it's fine, but it looks like the cop(s) who owned it used blenders for holsters. Still shoots like a house afire, though.

[NEPAKevin]

About five years ago, I picked up a 4" heavy barrel round butt model 10 for a bill and small change. Shot it for a while and turned it for two bills. Cheapest working revolver was a Ruhr(?) SAA clone in .357mag for eighty bucks. Still have it, somewhere. Cheapest .22 revolver was a FIE Buffalo Scout, IIRC a buck twenty-five, that I gave to a friend who teaches new shooters and needed something with a small grip.