22 LR Revolvers - Old vs New

[Jim Watson]

My .22 Combat Masterpiece is a treasure, I can't think of any .22 revolver I would prefer to it. I have my Mother's Kit Gun and my Uncle's Pathfinder, but they are too dinky for steady holding.

[BN]

Bad triggers need not apply.

My wife currently has a 4" Model 66,
Toonces

Bad triggers need not apply eliminates anything but the K-Frames.

A buddy has a 10 shot 617 that I covet. I'd say it boils down to which individual K-Frame looks the best to you and your family.

[mtnbkr]

One thing to keep in mind with K-frame 22's is that they often have tight chambers, which, after a few cylinders of fouling, can make extraction and loading difficult. This can be mitigated by keeping the chambers very clean--for my K-22's I run a nylon brush bore brush through each chamber every 24-36 rounds--and by choosing ammunition that loads and extracts freely. 22lr varies widely in case dimensions--particularly rim thickness, which can affect how well the ammunition seats in the chamber-- and my K22's have done best with higher quality match ammunition such as Eley and Norma. My 8 3/8" M617 exhibits the same behavior, and I have to clean the cylinder at the halfway point (20 rounds) of IHMSA matches to keep extraction smooth. Come to think of it, the M18-3 4" I had was the same way--it would stick cases when it began to heat up, or when there was any fouling. This was particularly the case with lubricated lead bullet ammunition. I switched to CCI Stingers for that gun and it helped. All of that is no reason not to choose a K-frame .22, but is something to keep in mind. I think the 4" 18 would be a perfect companion for your wife's 4" M66.

I can confirm this. I've owned a 70s vintage M17 6" for about a decade and you need to scrub the chambers every few cylinders or you have to just about hammer the empties out. I use a 30cal nylon bore brush while at the range for this purpose. That said, I mostly shoot cheap bulk pack Federal ammo. Match-grade stuff would likely work better.

Chris

[BN]

For the tight chambers I had in a S&W and a Ruger, I reamed the chambers like done in this thread on the S&W Forum. It looks like a big job, but it's not too bad. I still keep a brush handy when shooting 22 revolvers.

https://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...ng-report.html

[Guerrero]

How about the Ruger LCRx .22?

[Malamute]

For the tight chambers I had in a S&W and a Ruger, I reamed the chambers like done in this thread on the S&W Forum. It looks like a big job, but it's not too bad. I still keep a brush handy when shooting 22 revolvers.

https://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...ng-report.html

Good link, thanks.

To re-state the position, I cant think of any good reason to put up with tight chambers that interfere with shooting. In actual bullseye competition, which almost nobody uses a revolver for, there may or may not be a detectable difference in undersize chambers and ones that dont cause trouble. It is likely erased with match grade ammo in any event. The example I have shoots well enough I know theres no way in the world Id put up with tight chambers based on the idea it may shoot slightly better with annoyingly tight chambers.

The fact that some are problematic and some arent seems to indicate its the difference in how long the reamer was used, after they are sharpened some it isnt going to cut the same size chamber. Perhaps @Outpost75 can offer a better perspective on the actual accuracy difference between easy to use Smith chambers vs the tighter ones. I dont think one can simply say they are "match chambers" and accept that they are a nuisance to shoot with most ammo without constantly cleaning the chambers, since not all are so tight and the easy ones still shoot very well.

The 4" gun I had with tighter chambers made a group @ 46 yards on a can stuck on a fencepost of well within the lower half of the can with Remington Golden bullet RN loads in the 80s. It was just there when I got to the place we shot prairie dogs, I rested over the hood of the truck. I went and bought a lot more of that for that specific gun. The 6" gun shoots very well, Im happy with it and its ability to shoot 500-1000 rds without cleaning the chambers at all. Im not sure Ive ever been a good enough shooter to tell the difference between either gun or the nice chambers and the nuisance ones.

Not wanting to alter your Precious by cleaning up the chambers to make it easier to shoot is like not fixing an ejection or feed problem in an auto by being afraid to alter it forever (and improve it for everyone else that will own it after you).

The 6" K-22 with friendly chambers, 25 yards kneeling, whatever cheap ammo I happened to have at the time. Just checking zero a little ways up Schnebly Hill Rd in Sedona. This was about average for this gun the few times I actually shot it on paper, easily squirrel accurate at whatever distance I could see them up in the huge Ponderosa Pines around Flagstaff.

[lewwallace]

My wife and daughters have requested a .22 LR revolver. Somewhere along the way, I did some things right...

Use will be recreational shooting with family and friends.

There are not a whole lot of choices for "regular" medium frame guns with adjustable sights. Tanks like the GP-100 need not apply. Bad triggers need not apply.

Currently considered options:
1. New 4" S&W 617
2. Old 4" Pre-18 K-22 Combat Masterpiece https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1032873750
3. Old Model 18
4. Old 6" K-22
5. Old 6" Model 17
6. New 4" Colt King Cobra
7. Old Colt Officer's Model Match

The King Cobra fails to win the wife's approval based solely on looks. I'm concerned with maintenance on the Officer's Model Match - not a lot of Colt gunsmiths around anymore. I'm not a huge fan of the full underlug on the 617, but could live with it.

Is there any reason to not go with the Pre-18 I linked above? My wife currently has a 4" Model 66, so a 4" would be a closer "match" than a 6" K-22. My opinion is not set in stone, so I'm looking for other opinions or options I've missed.

Thanks in advance,

Toonces

I managed to snag this dandy S&W some time back. It will be passed on....[emoji173]

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[LtDave]

Of the guns the OP mentioned, the K frame .22's are the way to go. I propose you consider a J frame which I think is the best .22 revolver out there, the S&W Model 35-1 or 22/32 Target. These have 6" barrels and are wonderful. If I could have just one .22 revolver it would be my 35-1.

[dogcaller]

I have an older 4" K-frame .22. By "older," I mean not a newish production. I would assume 70's or early 80's vintage. I honestly don't know if it's 5-screw, pre-war, pre-64, you get the idea. What I do know is that I LOVE it. It's stupid easy to shoot well, for all shooters. I had the same consideration as you, and I am so very glad that I picked this. It did have tight chambers and I was frustrated by the sticky chambers, but I found the solution.

I was referred to this guy: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100057482198672

He reamed the cylinders in quick fashion and it has totally solved the problem. I would do the same thing over again, if needed.

[Toonces]

Thank you everyone for your responses!

One thing to keep in mind with K-frame 22's is that they often have tight chambers, which, after a few cylinders of fouling, can make extraction and loading difficult.

Noted. If that's the case I'd ream the chambers as detailed above. Or send them to the guy with the Sunnen hone.

If I were looking for a newly produced 22lr revolver for higher volume shooting without the fuss of cleaning or being selective about ammunition, I'd go for an SP101 with the knowledge that you might not get a good one the first time around. Careful inspection of any newly produced Ruger is a must. The last three .22lr SP-101's I've had were not picky about ammunition and their triggers improved greatly with use. They all also arrived from the factory in dire need of an oiling and light de-burring of the extractor star assembly.

I would submit the .22 Ruger SP-101 for consideration, particularly if any of the girls have smaller than K frame sized hands. I think the FO sight would be easier to use than the linked pre-18, bur other than that it is a fine choice.

https://ruger.com/products/sp101/specSheets/5765.html

I hadn't really considered the 22 LR SP-101. I think I saw one in a display case once. Once cleaned up/broken in, how do the triggers compare to a good K frame?

H&R 999 Sportsman

Yeah, the trigger isn't awesome, sights aren't supreme but there is something about it that is soul soothing when busting open the break open action and dumping 9 hot smoking pieces of 22rl brass. Especially after hitting what you wanted to hit 9x.

My Dad has one. Not really what I'm looking for. They are easy to load and eject empties.

Bad triggers need not apply eliminates anything but the K-Frames.

A buddy has a 10 shot 617 that I covet. I'd say it boils down to which individual K-Frame looks the best to you and your family.

That's pretty much the premise I was operating under. I've never handled or fired one of the Dan Wesson 22s. Those to too far afield for me to mess with at this time.

How about the Ruger LCRx .22?

My wife turned up her nose at the King Cobra as ugly/weird. I don't think I'm even going to show her the LCRx!

Of the guns the OP mentioned, the K frame .22's are the way to go. I propose you consider a J frame which I think is the best .22 revolver out there, the S&W Model 35-1 or 22/32 Target. These have 6" barrels and are wonderful. If I could have just one .22 revolver it would be my 35-1.

How are the triggers compared to a K frame? I do love how they are sized more appropriately to a 22.

The Pre-Model, five-screw K-22's are a thing of joy. Smooth da stroke, crisp SA, laser accurate, well balanced. The numbered models are close but not built to the same standard and you can feel the quality drop as you get later into the Bangor Punta years. The 6" Target Masterpiece comes with the Patridge front sight which, for me, works a lot better than the Baughman ramp on the 4" Combat Masterpiece. If a trainer for her 66 is the aim then the 4" might be the better choice but if just pure shooting is the goal the 6" would be my nod. I'd make sure the daughters hands fit a K. My wife struggles with anything with trigger reach much greater than an SP101. If they've been able to handle the 66 should be good to go.

Since I have to start with something, it will probably be a Pre 17/18. If that turns out to be not as much fun as the girls are hoping due to being too big, I'll try a SP-101 or the 22/32 Target.