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.
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.
Code Name: JET STREAM
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
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
How about the Ruger LCRx .22?
I'm a "7" compared to most gun-guys, which means I'm a "3" on P-F.
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.
“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
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.
The first indication a bad guy should have that I'm dangerous is when his
disembodied soul is looking down at his own corpse wondering what happened.
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.
Thank you everyone for your responses!
Noted. If that's the case I'd ream the chambers as detailed above. Or send them to the guy with the Sunnen hone.
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?
My Dad has one. Not really what I'm looking for. They are easy to load and eject empties.
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.
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!
How are the triggers compared to a K frame? I do love how they are sized more appropriately to a 22.
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.