Advice about big heavy .22LR handguns

[doddg]

I have asked before about guns and am coming to you again.
I love revolvers, and have discovered I love them big and heavy.
I have sold nearly all my revolvers: H & R, Taurus 94 and Ruger SP100 ( frames/grips too small) and a few others.

I have only 2 left: Ruger GP100, a 10 shot SS that I bought new for $642 over a year ago.
Also, a Taurus 4" SS 9 shot I bought used for $375 (I think).
I don't want 2 revolvers, but have a conundrum b/c when I range test them they are very close in accuracy with the Taurus edging out the Ruger barely, and I wanted to keep the Ruger since I have/had so many of them and love them, but if I am true to my own research: I'm afraid I'll end up with the Taurus.

That is my personal problem, but you can help with insight about another gun.

Is there a reason I should go after a SW 617 as a better/more accurate gun?
I shot one at the range once (a rental) and it did not seem to be any better at first glance.

Is there anyone who has had experience with all 3 and tell me they are all the "same gun," or in their experience, over time, the Smith proved more accurate, or even one of the others?

Accuracy is paramount with me.

 

[mcapo]

Is the question, what gun has the best potential mechanical accuracy or which gun do I shot the best?

Secondarily, you also often look at used guns which add another variable as to accuracy.

Honesty, at the distance you generally shoot, ammo and practice are the factors that will improve accuracy the most.

SW 617. Yea. Buy one. A nice one.

 

[Areoflyer09]

A well broken in 617 is a smooth shooter. I’d have one by now if I hadn’t found the DW.

At at some point though, it’s just as much about your ability to use what you have as it is about inherent mechanical accuracy.

 

[doddg]

Is the question, what gun has the best potential mechanical accuracy or which gun do I shot the best?

1. I only care how it shoots in my hand when I'm shooting it.
2. Certain guns have a better reputation than others for shooting more accurately for the vast majority than another brand.
3. And, with some guns, they are so close in what experience others are having, that it is totally dependent on the shooter and the "baggage" they bring to the table.
4. If you (or others) have shot all 3 or the Smith and one of the others, I would want to know how to rank them.

Secondarily, you also often look at used guns which add another variable as to accuracy.

5. If you are suggesting I should buy a new or nearly new: I get it, and have no problem with that.
6. When I bought the Ruger GP100 for $600 +$42/taxes = $642, I could have bought a S/W at the time for $100 more but did not find any justification for that in my online research.

Honesty, at the distance you generally shoot, ammo and practice are the factors that will improve accuracy the most.

7. That is the input I'm looking for, and especially since you know my habits/profile.

SW 617. Yea. Buy one. A nice one.

8. No surprise there from a man who has 175 SWs in in multiple safes. Sorry for the dry humor: I can't help myself.

A well broken in 617 is a smooth shooter. I’d have one by now if I hadn’t found the DW.
At at some point though, it’s just as much about your ability to use what you have as it is about inherent mechanical accuracy.

9. Well, comments from a person who probably knows me the best here and has had more range time with me than anyone else, and has had so many .22LRs himself: you are saying what has been said and what I suspect is true: it's me, not the 3 different revolvers that is the "X" factor.
10. I will take my new gun rests to the range to try to eliminate the "me" factor and see which of the 2 guns I have have more potential in my hands, if any.

11. I guess what I'm curious about is if anyone has any range time with the Smith and one or both of the other revolvers, and what was their experience at the range.

12. Thanks for the input! I hardly ever see a SW 617 up for sale and when I do it literally costs more used than what I can get one new for.
13. I don't want to waste my time buying the 617 if what I have is as good.
14. By using my 5 in 1 targets, there would have to be more in the "Red" by the 617 than with the GP100 or 990 to warrant the hassle and expense.

 

[Areoflyer09]

You are typically getting two things with the 617: an accurate gun and nicer finishing touches. There is a reason they cost more than the Rugers do and it’s not because the 617 is exponentially more accurate. The 617 just feels like a step above in quality.

For an average shooter, I don’t think you’ll notice extreme difference between the GP100 and 617 in terms of accuracy. On a rest, you’ll probably notice a bite more of a difference. But that difference only matters if you can exploit it.

 

[Bosshoss]

9. Well, comments from a person who probably knows me the best here and has had more range time with me than anyone else, and has had so many .22LRs himself: you are saying what has been said and what I suspect is true: it's me, not the 3 different revolvers that is the "X" factor.
Yes I guarantee all 3 guns will outshoot you. Now you might be able to shoot one better than the other but that just means one fits you and your style better.

10. I will take my new gun rests to the range to try to eliminate the "me" factor and see which of the 2 guns I have have more potential in my hands, if any.

11. I guess what I'm curious about is if anyone has any range time with the Smith and one or both of the other revolvers, and what was their experience at the range.
I have shot all 3 of the guns you mention and the 617 6" is the heaviest if that matters(it doesn't to me). I own a 617 and the biggest thing with a revolver is the trigger and S&W has or is capable of the best trigger.

12. Thanks for the input! I hardly ever see a SW 617 up for sale and when I do it literally costs more used than what I can get one new for
Well that shows they hold their value well.

13. I don't want to waste my time buying the 617 if what I have is as good.
What you have is fine and again is not the weak link unless your has a trigger that is not up to snuff or the grips don't fit you well.

14. By using my 5 in 1 targets, there would have to be more in the "Red" by the 617 than with the GP100 or 990 to warrant the hassle and expense.

IMO your results based on a couple of range trips is not accurate method of "picking the most accurate one" you need to try different grips and ammo and maybe get a trigger job and maybe sights.
I shoot revolvers in competition and gunsmith S&W revolvers and I would guess that 99% of the revolvers used in competition are S&W and that is for a reason.
My preference is S&W and then Ruger and then Taurus but you have to be a REALLY good shot to see any mechanical accuracy difference in them.

 

[doddg]

Yes I guarantee all 3 guns will outshoot you. Now you might be able to shoot one better than the other but that just means one fits you and your style better.

A. As I suspected

I have shot all 3 of the guns you mention and the 617 6" is the heaviest if that matters(it doesn't to me). I own a 617 and the biggest thing with a revolver is the trigger and S&W has or is capable of the best trigger.

B. I do love "heavy."
C. That's probably why one is shooting better than the other (only by a little, so probably me, as you suggested).

Well that shows they hold their value well.

D. It is amazing to me. There is about $100 difference between the 3 in what I can buy new for:
SW = $700
Ruger = $600
Taurus = $500
E. I bought the Ruger new for $600 +tax = $642
F. I bought the Taurus used for $375 (or $350, not sure)

What you have is fine and again is not the weak link unless your has a trigger that is not up to snuff or the grips don't fit you well.

G. I appreciate your input, everyone is saying the same, and it is just a matter of me deciding which flavor.

IMO your results based on a couple of range trips is not accurate method of "picking the most accurate one" you need to try different grips and ammo and maybe get a trigger job and maybe sights.

H. I used to take my revolvers to the range alot when I first bought them, multiple trips, but I still don't have a definitive response other than I thought the Ruger should do better than a Taurus, which, of course, verifies what everyone's point is: I'm the "X" factor.
I. I am not so interested in buying ammo that will get more accuracy, but which gun will do better with whatever ammo I'm using.
J. I've never even thought about upgrading my trigger, but sights on any of my guns would be a welcome addition, since I can't even clearly see my front sights. I have even used fluorescent gun sight paint (white on rear sights and red on the front: I used green on the front at first, but my eyes seemed to like the red on the front better.

I shoot revolvers in competition and gunsmith S&W revolvers and I would guess that 99% of the revolvers used in competition are S&W and that is for a reason.
My preference is S&W and then Ruger and then Taurus but you have to be a REALLY good shot to see any mechanical accuracy difference in them.

K. I hear you, and it sounds like I should have spent the extra $100 upfront and bought the Smith.
L. That was fully my intention when I went to the LGS that day, but they had a Ruger there (on sale from $630 down to $600, so I didn't order the Smith but to the quick route, and saved the $100. The input I was getting was: samish. But like someone said: there is a reason Smith cost more (I assumed you were paying for the name, which is what I've read/found out about some Brownings).
M. Your words and experience have great weight and I appreciate you taking the time.

 

[WebSnyper]

I am not so interested in buying ammo that will get more accuracy, but which gun will do better with whatever ammo I'm using.

I see what you are saying there, but then just know you are truly not giving each gun an equal footing, on the type of testing you do (if one groups better, then it gets kept and others trimmed, etc). That may sound strange, since you are using the same ammo in each, but it isn't. Again, I understand what you are saying and why, but some guns, especially 22's and definitely revolvers, like and are more precise, etc with particular bullet weights and brands/types of ammo. It's kind of like what I have been saying about how you compare other guns (i.e. 1911 vs a DA/SA gun, etc). Those guns are different and are going to have inherent differences, that seems you don't consider when testing.

Same with if the deciding factor is groups alone, then really if you are not testing different types of ammo (bullet weights, etc) you will not see what a specific gun may be able to do. An individual gun may have somewhat drastically different results with a particular ammo (bullet weight, etc).

This is not a knock, just some insight into a bit of a flawed testing method IMO.

That said, when I'm testing guns, I'm not generally doing anything close to the type of testing you are doing. I'll generally try and match up bullet weight, etc to what I may carry in the gun, etc, and switch out ammo if I have particularly bad results, etc, but I'm not putting gun against gun to try and determine which is the more precise gun, etc.

 

[mcapo]

Excellent comments here for anyone that is looking for the “most accurate” for X dollars spent and are frustrated why there is not an singular answer.

It ain’t that simple...

 

[700 LTR 223]

Same with if the deciding factor is groups alone, then really if you are not testing different types of ammo (bullet weights, etc) you will not see what a specific gun may be able to do. An individual gun may have somewhat drastically different results with a particular ammo (bullet weight, etc).

Agree , especially with 22lr ammo it fairly easy and affordable to try several types of ammo. I have a Single Six that shoots remarkably well with old lot of Federal Lightning. My Smth 41 and a couple of my MKIIs shoot very well with CCI std. velocity and amazingly my 4" 22/45 really likes Federal Auto Match. If I limited myself to one type of ammo I could easily have a scenario where my Single Six outshoots the Smith 41.

I am not so interested in buying ammo that will get more accuracy, but which gun will do better with whatever ammo I'm using.

Unless you have a stockpile of a certain type of ammo it would be much less expensive to match the ammo to the gun rather than the gun to the ammo.

Is there a reason I should go after a SW 617 as a better/more accurate gun?
I shot one at the range once (a rental) and it did not seem to be any better at first glance.

Of the three 22lr revolvers I owned , Single Six , Taurus 96 and Smith 617 , the 617 is the one I parted with. It was not that great of a shooter and that was back when I had 20/20 vision. Not saying that 617s are not accurate , fired my friend's and it was quite accurate. Mine had issues , went back to Smith , still did not shoot well for me.

If you are like me and don't see open sights really well you could buy the most accurate revolver in the world and possibly not shoot groups significantly better than you are now. I am going to get an eye appointment soon for a new prescription. About the only front sight type I can see with any degree of clarity these days is the hi-viz fiber optic type or one with a big white dot.

 

[doddg]

I see what you are saying there, but then just know you are truly not giving each gun an equal footing, on the type of testing you do (if one groups better, then it gets kept and others trimmed, etc). That may sound strange, since you are using the same ammo in each, but it isn't. Again, I understand what you are saying and why, but some guns, especially 22's and definitely revolvers, like and are more precise, etc with particular bullet weights and brands/types of ammo. It's kind of like what I have been saying about how you compare other guns (i.e. 1911 vs a DA/SA gun, etc). Those guns are different and are going to have inherent differences, that seems you don't consider when testing.

1. I can't keep all the guns I've bought that I would like to keep, or I would have kept every CZ that I bought.
Or, for example, I would like to keep the Ruger P89 & Ruger Ltwt. Officer 1911 9mm that I intend to sell, but I feel it is just delaying the inevitable.
2. I use accuracy or have to use some simile to determine what to trim.
3. I could keep the least expensive guns, and if I did, when it comes to a .22LR, I would have kept the Beretta Neos, and perhaps in retirement that is the approach I'll have to take instead of "accuracy" being my standard. (accuracy has cost me!)
4. I feel immense financial pressure about retirement and am under no illusion of how that will affect my lifestyle (which is already spartan by my friends' standards).
5. I'm not concerned about eating, but having to sell my roadster (Honda S2000), and going back to 1 car is major consideration as reality ensues, where trimming ancillary guns is really a minor thing, since it is a luxury.
I've even thought that as the years progress, if I don't have money for ammo, I'll have to sell everything but basic protection guns anyway.
This is one of the reason I have enjoyed myself so much the past 1.5 yrs. b/c I knew the clock was ticking and have been in better financial straights than anytime in my life.
6. But, I need to use some device in trimming, and while I have some liquidity, keeping fewer guns is easy even though more expensive guns since I only have an average of $400 in my 11 .22LR guns (used to be $300/ea.), until I shed some less expensive items and bought more expensive ones.
In my non-.22LR pistols (.38/.357/9mm) I have an average of $485/ea. invested in 7 of them.
I have trimmed in both, and have more lined up to sell in both sections.
7. I am presently under 20 guns: the first time in a long time.
Despite my recent purchases, I have sold more than I've bought: that my story to my wife and I'm sticking to it.

Same with if the deciding factor is groups alone, then really if you are not testing different types of ammo (bullet weights, etc) you will not see what a specific gun may be able to do. An individual gun may have somewhat drastically different results with a particular ammo (bullet weight, etc).

8. That is a higher level of critique.
I do write down what ammo I have used on a particular day, but have not correlated that info.

This is not a knock, just some insight into a bit of a flawed testing method IMO.

9. I am quite comfortable with my methods being flawed by those of decades of experience here.
I still don't know what I don't know.
10. My consolation prize is that I will be happy with what I've got and/or with what I will end up with.
11. I'm glad to have had the means of purchasing and using so many "tools" in this segment of my life.
12. My hero is the 88 yr. old member here who helped me finish "tuning" my Smith 41 that Aeroflyer had also helped me with.
He goes to the range twice/week:

That said, when I'm testing guns, I'm not generally doing anything close to the type of testing you are doing. I'll generally try and match up bullet weight, etc to what I may carry in the gun, etc, and switch out ammo if I have particularly bad results, etc, but I'm not putting gun against gun to try and determine which is the more precise gun, etc.

13. I enjoy upgrading my guns for what I think is a "better" gun: fun!

Excellent comments here for anyone that is looking for the “most accurate” for X dollars spent and are frustrated why there is not an singular answer.
It ain’t that simple...

14. Point made. For me there has been a direct correlation to a more expensive gun delivering more desirable results, in my limited experience. CZs really rocked my world when I was introduced to them, and I started shedding many other brands.
15. My Smith Compact MP .22LR that I bought new that I loved: imagine my surprise when my used Browning and Mark 4 were "better" guns: sold the Smith and never looked back.

Agree , especially with 22lr ammo it fairly easy and affordable to try several types of ammo. I have a Single Six that shoots remarkably well with old lot of Federal Lightning. My Smth 41 and a couple of my MKIIs shoot very well with CCI std. velocity and amazingly my 4" 22/45 really likes Federal Auto Match. If I limited myself to one type of ammo I could easily have a scenario where my Single Six outshoots the Smith 41.

16. I have about a dozen different brands and/or multiple types of the same brand of .22LR ammo: I stocked up well.
17. I have a ton of good stuff (CCI) and tons of other stuff that runs well (Remington Golden Bullets in the bucket), and the same with Armscor and Aguila: 1000s of rounds.
18. I thought your last sentence summed it up well: "If I limited myself to one type of ammo I could easily have a scenario where my Single Six outshoots the Smith 41."

Unless you have a stockpile of a certain type of ammo it would be much less expensive to match the ammo to the gun rather than the gun to the ammo.

19. I can do that.

Of the three 22lr revolvers I owned , Single Six , Taurus 96 and Smith 617 , the 617 is the one I parted with. It was not that great of a shooter and that was back when I had 20/20 vision. Not saying that 617s are not accurate , fired my friend's and it was quite accurate. Mine had issues , went back to Smith , still did not shoot well for me.

20. Well made point!

If you are like me and don't see open sights really well you could buy the most accurate revolver in the world and possibly not shoot groups significantly better than you are now. I am going to get an eye appointment soon for a new prescription. About the only front sight type I can see with any degree of clarity these days is the hi-viz fiber optic type or one with a big white dot.

21 . Bought these below to be able to see something.
White on rear sights and red on front works well with me.
I tried green on the front sights, but red better for me.

 

[indiucky]

I love these threads.....

 

[doddg]

Was at the range this evening testing out a Colt Cobra .38 I just bought from a member here against my Ruger Security .357/.38.
I took my two .22LR revolvers with me: Ruger GP100 5.5",SS, 10 shot & Taurus Tracker 990 4", SS, 9 shot to begin my vetting with them.

I forgot to take the pic using the Taurus 990 at the range at 20'.
I used a gun rest and fired into 8 targets adjusting the sights along the way.
It was a little low and left, and I adjusted the sights to where I was putting all 9 rounds into my red dot/circle in my favorite 5 in 1 targets, using the numbers underneath each target.

I then used the Ruger GP100 at 20' also (so I could compare results) and it was way left and some low.
I hadn't shot it in so long I'd forgotten that I needed to adjust the sights: they never were right from the beginning when I bought it new, but I had so many other revolvers I hadn't started tuning the sights.
When I went to adjust the sights on the Ruger, unlike my Taurus, the flathead screwdriver needed was way smaller than my little screwdriver set I had started taking to the range just for this purpose.
That ended that range session and I went home irritated and need to look for any smaller flatheads or buy some. I need 2 different sizes, one for the top vertical sight and a smaller one for the horizontal or windage.

I am ready to sell either one of the revolvers when I decide if there is any difference between them in accuracy, but probably not, as I have been told.
If so, I will just keep the Taurus 990 and sell the Ruger GP100, and just wait around to buy a S/W 617 when one becomes available, but they rarely do.
Or maybe not. I find that this old revolver guy has really fallen for the bevy of semi-autos I've accrued over the past months.

 

[gregkl]

Doddg, i can't speak to the other two but I have owned my 617 4" barrel for many years. I have also owned several semi-auto .22's and a Ruger SA revolver. My 617 is by far the nicest .22 handgun I have ever owned or shot. I have sat in treestands and picked off squirrels and shot birds out of trees.

If I do my part it will hit the target.

It is one of the few guns that will die with me even though I could almost triple what I paid for it. It's that nice.

 

[doddg]

Doddg, i can't speak to the other two but I have owned my 617 4" barrel for many years. I have also owned several semi-auto .22's and a Ruger SA revolver. My 617 is by far the nicest .22 handgun I have ever owned or shot. I have sat in treestands and picked off squirrels and shot birds out of trees.

If I do my part it will hit the target.

It is one of the few guns that will die with me even though I could almost triple what I paid for it. It's that nice.

1. Well, that testimony is about enough to make me go out and buy this tomorrow:

SMITH & WESSON
Smith & Wesson 617 K-Frame M617
PRODUCT CODE : 022188605785
$703.99


Action double single action
Barrel 6"
Finish Satin Stainless
Safety Internal Lock
Sights Adjustable
Caliber 22 LR
Capacity 10

I've been waiting to pick up one used for $500 - $600 but it hasn't happened in over a year and a half of looking.

 

[700 LTR 223]

I find that this old revolver guy has really fallen for the bevy of semi-autos I've accrued over the past months.

Tell me about it - I came close to bidding on another Ruger MKII series pistol last night , a stainless model , now regret that I did not try to win it. The 617 I owned in the late 1990s was not a shooter although two older models I fired belonging to others shot pretty well for me. For the right price I would be willing to try a 617 again along with a Burris Fastfire of Vortex Venom.

 

[CampingJosh]

I've been waiting to pick up one used for $500 - $600 but it hasn't happened in over a year and a half of looking.

I managed to get one new for $615 (after shipping and transfer) earlier this month on Gunbroker, though it is the 4" barrel. I prefer 4" revolvers, though, so I don't know if the 6" has a price premium.

Deals are there if you keep looking.

 

[doddg]

I managed to get one new for $615 (after shipping and transfer) earlier this month on Gunbroker, though it is the 4" barrel. I prefer 4" revolvers, though, so I don't know if the 6" has a price premium.

Deals are there if you keep looking.

1. I am known far and wide for finding the "sweet" deal and have bought many guns just b/c of price and have used them, sold them and moved on.
2. But, the SW 617 is one that has alluded me for literally 21 months.

 

[CampingJosh]

1. I am known far and wide for finding the "sweet" deal and have bought many guns just b/c of price and have used them, sold them and moved on.
2. But, the SW 617 is one that has alluded me for literally 21 months.

Yeah, I hear you. Sometimes getting a deal is just looking at the exact right time.

When using Gunbroker, I only look at auctions without a reserve.
I do always try to deal fairly with people. But at auction, being the one willing to pay the most is being fair, even if I only win auctions where the selling price is markedly lower than the seller probably hoped.

 

[doddg]

Yeah, I hear you. Sometimes getting a deal is just looking at the exact right time.

When using Gunbroker, I only look at auctions without a reserve.
I do always try to deal fairly with people. But at auction, being the one willing to pay the most is being fair, even if I only win auctions where the selling price is markedly lower than the seller probably hoped.

1. I've only used gunbroker a couple of times and gave up trying to get "something for nothing" except once I just bought a CZ for the "buy now" price that someone here alerted me to.
2. Last night I did looked at the S/W 617 .22LR revolvers on Gunbroker, but most were going to be the same price after FFL fees, shipping and/or taxes, that I can buy new for the same money (Hoosier Armory in Noblesville).
3. The ones that were below market value had days to go, and I knew in the last hour, the price would get back up to market anyway.
4. I love it when I hear someone put a bid on something, forgot about it only to get a notice later that they won the bid.