Has Anyone Shot a S&W 17 or 41

[coolatula]

My buddy had both, the 41 is the one that stayed around.

Accuracy being equal(if in fact they even are) I hands down shot and still shoot the 41(vintage production not current production) much more accurately.
Revolvers are cool and if you can shoot them well then more power to you.
I like them too and regret selling my old Colt 6"Diamondback .22(very accurate even with me shooting it).

The 41 as was stated may be more ammo picky, be less reliable and probably cost more but I plan on picking one up someday(most likely very nice vintage one) or Buck Mark Field Target (new).

Between the two with I'd take a Model 41 all day over a Model 17..if you do get a 41 get used to hearing ping-ping-ping-ping on steel as fast as you can pull the trigger!

Just my 2cents

 

[augdog]

I decided to buy both and then after shooting them both sell one.Now after shooting both I don't to sell either one!

 

[cosermann]

I shot a S&W Model 41 back around 1989. In a word, it was magical.

I don't know if it was stock or had some work done, but wow was it smooth.

 

[BluedSteel]

I have owned and shot both, still have a 17. I honestly didn't know the 41 was still in production so I can't comment on those. The older ones are [as has already been mentioned] effectively just short rifles. They are more accurate than most people can shoot a rimfire rifle and more than enough gun for anything less than Olympic class competition. Many legendary shooters won their NRA Bullseye titles with a 41 as their .22 cal. gun.

 

[patience0830]

Factory sights or optics

Little 4x Leupold. 25-30 yds is doable but a squirrel head is still a mighty small target. Lotta air around it, if you know what I mean.

 

[coolatula]

I decided to buy both and then after shooting them both sell one.Now after shooting both I don't to sell either one!

Well it's simple then...you must KEEP BOTH!

 

[seldon14]

The 17 makes a lot more sense imo. Its priced comparably to other quality 22 revolvers. The 41 mostly just has "old timer" mystique. While they typically have phenominal accuracy your average shooter is probably better served by a Ruger mk series for 1\4 the price. It will be less picky, and still be more accurate than most shooters are capable of anyways.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

The 17 makes a lot more sense imo. Its priced comparably to other quality 22 revolvers. The 41 mostly just has "old timer" mystique. While they typically have phenominal accuracy your average shooter is probably better served by a Ruger mk series for 1\4 the price. It will be less picky, and still be more accurate than most shooters are capable of anyways.

Old Timer Mystique? I'm guessing you've never shot one.

 

[mssmith44]

I would like to have one of the new 617 models because I like to shoot revolvers. But I have a 41 that has been around a long time.
About the model 41. Roy Jinks said that they are designed to shoot 2" at 50 yards. Typical Bullseye distance.
The trigger on the 41 is very good. short travel and reset.
At one time I had a another pistol that had a better trigger. High Standard model 10X built by Bob Shea. 1 of about 100. Accuracy was about the same
I have a Ruger that is more accurate than either of those. Mark II government model. 6 7/8 heavy barrel 1 X scope. 4 3/4 lbs. about as heavy as a rifle.
The Rugers 22 semi autos are a rugged design that is tough to beat. But they need trigger work and still doesn't get the trigger to the same as
the Smith 41 or High Standard. But for Steel competition the Rugers are the way to go.

 

[seldon14]

Old Timer Mystique? I'm guessing you've never shot one.

Several. They are accurate, they have good triggers, they are smooth. They are also not a $900 improvment over a MK or Buckmark for most people.

I stand by my statement. They are the 22 equivilent of the 1911. Old timer catnip.