Smith and Wesson 617 VS Ruger GP100-1757

[Dddrees]

Just received my Mark IV Hunter and Ruger 10 22 Take down the other day. So I am now seriously considering getting a revolver in 22 and right now trying to determine whether I should get the Smith and Wesson 617 or Ruger GP 100-1757. My understanding is the Smith and Wesson 617 has a smoother action and possibly a better trigger and finish. However the big draw in a Rugger GP 100-1757 is that a Ruger is built like a tank. For right now I have requested that my LGS place a back order for the Smith and Wesson 617 4". It appears currently that I could get a Ruger GP 100-1757 fairly easily but the Smith and Wesson would be more difficult as S&W won't be making any of these until September and it may not be until as early as November before I might be able to get this gun. I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on these two guns, any information which I may have missed, or any thoughts on others I might want to consider. I initially choose both of these because they both are capable of 10rds where some of the others are only 6rds.

Fit, finish, good looking, action, accuracy, dependability, durability, ease of operation, serviceability, disassembly are some of my major concerns. Are there any others I might want to consider as well?

 

[Old Dog]

Solution: Buy the Ruger now and shoot the crap out of it ASAP. Order the Smith and whenever it gets in shoot the crap out of it. Then decide if you want to keep both, or get rid of one here on INGO. I bet you will keep both.

 

[Dddrees]

Solution: Buy the Ruger now and shoot the crap out of it ASAP. Order the Smith and whenever it gets in shoot the crap out of it. Then decide if you want to keep both, or get rid of one here on INGO. I bet you will keep both.

Big help and I get it. But at this point I'm trying to pick just one. So I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or experiences which might help me make a choice. Part of the problem is that although I can take a look and will plan on looking at the Ruger I won't be able to even do that with the Smith and Wesson.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you are accustomed to 6 shot revolvers, I recommend that you try to get your hands on a Ruger you can test fire. Unfortunately, dry-firing is out with a rimfire. My concern is that you may have the same experience that led me to get rid of a 617 several years back: When firing, I was sufficiently accustomed to the feel of the torque from the cylinder making 1/6 turn that not feeling that torque from the much shorter 1/10 turn made that gun feel entirely wrong in my hand. I may well be more peevish than average in this regard, but I do consider it worth taking into account before making such a commitment either way. On the other hand, if you eventually get the Smith and decide you don't like it, post it and you will most likely have a line in front of your house arm wrestling for who gets to buy it.

 

[BE Mike]

The S&W is pre-drilled for a scope mount, if you plan on adding optics. I think the 4" would be handier than the 5.5" Ruger. Personally, I'd opt for a nice used S&W model 18, but the 617 looks good. I just think the S&W pre-lock revolvers are built with more care than the ones nowadays. I never could warm up to the stacking trigger of Ruger double actions. The argument that "they are built like a tank" is pretty much baseless. One is forged and the other (Ruger) cast. That being said, you won't likely wear either one out. I've owned a S&W model 17 with 6" barrel and still own a S&W model 63 (pre-lock) with 4" bbl. The model 17 was great for target shooting but the 6" barrel makes it awkward for carry. The model 63 is made on the small (j) frame. If you have really big hands, it won't suit you, but if you have a medium or small hand there are grips available to make it fit well. The little model 63 is very accurate. The medium (k) frame, S&W model 18 is good for medium small to large hands.

 

[Dddrees]

If you are accustomed to 6 shot revolvers, I recommend that you try to get your hands on a Ruger you can test fire. Unfortunately, dry-firing is out with a rimfire. My concern is that you may have the same experience that led me to get rid of a 617 several years back: When firing, I was sufficiently accustomed to the feel of the torque from the cylinder making 1/6 turn that not feeling that torque from the much shorter 1/10 turn made that gun feel entirely wrong in my hand. I may well be more peevish than average in this regard, but I do consider it worth taking into account before making such a commitment either way. On the other hand, if you eventually get the Smith and decide you don't like it, post it and you will most likely have a line in front of your house arm wrestling for who gets to buy it.

Frankly at this point I have absolutely no experience whatsoever with revolvers and that certainly puts me at a disadvantage. But since I lack that experience that may work in my favor when it comes to that 1/10 turn. I have heard that the Smith and Wesson would do a better job at retaining it's value and that's appealing and the fact that you said it would be fairly easy to unload if I feel I made a mistake might be something to consider. The guy at the LGS said he collects Smith and Wessons but he shoots Rugers. I did read elsewhere where Smith and Wessons tend to be more collectible and they have also done a better job of putting emphasis or supporting the collector thing where Ruger has not.

Still kind of leaning towards the Smith and Wesson but sort of like the half lug vs the full lug look. I do wonder how much better the action on the Smith and Wesson is however.

 

[Dddrees]

The S&W is pre-drilled for a scope mount, if you plan on adding optics. I think the 4" would be handier than the 5.5" Ruger. Personally, I'd opt for a nice used S&W model 18, but the 617 looks good. I just think the S&W pre-lock revolvers are built with more care than the ones nowadays. I never could warm up to the stacking trigger of Ruger double actions. The argument that "they are built like a tank" is pretty much baseless. One is forged and the other (Ruger) cast. That being said, you won't likely wear either one out. I've owned a S&W model 17 with 6" barrel and still own a S&W model 63 (pre-lock) with 4" bbl. The model 17 was great for target shooting but the 6" barrel makes it awkward for carry. The model 63 is made on the small (j) frame. If you have really big hands, it won't suit you, but if you have a medium or small hand there are grips available to make it fit well. The little model 63 is very accurate. The medium (k) frame, S&W model 18 is good for medium small to large hands.

Great info thanks. I've yet to dig in real deep yet and this was extremely helpful. I had read that some say they believe the quality or how the Smith and Wessons are being built now just don't quite measure up to how they once where. This is always disappointing to hear even if you hear that about a good majority of things nowadays. I do tend to like the thought of forged even if there's no evidence that it will last longer than cast. I think used can be a bit more challenging to get right especially given my lack of experience. Thanks for the recommendations on the other models and I think at some point I'll have to look up those older models just as well if nothing else to see what they are all about.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The backstory on my experience is that in my younger days I dug enough change out of the couch cushions to buy a Colt Python, and I felt like I had really arrived. Unfortunately, I found that I couldn't hit the side of a barn with it and eventually got rid of it and subsequently bought a S&W Model 66 and a 617 with the idea of having the same basic thing in .22. I dearly love the 66 and would never part with it, the 617 not so much for the aforementioned reason. On the 6" 617, the full lug barrel felt just slightly muzzle-heavy. I doubt this would be an issue at 4 inches. Given that the barrel is machined as if it were rectangular stock (and it may well start rectangular) rather than turned on a lathe, the right smith with concave cutter on a mill could probably cut it back and resurface the modified barrel bottom for something truly unique once you have passed the point you are sure you are keeping it. Even if such a modification doesn't scare off a potential buyer if you change your mind, you are unlikely to regain the cost of such a thing.

 

[Twangbanger]

The Smith out of the box has a crisper single action than any factory GP-100 I've shot. In my opinion, the "built like a tank" canard that hangs around the Ruger revolvers is next to meaningless when applied to the energy level of a .22LR round. The only thing that possibly keeps the "durability" consideration from being completely meaningless is if you're actually talking about how much the trigger mechanism can be shot double-action before it is worn-out and needs a rebuild. But if you're * really * shooting double-action that much (hint, if you're not shooting PPC or Bianchi with it - you're not), you'll probably want the smoothness of the Smith anyway.

And I wouldn't listen to the BS about Smiths not being made well anymore. They may be made "different," but that doesn't mean worse. And I hate to break this to "ya," but Smith and Wesson quality was never perfect. A fair number of those "old" guns had to be sent back to the factory for one thing or another, before they reached that state of perfection everyone talks about. All part of the game.

And if the discussion gets into the subject of "castings"...keep in mind that the entire frame of the Ruger is cast which is part of the reason why they're made so thick is because it's an inherently weaker construction. What is interpreted by many as "built like a tank" is actually just the visual perception of this greater thickness. Personally, I don't think it matters, but there it is.

 

[Dddrees]

The backstory on my experience is that in my younger days I dug enough change out of the couch cushions to buy a Colt Python, and I felt like I had really arrived. Unfortunately, I found that I couldn't hit the side of a barn with it and eventually got rid of it and subsequently bought a S&W Model 66 and a 617 with the idea of having the same basic thing in .22. I dearly love the 66 and would never part with it, the 617 not so much for the aforementioned reason. On the 6" 617, the full lug barrel felt just slightly muzzle-heavy. I doubt this would be an issue at 4 inches. Given that the barrel is machined as if it were rectangular stock (and it may well start rectangular) rather than turned on a lathe, the right smith with concave cutter on a mill could probably cut it back and resurface the modified barrel bottom for something truly unique once you have passed the point you are sure you are keeping it. Even if such a modification doesn't scare off a potential buyer if you change your mind, you are unlikely to regain the cost of such a thing.

At the LGS when he asked me what size I wanted I was a bit clueless. I mean that's one of the things I hate when ordering something I've never seen in person. Generally I'll do quite a bit of research prior but I just haven't gotten there yet. So far I've got to the point of wanting a 22 revolver but I've not yet been able to do much research. The thing was I was there to pick up my Mark IV I just ordered and now I'm planning my next gun. Anyway he had another revolver and it was a 6" and although it may be about the same size as the Mark IV in length the revolver in 6"' just doesn't feel quite right. Odd but when I picked out the Mark IV Hunter and compared it to the other shorter Mark IV's, Buckmarks, and S&W Victories the longer Mark IV seemed right to me. Odd but what the H***.

If I understand you correctly the main difference for you between the Colt Python and a 22 would be recoil? Anyway since my first gun was a bb gun and my next was the M16 little or no recoil was what I was primarily used too. In fact when I eventually had the opportunity to get an issued side arm the M9 was much more preferable not only because it didn't rattle like the older Colt Government issued 1911's but because the 9mm didn't have as much recoil. So thanks for mentioning that the 617 in 6" with the full lug seems a bit muzzle heavy. This kind of confirms for me that the 617 in 4' if I decide to go with The 617 would be a better choice for me. I think I did see a video on the Ruger where the shooter said they felt it was well balanced.

 

[Dddrees]

The Smith out of the box has a crisper single action than any factory GP-100 I've shot. In my opinion, the "built like a tank" canard that hangs around the Ruger revolvers is next to meaningless when applied to the energy level of a .22LR round. The only thing that possibly keeps the "durability" consideration from being completely meaningless is if you're actually talking about how much the trigger mechanism can be shot double-action before it is worn-out and needs a rebuild. But if you're * really * shooting double-action that much (hint, if you're not shooting PPC or Bianchi with it - you're not), you'll probably want the smoothness of the Smith anyway.

And I wouldn't listen to the BS about Smiths not being made well anymore. They may be made "different," but that doesn't mean worse. And I hate to break this to "ya," but Smith and Wesson quality was never perfect. A fair number of those "old" guns had to be sent back to the factory for one thing or another, before they reached that state of perfection everyone talks about. All part of the game.

And if the discussion gets into the subject of "castings"...keep in mind that the entire frame of the Ruger is cast which is part of the reason why they're made so thick is because it's an inherently weaker construction. What is interpreted by many as "built like a tank" is actually just the visual perception of this greater thickness. Personally, I don't think it matters, but there it is.

Thanks for the insight. Often I find to discover more you have to go to a number of forums and dig a bit, but in this case I think I got extremely lucky and got a huge leg up already.

Thanks everybody!!

Dan

 

[BE Mike]

At the LGS when he asked me what size I wanted I was a bit clueless. I mean that's one of the things I hate when ordering something I've never seen in person. Generally I'll do quite a bit of research prior but I just haven't gotten there yet. So far I've got to the point of wanting a 22 revolver but I've not yet been able to do much research. The thing was I was there to pick up my Mark IV I just ordered and now I'm planning my next gun. Anyway he had another revolver and it was a 6" and although it may be about the same size as the Mark IV in length the revolver in 6"' just doesn't feel quite right. Odd but when I picked out the Mark IV Hunter and compared it to the other shorter Mark IV's, Buckmarks, and S&W Victories the longer Mark IV seemed right to me. Odd but what the H***.

If I understand you correctly the main difference for you between the Colt Python and a 22 would be recoil? Anyway since my first gun was a bb gun and my next was the M16 little or no recoil was what I was primarily used too. In fact when I eventually had the opportunity to get an issued side arm the M9 was much more preferable not only because it didn't rattle like the older Colt Government issued 1911's but because the 9mm didn't have as much recoil. So thanks for mentioning that the 617 in 6" with the full lug seems a bit muzzle heavy. This kind of confirms for me that the 617 in 4' if I decide to go with The 617 would be a better choice for me. I think I did see a video on the Ruger where the shooter said they felt it was well balanced.

There really is no one right or wrong answer. It really ends up being what you like and what you are going to use the gun for. That's why there are so many good but different guns out there! You are on the right track with two quality choices.

 

[indiucky]

Big help and I get it. But at this point I'm trying to pick just one. So I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or experiences which might help me make a choice. Part of the problem is that although I can take a look and will plan on looking at the Ruger I won't be able to even do that with the Smith and Wesson.

Dddrees I am a Smith man...I have K 22's from every decade but one from 1930's until the 1990's.....IMHO (And that is all it is) I think you would be very well served with a 617 (even with the Hillary Hole Lock)....The triggers are excellent and it is a very popular competition firearm..I know of two guys on INGO that shoot competition with their's nearly every week and love them...

Here is a "Beater" K Frame .22 with a 4 inch barrel that I can not make not work...I put between 100-200 rounds per weekend through her and have had nary a problem....It's a 50 plus year old gun that rolled around under the seat of a truck for 45 years before it became mine...

Go with the Smith....You'll not be disappointed.....

 

[Whip_McCord]

I am a revolver guy. More than half of my handguns are revolvers and I shoot them in competitions. First off, I never liked the feel of the 4" revolvers. Others may disagree, but I prefer the 5" or 6". You may want to try them both. I don't know why people talk about ease of carry. This is a target gun, not a carry gun.

My 617 is a 6". Since most of my 686es are 6" (w/ stock and custom barrels), that seems like the best way to practice with a 22 revolver. I use my 617 for Steel Challenge and it does a great job. Recently, while practicing for Camp Perry, we were shooting my 617 at plates, 50 yards away. Shooting double action (DA), my buddies and I rarely missed a steel plate. Pretty good accuracy out of that gun.

As far as the Ruger being built like a tank, that is more a negative for a 22. Not needed and just make the gun heavier. Where that comes in handy is in my Redhawk, 44 mag. I can load ammo for it that is too hot for my S&W 629. The S&W is easier to set up for competition or just plinking. You can also get a better DA trigger on the Smith. Just some more things to think about. Now, I need to load a few more 45s for Perry.

 

[SpartanHD]

I just bought a Davidson's gp100 with a 4" barrel. Should have it in about a week. You are more than welcome to try it out and see if you like it. In the last month I have acquired a Beretta cx4 9mm carbine, S&W 66-4, Colt AR-15 and a 10.5" 300blk AR pistol.... I'm really excited about this revolver more than the rest. I think it is cool as hell and will allow me to shoot more often

 

[BE Mike]

I am a revolver guy. More than half of my handguns are revolvers and I shoot them in competitions. First off, I never liked the feel of the 4" revolvers. Others may disagree, but I prefer the 5" or 6". You may want to try them both. I don't know why people talk about ease of carry. This is a target gun, not a carry gun.

My 617 is a 6". Since most of my 686es are 6" (w/ stock and custom barrels), that seems like the best way to practice with a 22 revolver. I use my 617 for Steel Challenge and it does a great job. Recently, while practicing for Camp Perry, we were shooting my 617 at plates, 50 yards away. Shooting double action (DA), my buddies and I rarely missed a steel plate. Pretty good accuracy out of that gun.

As far as the Ruger being built like a tank, that is more a negative for a 22. Not needed and just make the gun heavier. Where that comes in handy is in my Redhawk, 44 mag. I can load ammo for it that is too hot for my S&W 629. The S&W is easier to set up for competition or just plinking. You can also get a better DA trigger on the Smith. Just some more things to think about. Now, I need to load a few more 45s for Perry.

I didn't see anywhere in the OP's original post what the intended use of the revolver is. I must have missed that it was to be just for target shooting.

 

[halfmileharry]

Just received my Mark IV Hunter and Ruger 10 22 Take down the other day. So I am now seriously considering getting a revolver in 22 and right now trying to determine whether I should get the Smith and Wesson 617 or Ruger GP 100-1757. My understanding is the Smith and Wesson 617 has a smoother action and possibly a better trigger and finish. However the big draw in a Rugger GP 100-1757 is that a Ruger is built like a tank. For right now I have requested that my LGS place a back order for the Smith and Wesson 617 4". It appears currently that I could get a Ruger GP 100-1757 fairly easily but the Smith and Wesson would be more difficult as S&W won't be making any of these until September and it may not be until as early as November before I might be able to get this gun. I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on these two guns, any information which I may have missed, or any thoughts on others I might want to consider. I initially choose both of these because they both are capable of 10rds where some of the others are only 6rds.

Fit, finish, good looking, action, accuracy, dependability, durability, ease of operation, serviceability, disassembly are some of my major concerns. Are there any others I might want to consider as well?

I prefer the S&W guns. The Rugers are good but you won't beat the feel of a S&W.
Buy BOTH. This is INGO and we're overly qualified at spending other's monies.

 

[Whip_McCord]

I didn't see anywhere in the OP's original post what the intended use of the revolver is. I must have missed that it was to be just for target shooting.

There was not a use mentioned. Some assumed carry. I just assumed to other way so he had more options, depending on his use. But I do not think this type of gun is optimal for carry.

 

[BE Mike]

There was not a use mentioned. Some assumed carry. I just assumed to other way so he had more options, depending on his use. But I do not think this type of gun is optimal for carry.

Might be nice for a walk in the woods.

 

[indiucky]

Might be nice for a walk in the woods.

I carry my 6 inch K 22 in a hunter style holster on an old G.I. web belt sometimes on Perry County woods walks and it's no more a problem than a 4 inch......When I am riding the Mule, (Kawasaki, not the cool kind) I do like the 4 inch better but on horseback or woods walking I think a 6 inch is just as easy to carry...

I tend to agree with Whip here......I have a Schofield with a 5 inch barrel and in my opinion a 5 inch barrel is darn near perfection in a large frame/medium frame revolver.....