Author Topic: Accurate 22 Revolver (Read 1763 times)

Mikail · « **on:** November 17, 2003, 02:10:00 AM »

Greetings...I have begun training a bird dog in Pa.....there will be times I will be in the woods during hunting season(small game season)to work my dog and I like to have a sidearm..I own a Ruger autoloader and a couple centerfires but if you are not toting a rimfire rifle or ,only a 22 rimfire REVOLVER IS LEGAL during small game...I have a choice between a 6" S&W M17(K-22) or a Ruger Single Six-6 1/2"Convertible...can the Ruger shoot like the Smith?,or is the S&W considerably more accurate?I need advice hopefully from someone that has experience with both...THANKS,Mikail

Loozinit · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2003, 02:53:08 AM »

Hi Mikail,
I think the Ruger is more popular because usually it can be had for less money. Personally, my choice would be the S&W. I have one of those in 8-3/8ths". Best .22 handgun I've ever owned and I've been through a few. Nothing wrong with the Ruger but the S&W has the best factory single action let-off I've tried. You can tweak the Ruger somewhat but you will probably not make up for the short throw of the Smith. For me it all starts with the trigger...

Good luck,
Loozinit

plateshooter · « **Reply #2 on:** November 17, 2003, 02:16:32 PM »

I have owned several Ruger Single Six's over the years, and none of them would come close to the accuracy I get from my 6" S&W 17.
Maybe it's just me, but that is my experience. That revolver is scary accruate from a bench even at 50 yds.

Loozinit · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2003, 09:35:18 AM »

Yeah... I agree. Definitely worth the money.

Loozinit

Old Griz · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2003, 06:30:52 PM »

:cb2:From some other threads it appears the 6-shot Smiths are better than the 10-shot version, but I have to agree that the Smith is more accurate. I also have a Ruger Bisley in .22 and I really love it. I actually shoot it more than the Smith because the Smith is scoped, but the 617 is more accurate than the Ruger. I also have a SP101 in .22, but had to get a trigger job on it. It came with the standard Ruger 40 lb. DA pull.

S.B. · « **Reply #5 on:** December 12, 2003, 10:20:03 PM »

For what it's worth, I think the Smith the better buy. Not because it is more accurate, but because it is ergonomically better. Hence, it is easier to shoot accurately. I think that if you put both in a Ransom Rest result would be very close if not impossible to tell apart.

Loozinit · « **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2003, 07:17:18 AM »

I'll chime in again... SB is probably right. The .22s I've had or have are all pretty accurate. It mostly comes down to hold/trigger and your basic skill. Again, the main reason I like the Smith is for the excellent trigger let-off. There's nothing wrong with the Ruger and they've sold a few. They are simply a different type of revolver, being single action with the longer hammer throw and somewhat less natural grips. These are all issues of style I'm sure you will deal with successfully if you get the Ruger. I have tweaked both my Vaqueros a bit and now I have no problem. In fact, the short .45 is my gun of choice in the woods when I don't take a .22.

doc-and · « **Reply #7 on:** December 20, 2003, 03:19:37 PM »

I have both a Ruger Single Six convertable with a 5 1/2 inch barrel and a Smith & Wesson model 617 with a six inch barrel (6 shoot cylinder). For accuracy I'll put my money on the S&W everytime. Never happy with the single six's accuracy. For the money go with the S&W and a six shot cylinder you be glad you did.

doc-and

Graybeard · « **Reply #8 on:** December 20, 2003, 05:59:03 PM »

Kinda late getting in on this as I'm sure whatever he was gonna do he has long since done. But I wanna drop in some personal experience here.

Now you all KNOW I'm not a Ruger fan by any means so keep that in mind when you read this.

Many long years ago me and my best friend Billy Doss (now deceased) used to shoot a lot of NRA Silouette competition as well as a lot of unregistered matches where ever we could find them. I bought a set of the reguation size rimfire rifle swingers for us to practice on. We set up the little chicken at 25 meters on his back yard range and began shooting at it with our handguns. He used a Ruger Super Single Six with the long 9.5" barrel and I had a S&W Model 17 with the 8-3/8" barrel so sight radius was real close for us both.

It was always a toss up as to who would win the matches between us. We shot six shots at the 25 meters and then did it again and again until we tired of it. Usually went thru a box or two of ammo minimum a piece doing this. It would almost always take a score of 5 of 6 and very commonly 6 of 6 to win. That is free hand shooting at a target that is basically an inch in diameter with some fringe area at 25 meters. Both of us used iron sights. So I don't consider the Ruger to be inaccurate by any means. I the hands of a good shot it is fully the equal of the S&W as much as it hurts me to admit it.

GB

Ladobe · « **Reply #9 on:** December 28, 2003, 06:25:29 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard

...In the hands of a good shot it is fully the equal of the S&W as much as it hurts me to admit it. GB

And herein lies the real answer pard. Familiarization (from lots of practice) is what makes any gun "your best shooter" in my opinion. Case in point, I'd gladly shoot alongside you at those silhouettes any day with my old original Ruger Bearcat (sorry Bill) that I've had, carried and shot (a bunch) for well over 30 years. 4" barrel and notch rear sight, but bet with it I could stay with you at 25 meters no problem. Not because its a more accurate revolver than the Smith's, but because I know exactly where it shoots.

Have a Ruger Old Model Single Six 5 1/2" (also notch rear sight) too, but have owned several Colt and several S&W rimfire revolvers over the years as well. The old Ruger's is what stays in the safe and will always rule the roost around here.

So opinions vary, but I keep and use what works for me.

Ladobe :bye:

S.B. · « **Reply #10 on:** December 29, 2003, 03:36:05 AM »

Ladobe, I agree with the practice,practice, practice But any revolver with adjustable sights can be zeroed for any ammo on the market(unless mechanical problem exist). The fixed sight models have to use what is commonly refered to as Kentucky windage, hold over, under, or guess at how much windage. Adjustable sight models simply move the rear sights till the pistol shoots dead center with a 6 oclock(usually) hold.

Ladobe · « **Reply #11 on:** December 29, 2003, 02:44:47 PM »

S.B. - when you've shot as many 10,000's of rounds as I have in my Bearcat, I don't need adjustable sites to "zero" it in. Call it Kentucky windage or whatever you want, but with the loads I shoot in it, I know where to "hold". Ladobe

S.B. · « **Reply #12 on:** December 29, 2003, 03:21:34 PM »

Lodobe, don't dought you for a second. But with adjustable, I shoot the same sight picture, everytime(after sight in, of course). Things always look the same in the sight picture and are the same. But, to each his own. I just prefer to have my pistols shooting the same everytime I shoot and every calibers sights to look the same, hence I prefer the adjustable. My memory isn't as good as some other shooters. I own pistols in .22(6 total), .357(two total), .45(2), .44(2). Not a large collection by somes standard, but if I had to remember where each one shot, I'd be lost.

Ladobe · « **Reply #13 on:** December 29, 2003, 04:56:46 PM »

S.B. - To go back to my original post to GB... it was to rib a comfirmed Ruger hater that they can shoot in the right hands. My point was that if you shoot a particular handgun enough, the adustable sights are not necessary to be just as precise with it as the next guy who has adjustable sights (all else being equal). And, because I have shot this Bearcat so much - I'd bet a dollar to a dime that at 25 meters I'd do better with it offhand than any of my other adjustable sighted rimfires I have, including the semi autos. Again, simply because I have shot them only a "little" in comparison (number of rounds). I am on your side for adjustable sights on the whole - shot open sighted rifles for the first 15 years I hunted before I got my first scope. Have 30 odd handguns and have been handgun hunting since the late 60's. The two old Rugers are the only 2 I have without either adjustable open sights or scopes on them. Onward... L.

Old Griz · « **Reply #14 on:** December 29, 2003, 07:54:03 PM »

Unless I'm hunting squirrels or beavers .22s are just for fun. So I buy what ever ammo the store has at the cheapest price. Different ammo is gonna shoot differently (duh) and I've never bothered to adjust my adjustable sights to get what ever I was shootin' that day perfectly zeroed in. Next day I might be shootin' something else and then I'd have to do it all over again! Heck, if it shoots high, I just aim lower, etc., etc., etc. Life is too short to mess with sights on a .22. The Lord invented .22s just so we could have fun.

Now serious huntin' is different. Got my stash of huntin' ammo, and the 617 is scoped and it always hits where the crosshairs are. Now if I could only keep those crosshairs where I actually WANT them . . . . .
:cb2:

Ladobe · « **Reply #15 on:** December 30, 2003, 12:22:36 PM »

Quote from: Old Griz

....The Lord invented .22s just so we could have fun...

Good point OG. Can say I've had to spend a few long and lonely nights on the mountain when "things" prevented me from getting back to camp. Old Bearcat kept me from going hungry every time (but better not ask "what"). :wink:

Ladobe