S&W 'J' frame .22 new lightwt vs old?

[44 Man]

Ok, haven't seen this discussed.  How do the new 'lightweight' S&W's .22s shoot compared to the older 'kit' guns with the steel frames?  Anyone done any kind of comparison?  I seem to remember when S&W came out with this 11 oz wonder that the groups the different magazine testers were getting didn't seem very impressive.  Any info out there?

[Uncle Howie]

I shot a 2" 317 Airweight... and the jury's still out, in my opinion.

For reference, I regularly shoot a S&W 617 w/4" barrel, Ruger MKIIs with various barrel lengths, a 4-5/8" Ruger Single Six, and a 2" Ruger SP101 in .22LR. Yeah, I love those .22s...

I shot the 317 at a show/demo day, and the only range available was 25 yds. with spinner targets.

Unfortunately, I couldn't seem to hit the spinners at all. :oops:  I'm going to blame it on the sights being not aligned properly...  It also had the fiber optic front sight, which took a little getting used to for me.

In all honesty, I could hit the spinner every time with a S&W 41, and regularly with the S&W 500. A little difference between a .22 and the .500...

Anyway, I couldn't see where my shots were going, so I couldn't even use Kentucky windage- bummer!

I was surprised that the 317 didn't kick more than it did... I figured it'd be a little "jumpy" between the light weight and short barrel, but it handled OK.

I think I would prefer the feel of an older Model 63 or similar. I have a Ruger SP101 in a .22 "snubbie," and much prefer its feel over the Airweight 317.

A Smith & Wesson Model 63 is on my long-term "must-have" list.

Maybe someday I'll get the opportunity to wring out an M317 on paper...

I look forward to hearing the opinions of others.

[Somerled]

I'm old fashioned. I like the Model 34/63 particularly with the 4" barrel. Although the 2" Model 63 is a great take-anywhere-in-the-pocket-no-matter-the-weather revolver. The all-steel revolvers just hold more steady in my hand. I shoot them just as well as the larger Model 18: a 4" K-frame .22. I wish S&W still made all of them--and without the safety gizmo.

[halo2]

I own a 317, 3" with adjustable sights. While it's not a tack driver, I can do 2" groups at 50', S/A, sitting, resting forearms on knees. At 7 yards offhand, that groups shrinks by half. Again, single action. In mine, 22 shorts have a slight accuracy edge.

This is after putting about 1200 rounds through it. I can do 1" or slightly smaller groups with my Ruger MK II 5.5 at 50'.

I bought the 317 as a plinking, small game hunting, camping/hiking piece. I'm not sure about the hunting role, but I plan to try, if I can get close enough for a clean shot. Squirrels or rabbits. I also have a Taurus 94 4" (Smith 63 knockoff) that might do better. The 94's slightly more accurate in my side-by-side comparison.

It is aluminum or an alloy, with what looks like a clearcote finish. It's light, so carrying is no problem, and the trigger in single action is nice, but double action it is very heavy.

Shell ejection can be tough if you're using gummier rounds like Remingtons and you haven't cleaned it in 200-300 rounds.
I have not seen that in my Taurus, though my Taurus binds if I shoot a lot of pure lead slugs. Federal HPs seem to be fine.