Rimfire Central Firearm Forum banner

S&W 63 vs 617...I just couldn't decide

22K views 67 replies 27 participants last post by  johnnywitt 
#1 · (Edited)
I thought this information might help someone considering one of these revolvers. It's all completely subjective based on my perceived needs for a .22LR revolver. There is no wrong decision among these; they are all great. The only way you can go wrong is by not getting at least one of them.

I decided a few months ago that I wanted a .22LR revolver but couldn't decide among several models: S&W 617 4"/6", 63 4"/3", and Ruger SP101. So I've spent the past few months acquiring examples of each to compare them.

Summary Ranking:
  1. S&W 63-5
    Why: Best all around. Good size/accuracy for many tasks (CCW, trail, range, all ages).​
  2. Ruger SP101
    Why: Good size and value for cost. Very close to 617-1 4". Beat it due to comparable accuracy for $200 less.​
  3. S&W 617-1 4"
    Why: Great versatile gun but a little big. Beats SP101 for sights and trigger but doesn't equate to much better accuracy. SP101 is better value.​
  4. S&W 63 No Dash
    Why: Good size but poor fit/finish and very sticky extraction knocked it down. I did buy this one well used but things like the off-center hammer and sticky extraction I think were issues from the factory.​
  5. S&W 617 No Dash 6"
    Why: Beautiful fit/finish/action/trigger. Just too darn big/heavy to be good for much outside of the range.​

Ruger SP101 Good:
  • Great size; not to big or too small; between K and J frame
  • Great sights; love the fiber optic front sight
  • VERY solid gun
  • Trigger is smooth without noticeable stacking
  • 8-round cylinder
  • Reliable
  • Accuracy/precision is on par with more expensive S&Ws
  • Size/weight make it good for many tasks

Ruger SP101 Bad:
  • Fit/finish are not the best
  • Trigger is HEAVY (much heavier than all the S&Ws) but smooth
  • Cheaper than a new S&W but still $500-600
  • Factory grip was too small for my medium-size hands
  • Not easy to find

S&W 617 No Dash 6" Good:
  • Beautiful, classic gun with great fit and finish
  • Buttery smooth DA/SA trigger and reasonably light for a rimfire
  • Accurate, precise, reliable

S&W 617 No Dash 6" Bad:
  • Big and HEAVY (did not do shooting comparison with others due to longer barrel)
  • Too big/heavy to be very versatile
  • Getting harder to find pre-lock models and more expensive

S&W 617-1 4" Good:
  • Beautiful, classic gun with great fit and finish
  • Buttery smooth DA/SA trigger and reasonably light for a rimfire
  • Accurate, precise, reliable
  • Better balance than its 6" brother

S&W 617 No Dash 6" Bad:
  • Still big and heavy
  • On the border of being too big/heavy to be very versatile
  • Getting harder to find pre-lock models and more expensive

S&W 63 No Dash 4" Good:
  • Beautiful, classic gun with great fit and finish
  • Decent DA/SA trigger and reasonably light for a rimfire
  • Accurate, precise, reliable
  • Very versatile size for the caliber good for trail, range, possibly carry

S&W 63 No Dash 4" Bad:
  • Worst trigger of the S&Ws
  • SA is good but there is some stacking in DA
  • I personally don't like the look of exposed extractor rods
  • Getting harder to find pre-lock models and more expensive
  • I think round butt is better for a J frame
  • Empty rounds really get stuck in the 63 No Dash's cylinder making extraction difficult even with clean chambers

S&W 63-5 3" Good:
  • Beautiful gun
  • Great DA/SA trigger and reasonably light for a rimfire
  • Accurate, precise, reliable
  • Very versatile size for the caliber good for trail, range, possibly carry
  • Great sights; love the fiber optic front sight

S&W 63-5 3" Bad:
  • Worst fit/finish of the S&Ws
  • Barrel is slightly canted towards shooter's right and noticeable gap between barrel rib/extractor shroud and frame
  • SA is good but there is some stacking in DA. Much better than 63 No Dash trigger though.
  • I personally don't like the lock being there
  • Hard to find and expensive

The Ruger SP101 did hold the top spot for a while due to its nice size and overall versatility. Its heavy trigger doesn't seem to interfere with shooting. However, the 63-5 has taken over as my favorite 22LR revolver. Its size, balance, and ease of shooting pushed it ahead of the others. The SP101 still comes in a close second followed by the 617-1 then the 63 No Dash.

I'm glad I got all of them and don't plan on getting rid of any except maybe the 617 6" if I really want something else and need the money.

All targets were shot in an unsupported isosceles stance. I'm sure a Ransom rest would better suss out the accuracy potential of each gun but I'm not interested in that so I won't be investing in that. I only care what can be done with each gun in my hands. All of them are great but the 63-5 shoots better than I think it should given its smaller size and shorter barrel. It's just an all-around great gun that could serve many roles.

Whichever one you have or want, invest in a Speed Beez system for it. Very sweet.

I prefer pre-lock Smiths but I own several lock models as well. If the lock version offers features I want that the pre-lock doesn't, I'll buy it. I have a great 627-5 PC, 351PD, and now this 63-5 that have the lock and I don't mind it. The new 617 doesn't offer anything over the pre-lock models so I sought out pre-lock for those. I didn't care about 10 vs 6 round cylinders.

Single Action Shooting at 50 Feet:

S&W 63-5 3"


S&W 63 No Dash 4"


Ruger SP101 4"


S&W 617-1 4"


Double Action Shooting at 25 Feet

S&W 63-5 3"


S&W 63 No Dash 4"


Ruger SP101 4"


S&W 617-1 4"


Other Photos:



















 
See less See more
18
#4 ·
JD,
There is just something beautiful about these models.

My wife loves the 63, bought used at a pawn store almost 23 years ago.

I love the classic look of iron sights, but had to try a Red Dot on the new 617.
The cheap 'dot' works amazingly well.

They're both tack drivers...



 
#5 ·
JD,
There is just something beautiful about these models.

My wife loves the 63, bought used at a pawn store almost 23 years ago.

I love the classic look of iron sights, but had to try a Red Dot on the new 617.
The cheap 'dot' works amazingly well.

They're both tack drivers...
Nice photos. I like the grips on that 617.

I too tried optics on my 6" 617 but decided to stick with iron sights because it was so heavy with both a Burris Speedot 135 and Leupold M8 2x, as if it weren't heavy enough already. The no dash 617s were not factory drilled/tapped so you have to use that big clamping mount. While it is aluminum there still a lot of it so it adds some weight. Both optics worked very well on it though.
 
#12 ·
I have a 17, a couple of 617s, and a couple of 63s. To add to the confusion and ambivalence about the .22 revos, add the new 4” Ruger SP101 in .22LR and perhaps later in .22 mag. I like it better than the 3” 63, about the same as the 5” 63, but it isn’t quite as good as the 17 or 617s, but I would carry the 101 in the field before I would take the 617.
 
#13 ·
I have a 17, a couple of 617s, and a couple of 63s. To add to the confusion and ambivalence about the .22 revos, add the new 4" Ruger SP101 in .22LR and perhaps later in .22 mag. I like it better than the 3" 63, about the same as the 5" 63, but it isn't quite as good as the 17 or 617s, but I would carry the 101 in the field before I would take the 617.
Hi Clem,
What is it about those Smith .22s that keep us wanting more :D

Never looked at the 101, but now I'm curious. Is it a more rugged field gun??
 
#17 ·
Which one, which one? Whats not to like, about any of them?

That 63, what a great trail gun. One of the very best ever. If you're anything like a fair shot, that revolver and a few 50 count boxes of ammo would keep you fed for weeks, in a pinch. Squirrels, rabbits & hares, birds, even fish.
Fits great on any belt holster, small enough to not be in your way....

Nice .22 collection there, whats not to like?
 
#18 ·
Revolvers with wood

I came home after work to find my custom Hogue wood grips awaiting me for the SP101 so I had to take a few photos. These are the first wood Hogues I've gotten and I really like them. Same shape as the rubber Monogrip with the beauty of wood. A nice combination. They fit great. I want wood grips on bought my 63s too but I don't know whether to get more Hogues or try Altamont.



 
#25 ·
Nice pics and pistols!
Photoman, did you polish that 617? It looks terrific.
I also really like the grips on those 63s.
Here are a couple of pics of mine.
I didn't polish the 617 but I think someone did. It's a no dash model. My -1 4" dosen't look anything like it. The -1 has a brushed finish where the no dash almost looks like chrome. It really is beautiful. If it didn't look so nice I probably would have sold it by now because I prefer the 4" but I handle this 6" more than any other gun I own except my daily carry.

That's quite a collection of J-frames you have. Don't suppose one of them is a 651 you'd be looking to part with?
 
#28 · (Edited)
Get a 63-5 with 3" barrel if you can find it. I have been singing the praises of my Ruger SP101 over my 617s and 63 no dash for a while now but I finally got to shoot my 63-5 last night and it's now my favorite .22LR revolver. Great size and more accurate than it should be for that size. I'll post targets for all of them later.

I also tried out the Speedbeez system for the first time last night. I wouldn't even waste my time with a .22 revolver without that system. It's a lot of fun and works extremely well. And it better for the price but it's well worth it in my opinion.
 
#33 ·
There is nothing quite like the old model 63s with the wood grips. I was surprised that S&W quit making the model 63 many years ago. The 8 shot cylinder is nice on the new ones, but the quality of parts (MIM) just isn't as nice as the old ones.
 
#37 ·
I realize that this a stainless gun discussion,but after reading photoman's model review,the ideal gun would seem to be the virtually impossible to find lugless617 or a Model 18.I sold my 3 J frame .22s,and think the old Model 18,and new Model 18,are great guns,action-wise and weight-wise.(Note that I have big hands,and don't have the op to take any gun for a walk in the woods(if I could,I think Gerald's little gem is ideal for that)-solely range use, unfortunately)The other advantage of K frame guns that wasn't mentioned,is the vast number of grip choices,not found with Js or Rugers.
 
#38 ·
I was only really interested in stainless guns so the 17/18 weren't in the running for me.

The big thing that killed the K frame for me was that my ideal one and only .22LR revolver would be one that my wife or I could use as a CCW if necessary as well as a trail gun. We have many other better CCW choices but if things keep going the way they are we'll be lucky to own even .22 revolvers in years to come. Luckily I don't have to make a choice of only one. For now.

One of my first guns was a S&W Model 66. I carried that for about a week then bought a Glock 19. That K frame was not carry-friendly on my 5'9"/150# frame. My wife is 5'2"/100# and would need a dolly to carry a stainless K frame.

They are all great guns and any one of them will serve its owner well.
 
#39 ·
Gotta agree with photoman: The 617 with the 6" barrel is just way too big and clunky. I got 2 and sold them both. For 22lr, the 34/63 are just right. These are wonderful to teach beginners how to shoot. I taught my daughter how to shoot on a 34, and now she claims that it's hers.
 
#42 ·
A lot really depends on the individual. A large person would probably find the "K" frame to be the best shooter, whereas a small statured person may find the "J" frame to be the best. They are both great revolvers and for me it just depends on what I am going to do with them. For range time I would take the "K" frame and for carrying, I would take the "J" frame.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top