I am a hobby muso who loves his marshall amps. The pre 2000 amps were always the better ones compared to the new ones. So i am kinda relating it a bit to that

 

I have three S&W revolvers with the lock and it's much ado about nothing. I've turned the locks all the way to the "unlock" position and never thought about it again. But if that doesn't work for you the locks are easily removed with a small parts kit.

I have one of the "new" Model-17 Classic .22 revolvers and it has proven to be very accurate with all kinds of ammo. It's one of the cool things about a good .22 revolver is it will run on any level of ammo ... it doesn't care

 

I'm old; old enough to not sweat the small stuff. To the OP, if you list your location, a kind member may let you shoot his or hers.

 

Brisbane , Australia

 

I dislike the locks, not because of the very remote possibility of malfunction, but because the safety's presence ruins the attractive lines of the S&W revolver. Ditto the MIM parts; largely a tempest in a teapot as far as durability, but they invariably have flashing on the centerline.
Here is a pic comparing the old and new and revealing the inelegant lines:
Old, graceful, deeply sweeping line:

New: Shallow, flattened, and inelegant curve, and the hideous cylinder release.

On the MIM flashing, note the rear edge of the hammer on this S&W 500. Interestingly, the massive X-frame manages to retain the attractive sweeping lines due to the large frame having ample room even with the safety. The safety also includes a cheap-looking strip of stamped sheet metal parallel to the hammer, slightly visible in this pic:

Still, for a revolver I planned to shoot a lot, I find the fit on current S&W revolvers tighter than many older Smiths and probably more durable, especially compared to those made in the mid to late 70s, when Dirty Harry had S&W revolvers flying off the shelves for 125% or more of retail. This particular S&W 500 is extremely tight. Not quite Freedom Arms tight, but very tight and well timed.

 

I bought a S&W M617 not long after getting my FFL - actually, ordered in two - a 6" model for myself, and a 4" for an old shooting friend. He told me how much he liked his 4" model not long after I transferred it to him, and I've shot several rattlesnakes in the head with my 6". I don't shoot mine all that often, but it goes with me in my truck daily, and is also carried on our large ag sprayer, tractors, and in the combine during harvest. For someone who's 73yrs old & who has to tilt my head back to see the sights clearly with my bi-focals, I'm pretty pleased with it. A few years ago, after I'd told one of my high-power shooting friends about wanting a nice K22 Masterpiece, he showed up at a match with it, and after the match got rained-out/froze-out, a bunch of us retired to a Pancake House for coffee & a late breakfast. My friend asked if I wanted to take a look at his K22 before we went in to eat. I wound up buying it at what I feel was a very fair price, and after I got home, removed the stocks to see the S/N - it was made in 1951, the year I was born, and the same year Dad's old K22 that I inherited was made. So now I've got three, and as much as Dad's old revolver means to me, I kinda think the 617 shoots a bit better... Not that it matters, because I have no intentions of selling any of the three...

 

I have within the past 6 months purchased a M17 form '67, a late production M17 and a Colt KC .22 lr., the older M17 outshoots both of the newer revolvers and is noticably better finished.

Some 5 shot groups at 15 yards with all three off a casual wrist rest and I'm badly out of practice.

 

the older M17 outshoots both of the newer revolvers and is noticably better finished.

The older stuff has better fit and finish, but the newer stuff (so long as everything's in spec) shoots just as well, IME. Matter of fact, my Lock-Infected 4" 617 is at least as accurate as my vintage Cunningham-tuned 5-screw 6" K-22, even after 80k rounds down the pipe. Opposite of @gmd1950 's experience, but the point is that both variants are fine, and it really comes down to the individual gun, IMO.

As far as the The Lock, it's not necessary, so I prefer it not be there, but functionally, it's a non-issue, especially for a .22LR K-frame.

 

Agreed. It really depends on the era in which a revolver is made and, maybe more so, the individual example. I had a brand new M18 from the early 80s that displayed what I would deem as excessive cylinder play, and it was a mediocre shooter. It went down the road. A 63 from only a few years later was as tight as any Smith I’ve handled and would outshoot many of the K-frame .22s I’ve owned dating from the 1950s to the present, though, obviously, most J-frame 63s or 34s would not.

The brand new 317 I have is a very tight little revolver, and, although I’m still learning to shoot it well, it shows surprising promise.

Again, if I were planning to put 1000s or rounds a year though a revolver, I would buy a new one and let Smith service/repair it as needed, if needed. I do agree few handguns are as desirable or delightful to own to me as vintage S&W and Colt revolvers. One really needs at least one of both.

 

A buddy has S&W 617 no dash 6 shot that shoots as well as any .22 I have ever shot. That said I have now whatever dash S&W 617 that was made 8 years ago with the lock 10 shot. It equals his revolver in ability. I know his gun is more valuable than mine but I like the 10 rounds more. I would take new over old for use ... JMO.

 

Just shot this with my stock (other than the optic for my aging eyes) 4” 10-shot 617-6. Standing, unsupported, double action. I don’t make any claim to shoot consistent 1” 25-yard groups, but even with 80k+ rounds down the pipe, these newer lock-infested 617s can shoot as well as anything. The rest is up to the nut behind the trigger 😉

 

IMHO I would stay away from a new Classic Model 17 and try to find one made in the 60's or 70's. Look at the online auctions and S&W forums. The 17's from that era are arguably some of the finest revolvers S&W ever made. I have a 17-2 made in 1965 I found about 2 years ago on a popular auction site. It's in 98% condition and as a bonus was wearing a set of very desireable non-relieved checkered target stocks from the 1950's. I was astonished and won with a $600 bid. The new Classic models you see selling now for $1000 and more are good guns but S&W's current quality no where near matches what they produced "back in the day".

 

My 617-6 shoots really well, but I inspected it really well and it’s been a good one. After a bad experience with one of the Classic 17’s, I’d give them a pass.

 

Given the choice between two identical new/old guns, I'd take the old one.

But...the new guns ain't bad, they just look a bit "wrong" to my eye.

 

Get the old one mate. I picked up a 70's model a while ago, and the quality/finish is stunning. It is also very very accurate. They aren't in high demand here in Aus so they are usually pretty cheap second hand.

 

Agree, Back in 1968 when I finished college, I bought myself a new K 38. Two years later when a fresh USAF officer one of the NCO's where I worked heard me talking and brought in a pristine K 22, He had an interest in a pawn shop, and said the original owner did not think it exciting enough. I remember paying $68 for the 38 and 70 for the .22, so just under $140 for the two, but then that was 55 years ago. I made a case for them and the finish is just as pristine as when I got them.

 

No quick draw not considered here. Gut if you want a pistol that really shoots try a 17-4 with an 8-3/8" barrel with 3-Ts factory delivered in single-action only. It will blow your mind~!! Rested on a bench or tree branch you can and will hit those farther out targets, sage rats, bunnies, ground hogs, and squirrels with ease. Would work pretty well on a wild hog too. No smithing of any kind needed to make it perfect.
Don't make me choose the last pistol I would ever let go because that would be impossible to choose, But the 17 would be near the end of the list if I was forced to choose~!!!!
There's a guy on GB who often offers very nice S&Ws at what I consider decent prices.

 

I own around 30 S&W revolvers and not one of them wear the lock! The lock turns me away as fast as the grips or stocks I should say of the newer revisions. While I’m at it I dont like the 10 shot cylinder either! **** I didn’t think I was that old until I read my own writing. Guess I’m not a big fan of change. I guess i have always held S&W as the greatest revolver in my own opinion. From the blue to the combat grips to the checkering on the top strap of my old pre model 27 3.5”. Hell even the cardboard boxes. Ive never even considered buying a S&W with a lock to be honest. If I see them in a shop, gun show or online I just keep on keeping on never given them a second thought.

 

I own around 30 S&W revolvers and not one of them wear the lock! The lock turns me away as fast as the grips or stocks I should say of the newer revisions. While I’m at it I dont like the 10 shot cylinder either! **** I didn’t think I was that old until I read my own writing. Guess I’m not a big fan of change. I guess i have always held S&W as the greatest revolver in my own opinion. From the blue to the combat grips to the checkering on the top strap of my old pre model 27 3.5”. Hell even the cardboard boxes. Ive never even considered buying a S&W with a lock to be honest. If I see them in a shop, gun show or online I just keep on keeping on never given them a second thought.

No locks on any of my smith and wesson revolvers either! Just does not look right.

 

If you're like me, you've probably lost a key ot two in your day. If your pistol has a lock, do you keep it loaded with the lock on~? When carrying for self defense, do you have the lock on~? When sitting at home in front of the TV, where do you keep the key~? How long does it take to retrieve the firearm, locate the key, unlock the firearm, and get ready to do business~??

"Empty barrels make the most noise~!"

 

Just because a handgun comes with a lock doesn't mean you have to use it.
Who would carry for SD and keep the lock on until ready to shoot ?
Might as well keep your house gun locked in the safe too.

 

I have 3 K22 model 17’s, a 1958 6”, a 1982 8 3/8” and a 2023 6” and all three are excellent, I actually like the newest one best. But there is no real performance difference between them.

 

I have always had a bias for old classics, so I would go with a 1960’s or older gun. Of course any factory can put out a lemon now or in the past, but the chances of a QC issue are MUCH higher with the current production stuff.
if you learn basic inspection procedures to check proper function of the older ones an older one which checks out functionally will last about forever. A K frame 22 is about indestructible- my last one ( bought used in the 1990’s) went through at least 100 thousand rounds while I owned it, without any problems.
when it comes to the older revolvers S&W doesn’t service them anymore, and it is rare to find a gunsmith with any revolver skills at all. but the chances of needing either is exceedingly low.

 

1937, I am biased. I bought my Model 17 back in the late 1970s. That revolver has been ultra reliable. It has served me well, and I would not consider replacing it.

 

I have a 17-4 with a 6 inch barrel that I bought used (like new condition) in 1984, my first gun purchased with my own money. I think I paid about 135 dollars for it. It was pretty and the single action trigger was great. The double action was not and spent cases were hard to eject. I lived in San Francisco at the time and the late Bob Chow did an action job to it for a princely some of 60 dollars. It now is a delight to shot and I have put close to 15k rounds through it. I would not hesitate to buy an old one and if it has issues have a good gunsmith tune it up. My experiences and 10 dollars might buy you a latte and a cookie. Good luck

 

I just recently bought one of the new Lipsey's K-frame Mountain Guns in 22LR. It's a really nice-looking revolver, but the first time I took it out and put a box of SK Pistol Match through it, I got about 60%-70% FTF when shooting double action. It did the same with some Win T22. Every one of the failed to fire rounds, if rotated 180* and loaded back into the cylinder, would fire if they were fired single action. I removed the stocks to see if I could put more tension on the hammer spring, but the screw refused to turn.

As attractive as this new model is, I'm wishing I'd have kept a nice M18 that I bought NIB back in 1985. It had problems - wouldn't eject without punching a hole in the palm of my hand, and it leaded badly after very few rounds. I called Nu-Line Guns in Caulks Hill, Mo. and told them what was wrong, and they had me send it to them. Got it back in 2-3 weeks and they'd fixed it by polishing the cylinder's chambers & re-cutting the forcing cone. Never had any sort of an issue with it after that, and the accuracy was much improved. I sold or traded it a year or two later, and have regretted it ever since. If I'd still had it, I doubt that I'd have been tempted to buy this new Mountain Gun.

I went back online a few days ago and looked up Nu-Line Guns. The address had changed, and it appears that they now only work on Winchester rifles & shotguns. Anyone know if this is the case? Guess since the Mountain Gun is a brand new one, I should just call S&W to see what they say about it...

 

I know that I've never engaged the lock on my 617-6...and never plan to engage it either....