On 2/5/2011 9:50 PM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 17:02:09 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/2/2011 11:56 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
"Brian wrote in message
...


Due to his sudden disappearance from RCM, I was wondering about
Gunner's health, so I was in contact and conversed with him earlier
in the evening. He told me his computer won't log-on to the internet,
and he's been busy.

He did give me the old Swartzeneger line...you know...

"I'll be back!"

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.

He e-mailed me from a friends house today but the basterd STILL didn't help
me with my quandary. I wanted to know the advantages and disadvantages
between a S&W 617 in 6 or 10 rd.


You need Gummer's help with something like that? What's your problem?
The gun's a big honking revolver that looks like a .357 magnum except it
shoots .22 rimfire. I think it only comes with a ten shot cylinder too.
I know people who have this gun. It's ridiculous. It weighs over 40
ounces and list price for it is over 800 bucks. I can't imagine why
anyone would want one. It's an overpriced brick that only shoots a .22.
What it is for I haven't been about to figure out. There's no advantage
to owning one.

Hawke

We have a 17-4, which is very similar to the 617 but blued rather than
SS and of earlier vintage. It has a 6-hole cylinder. It's one of
Mary's two favorites. It's a lot of fun to shoot and newbies often
surprise themselves with how well they can shoot it. One reason it is
so accurate might be because it has a really nice crisp trigger in
single-action. Glass-break crisp, it's possibly the best trigger in
my lot of revolvers.

A slight advantage to the 10-holer is slightly less stress on the
lockwork because the cylinder rotates less with each shot. But the
primary reason for a 6-hole .22 is to retain as much similarity as
possible to other K-frames in heavier calibers, so the (6)17 remains a
good practice gun very similar in weight and feel to, say, a 686 in
.357 Magnum but without the flash, bang, recoil and ammo cost.

I happen to prefer the .357, but I do enjoy taking Mary's 17 to the
range now and then.

What it's for, Hawke, is what any .22 pistol is for: shooting
enjoyment. Worthless to one who doesn't enjoy it, but some folks do.


I know a number of people who use .22s for all kinds of different
reasons. Some hunt squirrels and actually eat them. I know, I was
shocked when a guy told me that. They hunt rabbits for food too. People
compete in bullseye leagues for competition. And yes, sometime people
just like to fool around shooting a .22 pistol for the hell of it. So
there are a number of reasons why people like them.

I'm just saying the 617 is a huge revolver and to chamber it in .22 is a
bit of a joke. I hear the same thing said about Beretta 92s. That's a
huge gun for 9mm. In the case of the 617 I agree. It's just way too big
for the caliber. If someone wants one just to mess with who am I to
complain? It's their choice. But I am saying there are far better
choices out there if you want a .22. A lot less costly ones too.

Hawke