S&W 317

[rangersedge]

Anyone here have experience / opinions about the 317?

[paul105]

Here is a link to the S&W forum S&W titled “model 317 or 63??” .
smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/432627-model-317-63-a.html?432627=#post138564299

In that thread I posted the following:

“The 317 is a pretty specialized piece. I have two, one 3" w/adj sights and one 1 7/8" w/fixed sights. The sights and light weight makes them both more difficult to shoot vs the M63. I also have a 4" M34 (Blue version of M63). Would choose the heavier steel frame gun if the only .22 I was going to own.

The M63 weighs twice as much as the 317s and the stainless frame is going to be more durable. Even at 24 oz, the M63 is still pretty much a light weight revolver, but much more durable/shootable than the 12.5 oz of the 317.

Lots of folks complain about the J Frame 22s double action trigger pull -- I've never found it objectionable and shoot the heck out of the two 317s and a 4" M34 double action.

My two biggest complaints with current S&Ws is front sight height and spurious sticky extraction issues with .22 revolvers. The M63 isn't a "gimme" when it comes to sticky free extraction -- no current S&W .22 revolver is.”

Additional thoughts:

I’m pretty sure the 1 7/8” version is no longer being produced.

The adjustable sights are “V” notch rear and green fiber optic front (at least that’s the way mine came).

Lots of chatter on various threads on the S&W forum seems to indicate inconsistent quality, so the one you get can range from great to a lemon.

If you are looking to head shoot a squirrel at 25 yds plus, this probably is not the gun for you.

I guess it really boils down to what you are going to use it for - lots of range time, probably not a good idea.

They are VERY light weight.

Have thoroughly enjoyed both of mine but they have seen limited use.

FWIW,
Paul

[bula]

I bought the wife one a few years ago. Has the express rear and green F/O front that Paul mentions. Fit and finish and function are all good. I think the gun is capable of good accuracy but the short barrel and light weight work against the operator. Three criteria were met for her. It's light, it fits her hand, and it's "cute". When the gang at camp are plinking or the nieces and nephews are here and the cans or claybirds are getting set out, she will reach for the 22/45 MK every time. I'd like to try similar sights on my snub M69. 

[bula]

I tell people, define the "niche" you want the gun to fill. I wanted this gun to do for her what my 44spec Bulldog does for me. In back pocket or slide holster, it does yard work, and goes fishing and ATV'ing and such. It is, the 317, capable of filling that role if critter size stays small. For CCW..? Better than nothing.

[bradshaw]

Jun 7, 2019 7:11:49 GMT -5 paul105 said:

Here is a link to the S&W forum S&W titled “model 317 or 63??” .
smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/432627-model-317-63-a.html?432627=#post138564299

In that thread I posted the following:

“The 317 is a pretty specialized piece. I have two, one 3" w/adj sights and one 1 7/8" w/fixed sights. The sights and light weight makes them both more difficult to shoot vs the M63. I also have a 4" M34 (Blue version of M63). Would choose the heavier steel frame gun if the only .22 I was going to own.

The M63 weighs twice as much as the 317s and the stainless frame is going to be more durable. Even at 24 oz, the M63 is still pretty much a light weight revolver, but much more durable/shootable than the 12.5 oz of the 317.

Lots of folks complain about the J Frame 22s double action trigger pull -- I've never found it objectionable and shoot the heck out of the two 317s and a 4" M34 double action.

My two biggest complaints with current S&Ws is front sight height and spurious sticky extraction issues with .22 revolvers. The M63 isn't a "gimme" when it comes to sticky free extraction -- no current S&W .22 revolver is.”

Additional thoughts:

I’m pretty sure the 1 7/8” version is no longer being produced.

The adjustable sights are “V” notch rear and green fiber optic front (at least that’s the way mine came).

Lots of chatter on various threads on the S&W forum seems to indicate inconsistent quality, so the one you get can range from great to a lemon.

If you are looking to head shoot a squirrel at 25 yds plus, this probably is not the gun for you.

I guess it really boils down to what you are going to use it for - lots of range time, probably not a good idea.

They are VERY light weight.

Have thoroughly enjoyed both of mine but they have seen limited use.

FWIW,
Paul

*****

Paul.... appreciate your take on these J-frame .22’s. My experience is limited to various Model 34’s and stainless variants with 1-7/8” and 4” barrels. I much prefer the aesthetic of the M-34 birdied grip over a rounded squad butt, yet find either fully shootable. I haven’t encountered an older M-34 Kit Gun that wasn’t dead nuts accuracy, with beautifully uniform chambers which extract perfectly. Accuracy of my M-34 4” is good enough to clink the IHMSA big bore turkey from 165 yards, and headshots on rabbits at usual handgun distance. While I haven’y encountered extraction problems from the stainless variant, one example with 1-7/8” barrel gave keyholes @ 15 yards. I did not measure the gun; recovered bullets showed extreme elongation.

There is a salient power difference between a .22 Long Rifle fired from a 2-inch and a 4-inch barrel. The 4” barrel penetrates one side of a 55 gallon drum; the 2” dents the same skin. Either puts down sheep with one up the ear canal into the brain. I don’t trust the 2” on a skull shot. Note that most livestock begins small, to grow larger, with bones thickening and hardening into maturity. Nature applies the same blueprint to deer and pigs in the woods, which is why a .357 Mag or .45 ACP apropos small-to-medium whitetails may find itself over its head against a huge doe or buck. Same applies in the barnyard.

Thus, in .22LR the 4-inch J-frame makes for real utility, with the 2-inch an utter niche gun. I have huge respect for a Smith & Wesson J-frame .38 Special with aluminum frame (S&W calls it scandium), especially the M-442 and M-642 Centennials, while from my hand the aluminum J-frame .22 doesn’t deliver.
David Bradshaw

[seminolewind]

My 3" 317 rides in my waist pack during archery season for snakes and such. I forget it's there until I need it. It did take care of an aggressive critter of the k9 variety hanging around my truck when I came out from hunting one morning. I've replaced the factory sights with a square notch rear and Patridge front. It's still not a target gun, but it will bounce cans out to 25 yds or so. The finish is a mess, but it's completely reliable and serves it's purpose well.

[bigbrowndog]

Not a 34 or 317, but my 43 with 3.5” barrel also holds to Bradshaw’s comments, wonderfully accurate at normal handgun distances with correct ammo. No issues with extraction, and it is quite forgettable in a holster while hunting, walking, or riding in a vehicle.

Trapr

[oddshooter]

I believe mine is the lightest handgun I've ever fired. If weight is the issue for you, this is the gun.
Kids can't hold my SW17 8 3/8" up to fire it. But the 317 is easy to hold up for everybody.

I have a total dislike of the fiber optic on any gun. I also put the nice SW wooden grips on mine.

This doesn't seem like a target, bench-rest, hunter sixgun. It's more like a "forgot it was there piece".

Prescut

[rangersedge]

Thanks for all the quick, detailed responses!

[rjm52]

I bought one not too long after they came out... Have not really shoot all that many rounds through it, maybe 200 or so. One thing I did find is that the right ammo makes a HUGH difference in accuracy.

Had always used Federal or Remington bulk ammo as it shoots very well from most of my guns... One day I was shooting at a target at 10 yards and putting all the rounds in a 2-3" circle... Had some Winchester Power Point ammo with me and tried it...a thumbnail size group resulted...

From what I have read, because of the mostly aluminum construction these guns will wear out unlike their steel framed cousins. Even the Model 43 has a steel cylinder with an aluminum frame.

But if you want a nice little .22 revolver to carry in the woods that you won't even know is there, this is the one...and only...

Bob

[Rimfire69]

I have various M34s and M63s and love them, but the 317 really appeals to me. I’ve handled them in the stores and they almost didn’t feel real, 12.5 oz is half of a M34. Sounds like a fantastic little piece to drop in a pocket or holster and forget about.

[oddshooter]

Rimfire69,

Finally a description I've been trying to find that sounds like my experience with this 317.

You wrote, "almost didn’t feel real".

That was my response and still is. I thought it was a toy or a demo gun. Anything but the fine packing shooter it is.

Prescut

[rangersedge]

Most times I stop at a local gun shop, I handle a 317, a 63, and a bearcat. I'm not even sure why I look at any of them as I have several quality semi auto .22s that i would likely carry instead for any anticipated purpose. But i do. Maybe just due to size and hardiness. They all seem like they'd be a good gun to carry for when you're not really carrying a gun.

[jd]

I've got an early 317 with a 3" barrel and typical square notch rear sight an square blade front sight. They are so light that they are more difficult to shoot well than a model 63 or 34, but mine is capable of decent accuracy of around 1.5" to 2" five shot groups at 25 yards. It is the only "field" gun that I can drop in a shirt or pants pocket and not even know it's there. Kind of like the ultimate light weight kit gun. Probably not as durable as a steel J-frame 22, but then it serves a different purpose and doesn't get shot near as much as my model 34....