24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,059
leomort Offline OP
Campfire Regular
OP Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,059
I seen the S&W 63 .22lr 8-shot revolver and it looks like a very nice gun, much light than my S&W 617. Anybody have one? Any opinions on it? Thanks for the feedback?

Leo

BP-B2

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,283
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,283
Since you asked for opinions...

The 5" barrel and black front sight correct the only thing I did not like about my old 4" Model 63.

It had a red ramp front sight and the front blade was a trifle too wide for the rear notch. Not enough daylight on either side of the blade made it hard to prevent some horizontal stringing. Moving the sight out forward an inch increases the sight radius 1" (obviously) but if they keep the same width that will show just a tad more daylight around it.

On the other hand, it increases the overall size.

But bottom line, it's a great lightweight trail gun. That 5" barrel doesn't detract from the portability too much and it ought to be a really accurate shooter.


Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery.
Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,609
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,609
I love my old Model 63. It's a perfect packin' pistol! The only complaint I have is the wide red ramp front sight. That I do not care for... Everything else is golden.


Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,059
leomort Offline OP
Campfire Regular
OP Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,059
Yeah, I agree the M63 looks like a great little trail gun. It's about a pound lighter than my 6" M617. Did S&W use aluminum in M63? How come it's so light?

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,235
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,235
AFAIK, the 63 is all steel. The reason it is lighter than your 617 is because it's a J-frame. My J-frame model 60 weighs only 25oz. Although it's a shame, IMO, that S&W chooses not to produce a 3" or 4" 63 at this time, I think the current 5" model is just peachy. A few years back, I bought a 5" Taurus model 94 - which is dimensionally, almost the same as the 5" 63. I find it to be a swell little field gun for small game and varmints, and pretty darn good for informal target shooting.

I would expect (and reports I've read confirm it) that the new S&W 63 is every bit as dandy as my T94 - if not better. I haven't handled one yet (don't feel the need), but from what I've seen and read, the sights and the trigger are a bit better than those on my 94. One gunwriter even went as far as to claim the 63 is a better gun for most people (not into formal target shooting) than the 617 - and I would have to agree.


Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.




IC B2

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,554
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,554
My Model 63 is an old timer. Four inch barrel, adjustable sights and a good grip. I carry this .22 revolver in a pocket of my BOB along with 100 rounds of CCI Stinger and 50 rounds of .22 CB caps.
[Linked Image]


Sam......

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,059
leomort Offline OP
Campfire Regular
OP Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,059
Thanks for the feedback and the picture. I might have to find one to handle. Sometime this site can be a bad influence.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,609
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,609
Regarding grips, I use to pack mine with a Tyler T grip adaptor and preferred that to the stock grip only by a wide margin. I have a set of Pachmeyer's too, but they are heavy and stick to clothing. Then I put a set of Herrett Shooting Star grips on it and never looked back. Lighter than the "Goodyears", more filling than the Tyler T, they are a really nice adition for good shooting for me.


Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
I used to have one just like that. I wish I still did.

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 411
R
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
R
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 411
A great gun. I taught both my daughters to shoot revolvers with one when they were young before the graduated to Model 10's

IC B3

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,515
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,515
I've got a 317-3" which has an aluminum frame. It's now my favorite 22 handgun.
Virgil B.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,065
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,065
Originally Posted by FreeMe
AFAIK, the 63 is all steel. The reason it is lighter than your 617 is because it's a J-frame. My J-frame model 60 weighs only 25oz. Although it's a shame, IMO, that S&W chooses not to produce a 3" or 4" 63 at this time, I think the current 5" model is just peachy. A few years back, I bought a 5" Taurus model 94 - which is dimensionally, almost the same as the 5" 63. I find it to be a swell little field gun for small game and varmints, and pretty darn good for informal target shooting.

I would expect (and reports I've read confirm it) that the new S&W 63 is every bit as dandy as my T94 - if not better. I haven't handled one yet (don't feel the need), but from what I've seen and read, the sights and the trigger are a bit better than those on my 94. One gunwriter even went as far as to claim the 63 is a better gun for most people (not into formal target shooting) than the 617 - and I would have to agree.


I had both a S&W 63 and a Taurus 94 , I liked the S&W a bit more than the Taurus. I use the past tense here because I gave the Taurus to my niece and my bride appropriated the S&W for her own. frown

Mike


Always talk to the old guys , they know stuff.

Jerry Miculek
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,363
D
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
D
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,363
My only critcism is the eight shot capacity. If they had used a nine shot or six shot capacity speedloaders would be available.

I bought a six shot 4 in older version for the new price due to that.

If they would bing out a dual cylinder version in 22/22mag and get some speedloaders manufactured for it I would be all over it.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 14,807
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 14,807
I got one when they came out and it's accurate but I am all set with the Woodsman. The one I have has rough chambers and needs consant cleaning so it will eject well.

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,664
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,664
i have an old 4 inch six shot version. it is my favorite 22 revolver. it is every bit as nice as my 4 inch diamondback but the stainless makes it a little more care free.

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,059
leomort Offline OP
Campfire Regular
OP Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,059
FreeMe, Yes a 3" or 4" barrel on the M63 would be great

MOGC, Thanks for the tips on the grip exchanges

vbshootinrange, how durable in that aluminum 317-3?

And Thank you to everyone who responded. You provided great insight and feedback.

Leo

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 422
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 422
I have one of the new 5� Model 63s. It is very nice: more accurate then I expected, not far behind my 617. Weighs 30 oz. with Pachmary grips as opposed to 42 oz. for the 4� 617. I use Pachmayr grips because the J frame grip is too small for my large hands.

Last edited by TomC321; 04/29/08.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,235
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,235
Leomort - regarding the 317 vs the 63. I consider the 317 to be a "niche gun". If you need something light as a feather, but don't particularly care how easy it is to shoot - the 317 is your number. But I know for a fact that the 63 will be a much easier gun to shoot with good accuracy. Even if they made the 317 with a 5" barrel, the 63 would still be easier to shoot.

A friend let me borrow his 317 for awhile, and I was not impressed with it's trigger or it's accuracy with the loads I tried. To be fair to S&W, the trigger has to be heavy to insure reliable ignition on such a light rimfire handgun. Idunno why I couldn't get the thing to print good groups even in SA, though. Anyway - I couldn't think of anything that 317 could do that my Beretta 21 couldn't do just as well or better. For something that will be very fun to shoot, and still pretty darn easy to pack - I'd opt for the 63, in any barrel length.



Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.




Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,059
leomort Offline OP
Campfire Regular
OP Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,059
FreeMe,

Thanks for good insight and feedback on 317!

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,515
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,515
Leomart,
I've only got about 200 rounds through my 317-3. It is shooting great so far. It seems to like CCI Volociters. Can put 8 under 1" at 10 yards off-had with it. It may be a "nich" gun, but it fills my "nich" (grin!) And makes a great trail gun! Virgil B.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
699 members (10gaugemag, 257Bob, 257 roberts, 222Sako, 222ND, 16penny, 76 invisible), 2,756 guests, and 1,339 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,627
Posts18,398,735
Members73,817
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.289s Queries: 15 (0.002s) Memory: 0.8928 MB (Peak: 1.0472 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 15:53:46 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS