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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Thanks for the feedback and the picture. I might have to find one to handle. Sometime this site can be a bad influence.

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.

I used to have one just like that. I wish I still did.

A great gun. I taught both my daughters to shoot revolvers with one when they were young before the graduated to Model 10's

I've got a 317-3" which has an aluminum frame. It's now my favorite 22 handgun.
Virgil B.

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.

Mike

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

FreeMe,

Thanks for good insight and feedback on 317!

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.

vbshootingrange,

Stopped by Sportsman's Warehouse this afternoon after work. Those little 317 are $$$$$. Little taken back by sticker shock. Here I thought the price of gas was expensive..lol! (I filled up my car today, thus the reference to gas prices)

Leo

Hey, just think - for the price of about ten tanks of gas, you could have that revolver and a good holster (and maybe more)!

FreeMe,

Well the depends on the car and how big the gas tank is, eh?

For my Explorer, yes definitely ten tanks of gas will cover the cost of the gun, not sure about the holster.

For my little Chevy Prizm, I'll need a few more tanks of gas. Either that or the price of gas needs to go up......ssssh! Don't say that! lol!

leomart,
I'm thinking mine was $595. out the door. (no sales tax in Oregon) Mine came from Sportsmans Warehouse in Salem Or.
Have owned a 2" stainless kit gun in the past. It had to go for another "trade" I couldn't live without! Also owned a 2" 317. It wouldn't group, and got traded.
The 317-3" is still my all-time favorite, and I've owned a LOT of 22 LR handguns. Someday I'll get a 4" stainless to go with it!
Virgil B.

Actually,
The Kit gun I'd really like to own, would be a 4" stainless in 22 magnum. Dat's one for my "someday" list!
Anybody have one?
Virgil B.

How's the accuracy of the M63 in comparison to the M617?

I don't think the accuracy is a gun issue, I think it is more an issue of can you hold and squeeze the lightweight J-frame as well as the heavier and larger K-frame revolver? I think the accuracy is built in there like any S&W revolver. But I know I cannot shoot my M63 as well as my M18 4" K-frame at longer ranges. And not even in the same ball park as my M17 6" gun. The little lightweight is harder to hold steady IMHO than the heavier and larger guns. At closer ranges the difference isn't much. But the farther the target, the more you can feel and tell the difference as you shoot.

I owned a 4" round-butt for a number of years. It was a fine little revolver and accuracy was fine with the .22LR ammo it liked. I did trade mine due to its small size - I prefer the K frame size and I found a nice Model 18-4, which suited my needs better. Still for a trail gun the smaller M63 is a great lightweight package.

That sorta where I'm at. Looking at M63 as lighter smaller trail gun option in comparison to the M617. But I don't want to give up too much in the "accuracy" dept for taking squirrels, perhaps upto ~25yd or so (typical tree rat range). But if the M617 is going to give me the advantage then that's just the way it has to be and I'll have to learn to live with it.


As a sidenote, I notice that women seem to have a harder time shooting the 617 due to its weight. I know that it's a relatively heavy gun, ~45oz, but didn't realize it's impact of female shooters.


Leo

The J frame .22�s have suffered a reputation for inaccuracy mostly because they�ve been judged against the K frame .22�s; which isn�t a fair comparison. The K frame guns all have match chambers and the J frame guns don�t. A match chamber is one of the best things you can do for a .22�s accuracy. But the J frame .22�s weren�t intended to be target revolvers, that�s what the K frame guns were for. So the J frame guns were given standard chambers which was a good call. A field gun with match chambers can be a liability. Any accumulation of grime and my 617 gets persnickety about accepting fresh rounds into it�s tight chambers. You�ll never have that problem with the model 63.

Accuracy is good with the 63; certainly good enough for most anything you want to do. The longer barrel guns tend to shoot much better, because they balance better. Balance is really the only problem the J frame .22�s have; they�re just feather light and don�t steady well when you add in the very small grip.

As a learning handgun for kids, I can�t think of a more ideal handgun than the 34/63. I�d love to have one.

KevinGibson,

Thanks for the feedback. I think the current M63 only come with a 5" barrel so that should help with the balance problem???


Leo

If anyone is interested, I have a 63-3 with a 2" barrel, AS, and RB that I don't need. I don't have the box, but grades in the high 90% range. I have $450 into it and would have that, plus the actual shipping to your FFL. It comes with a new RH nylon belt holster.

Jeff

If it had a 4" barrel, I'd be really tempted to jump over it.

I know that it is heresy to say this, but I like the old Rossi 515 and 518 better than the "J" frame S&Ws, as they are just a little larger and fit my right hand better.

Jeff

That is heresy. I haven't seen any Rossi's I'd take over a smith.

In revolvers, the two I'd trust most would be S&W and Ruger.

My wife bought one when they were first reintroduced. The handling with the 5" barrel and round butt grips must be seen to be believed - S&W got this one right. The dealer liked it so much that he bought one for his personal collection

In single action, it is at least as accurate as my early 617. Because it's a J-Frame, you will quickly build up your forearm muscles if you choose to shoot it much double action.

MichiganScott,

Thanks for the feedback on the balance with 5"barrel. That answered my question.

RJM had 2 4" M63s a couple years ago. I think he got them from a gun shop that went out of business on the east coast. I want to say Connecticut, but don't hold me to it. In any case the gun smith had 2 .22WMR cylinders with ejector stars with the idea of fitting them to the M63s, but never got around to it. Bob sold one set to me and still has his. All I had to do is buy an ejector rod assembly and screw it together.

Well... not quite that easy. The new cylinder wouldn't lock up. So off it went to John Baker here in Salem. (I highly recommend him)

http://www.greatwestgunsmithing.com/

He worked on the ratchets and got it timed so now both cylinders function well.

I shoot more .22lr through it then .22WMR, but I've shot it enough to know it works well.

So it can be done, the trick is to come up with the cylinder and ejector star. Maybe you could call the Performance Center at S&W and see if they would add the cylinder for you. I don't think they will sell you one as a do it yourself project.

Yes, I have a 4 in 651 and except for the wide front sight I love it.

It's a great pistol.

We have Rossi, Taurus and S&W kit guns.

The Rossi are probably the best deal of the bunch.

They aren't a Smith but they are awfully close.

Ours has tight chambers like a K22 and while very accurate it doesn't want to accept loads from a speedloader very well after only a few cylinders full.

I may ask gundoc to open up the chambers.

I talk a lot about using speedloaders on these things. If anyone cares the reason I do is we use them on sagerats when it gets busy enough and you can go through a lot of rounds quick.

I have had mine for 30 years or more....and in my most recent ammo test, I found the CCI Velocitors performed best in the accuracy department and gave me 1010 fps.