Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns S&W 317 KIT vs Model63 in .22LR

Looking for opinions on either or why you like one vs the other. My intended use is to carry while hiking and maybe rabbit hunting.

My experience has been that the 4” steel J-frame is easier to hold steady than the airweight. I used to own a 317 and still own a 4”model 34. Either one takes a bit of practice to become proficient.

I prefer the 4 inch Model 63.

There we go.Sometimes less is more and sometimes, less is less.

Don't have a new one, but my old 63 is a wonderful field companion. Plenty accurate, and a pleasure pack.

To the OP from how you are describing your use I think you will find the model 63 to be more along the line with your use. The 317 is a nice gun, I've had 3 of them and they are so light they are hard to shoot well. The model 63 and I've had a few of those, was a nice gun, I've ended up with the Ruger SP101 22 lr 8 shot is a nice gun. I'd consider that one as well. Any of the three will take care of you to a greater or lesser extent, but the 317 not so much.

I've got both...for the long run and more accurate shooting an older 63 is very hard to beat. If you can find a clean no- 70s or early 80's vintage gun with the pinned barrel even better. I had mine fitted with an extra 651 cylinder so it will shoot everything from CBs to Magnums...

That said, I was never really happy with the way my 317 shot. Then one day I tried some Winchester 40 grain PowerPoint HPs...it shrank the group by 2/3s...ammo makes a big difference...

Bob

they ain't gotta be all that accurate, if'n yer shooting trapped packrats with birdshot.....

I've been carrying a North American Arms .22LR during elk hunts that past few years and have taken several Dusky Grouse with it, but this year am going to pick up a 317. It's just a few ounces heavier, but has adjustable sights, and should be more accurate overall. Weight to me is everything on an elk hunt.

Huntsman22 nice job on the packrat. Can't stand those things!

Just from my perspective on the 317, in addition to the trigger being heavier than the gun. All the guns they are bringing out have the F/O sights. The original ones had pinned front sights and allowed you to get a better sight picture. I preferred those myself. Now days the F/O just isn't my thing and they are too big to get a good sight picture. But they are hard to find. If I have another one it will have the standard sight.

Completely agree on the fiber optic sights. Dumb A$$ marketing and they do nothing for a precise sight picture on a small target. Ever see a bullseye shooter using fiber optic sights? Nope. Just the speed shooters on big targets. And this is anything but a speed shooting pistol. S&W front sights can be easily replaced by punching the front sight pin out and replacing with a standard blade. The trigger weight isn't an issue if you shoot it in single action, which I think anyone would do in a hunting scenario.

Thanks for the advice. I was looking at the SP101's too until I read some reviews about the triggers. Basically I just need a light weight pack gun for hikes with the dog in the woods and maybe some occasional rabbit shooting. My Ruger Mark III is too heavy.

Ruger Mk III lite?

I bought a 317 Kit a few years ago and it pains me to say because i am a S&W die hard but it was the worst piece of crap new gun I ever bought. Went back to the factory twice before they gave me a new one. It spit lead terribly from brand new. Sent it back.......It came back and the barrel was horribly canted . So I sent it back again then it came back with a new cylinder and the barrel canted still. Sooooooooo I sent it back again and they gave me a new one. I never shot the new one I just sold it. As has been said they are so light also that it makes then challenging to shoot. I would without a doubt buy a 63 or a Ruger SP101 4" over the 317 Kit.

No experience with the 317, but when the stainless 63 came out I looked at it with the thought of trading off my blued steel 34, but I'm glad that I didn't. The 34 was the same gun as the 63 only blued steel and mine was really smooth compared to the new 63 that I handled. If you don't need stainless and not many of us do, an old pre-lock 34 is a terrific alternative. A friend of mine just bought a 617 (that is the stainless K-22) and I told him that I had the blued 17 and traded it for that 34. He thought his gun was about 20 ounces and then we looked it up and it is double that. 40 plus ounces might be fine for a .38 Special, but I thought it was too heavy for a.22 trail gun.

Damn, when I was reading your post I thought that I was reading mine. I had the exact same experience and ended up selling mine at a gun show for a loss. A significant loss, too, but I was glad to be rid of the 317.

I think I've got the best of both worlds. Bought an original S%W model 43 from the classifieds here a couple of years back. 15 oz fully loaded and it is accurate enough to shoot small game at reasonable distance. Very smooth mechanically, and looks good to boot. Great sights and a great trigger...

It's been a great little revolver to adventure with...

I just want S&W to make the 63, 317 or 617 in 4.25" barrels so that they can be imported to Canada.

I have a few Smith and Wesson 22 LR handguns to include a Model 41 5.5" pistol, , Model 617 6" and 4" revolvers, Model 317 3" revolver, and a Model 63 3" revolver. As a casual bullseyer shooter the Model 41 is a fine pistol, and for my level of competition is all I will ever need. Both of the 617s have been great revolvers, range use only with family members, for familiarization for larger cartridge revolvers. The one 317 revolver, I carried for many years on my trapline,a delight to carry, but, given any distance I found it too light for an accurate hold. The Model 63 has been the Goldilacs for me, weight appropriate, not too light for a steady hold, just right to reach out to a snowshoe hare, and has proven dependable and reasonably accurate. If I could only keep one 22LR handgun, it would be a S&W Model 63. IMHO for a kit gun it has no equal.

Not in my world.....