I have owned this gun for a couple weeks. FFL snafu kept it out of my actual possession for those couple weeks. During that time I shot it twice. At least 200 rounds the first go and 150 rounds today. I know it exactly this time because I bought 2 speedbeez loading blocks and went with 15 cylinders full.

I would have shot more but I hate indoor ranges. It always feels like I smoked a pack after a range event. Not for me.

Here is my honest take. It is easily my favorite 22 revolver. I have an old (40+ year old) S&W 17, SP101, multiple 317’s, 43C, I think that’s it. I didn’t count SAA clones and whatnot.

Trigger. It has a great out of box trigger both DA and SA. The only trigger that is close is the old 17. I would call them equals. I find the Smiths that have extra “holes” have a different, I don’t know, cadence. It’s not bad it’s just different. My 686+’s have a different stroke than my 6 shooters. Maybe it’s in my head. Maybe. Either way this trigger is very good. Good enough I won’t mess with it. That is unusual for me so take that as a compliment.

10 shots, especially with a speed loader, is way more fun than 6. This is a win. It is now my highest cap 22 revolver.

The Bear Hug grips look good and feel good in my hands. I’m considering stealing them for a different K frame of mine. We shall see. No complaints on these grips. They certainly wouldn’t be my first choice for slick conditions or hard duty use but, it’s a 22 woods gun so the combo of great looking wood and hand filling is a nice combo.

Accuracy. Indoor range. Not great lighting. Shooting fast to not get coal miners lung. This thing stacks rounds nicely. I went out to about 15 yards because there is no way I could even see the aim point beyond that. Between 7-15 I was shooting 90% DA and it was grouping nicely and tightly and POI=POA once I figured out the sights.

Which leads me to my one and only I can’t even call it a complaint. I want to be a cool kid. I want to love brass bead front sights. They are old school cool. They stand out. They were fiber optic before that existed. They are classic. They also aren’t great with my eyes. At least indoors. I also am obviously of the equal height equal light school of thought. With the shallowness of the rear notch though this means that a portion of the brass bead is occluded. I shot this way for awhile and was hitting slightly low and I figured why not try something different?

So for the last hundred rounds or so I centered the front post but I raised it till the whole brass bead was visible. It seemed and felt odd having the front blade slightly higher than even. As soon as I did that the groups were perfectly centered and it made more sense to my eye to “see” the circle.

I won’t change the sights because I love the concept and I can hit with them but it is “different”.

Great gun. This thing is nearly 400 rounds dirty and it doesn’t care.

A handful of FTF. I took a picture of one. It is a deep strike. Just like last time shooting. This thing isn’t light striking, it’s pure ammo related faults. Probably 4 out of 150 which is about the same ratio as a couple weeks ago.

Favorite 22 revolver I own. It looks like a Combat Magnum and shoots like a dream. Pics to follow.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pedropcola,

Awesome! I'm glad to hear a good review on these.

I'm with you on indoor ranges. Hate shooting inside. I feel like it takes years off my life every time I do it.

I'm also an equal height equal light guy...and my 63 has a high viz front sight that does exactly like you're describing...if you line up the posts it cuts the dot in half with the base of the rear notch. I find this annoying, but it doesn't really affect my shooting. My 642UC has something conceptually similar going on, but it has a deep U-notch rear and you have to center the dot in the very bottom of it to hit to POA. And the top of the front post is rounded, so there's no lining it up even if you wanted to. Again, it works but it's a little bit annoying. I don't understand why they have to get weird with sights.

All that said, I can imagine shooting .22 out of a gun that size is just a treat, and it sounds like they got the most important stuff right. I'm probably out on these as it's a lot of money for something I don't really need, but the fact that they exist pleases me and who knows what the future might hold...I might across a deal at some point that I can't pass up!

I’m not seeing your photos. Just blue boxes with the message “uploading this content requires registration”. Maybe it’s just me.

Hmm. I see my pictures. I suck at photo hosting though. Anybody see pics?

Just blue boxes for me on the pics.
The sight pic would probably bother me a bit as I am also an equally height light old school guy. I would adjust the rear sight to poa poi for equal height light and ignore the bead myself.
I have seen a lot of smiths just the opposite ( fixed sight guns mostly) where if you put the bead in the middle of the sight picture the gun shot high.
My gripes about S&W are the variable QC coming out the last 10-15 years - glad the OP got a good one. Also what happened to bluing? I hate stainless, and for probably the last 2 decades when they come out with something half way interesting, stainless only is a major turn off.
I prefer old classics by far ( far less likely to get a “bad one” QC wise) but a blue 10 shot no lock K 22 would be tempting. The fact I can typically find an older similar version for a lot less than the current ones has kept me away from buying new for a long time

I see the blue boxes too. Dang. I thought I had this hosting thing down. Maybe not.

See that’s the thing. I keep reading about their shitty QC but I’ve bought at least 6 (six that I remember) S&W’s in the last couple years and with one exception that they quickly remedied they have been great. No QC issues at all. Including two Mountain Guns, the 686 and this one.

Put me in the camp of I think the internet and human nature exaggerate issues. Take that other 617 review on this forum. Both of the issues that the OP complains about are potentially NOT a factory issue. I’ve bought well over a hundred guns in my lifetime. Certain things are 100% on the factory. I’ve got a decade plus old 640 Pro with a ridiculously canted barrel. Factory issue. I sent back a Ruger SP101 with cylinder drag so bad you couldn’t get through a cylinder. Factory. Springfield 1911 that after 500 rounds would still fail to feed at least every other mag. At least. Factory. But the rear sight was busted as was the front bead. Both of those could have occurred by the owner or by the gun shop or by anyone post it leaving the factory. Hell, the rear sight is designed to snap off if you turn the windage screw too far. I’m not saying the OP did that but I absolutely am saying to blame it on the factory wouldn’t stand up in court because it could have happened through poor handling after it left the factory.

Some things are clearly bad QC. I buy guns all the time. Have for 4 plus decades. Newer guns haven’t shown some massive propensity for being shitty regardless of what the internet says.

I’m a huge Beretta guy. For awhile you had this rash of people claiming the 92’s were sucking because the barrel wasn’t perfectly centered in the slide opening. Now not one of these morons ever shot the gun and reported issues. They just thought it looked odd. Posted pics and everything. Looked fine to me. I’m a shoot it and see how it performs guy. Did TN put out some uglier than Italian guns? Sure. Did they fail to work as advertised? Nope. We got a bunch of people who like to look at guns more than shoot guns.

So yes, I call bullshit. To read the internet there isn’t a single 43C out there that doesn’t suck. Mine was and is fantastic. So good I bought its 357 brother. Also fantastic. I would take either over the old classic versions made 50 years ago without even blinking if shooting was the reason not collecting.

(I’m not saying issues don’t happen, I am saying the internet and shitty human nature WILDY amplify the reality of how often that occurs or I’m just lucky as fuck to get mostly very good guns which I doubt) I don’t buy as many guns as bac or Q but I buy enough to have a good feel on this one. Don’t believe everything you read. And quit being a prima donna lol.

One more just because I am so happy I figured out pictures again lol.

So this is both Mountain Guns. QC fine on both. Lipsey edition SP101's, 327 and 357 Mag. I am currently carrying the 327 mag the most. These 4 guns are one reason why I scoff at the "modern guns have horrible QC" mantra. I don't think they do.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
<snip>

We got a bunch of people who like to look at guns more than shoot guns.

<Snip>

(I’m not saying issues don’t happen, I am saying the internet and shitty human nature WILDY amplify the reality of how often that occurs <snip>

Preach!!!

Pics are working now, too. That's a beautiful gun!

Interesting side bar. Since I had the SP’s out I remembered I wanted to point out something.

On the Smiths, the bottom half of the brass bead is occluded when sighting. On the Rugers, I don’t know if it’s the shorter barrel, deeper rear notch, smaller brass bead, or all of that but when you look down the sights I can go equal height equal light AND see the entire circle of the brass bead. Hmm.

That is one way of saying as much as I love the Smiths, Ruger hit it out if the park with this Lipsey edition. If Lipsey made those exact SP’s but with an 8 shot 22 version it would be my favorite 22 kit/woods gun of all time. You listening Lipsey?

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Interesting side bar. Since I had the SP’s out I remembered I wanted to point out something.

On the Smiths, the bottom half of the brass bead is occluded when sighting. On the Rugers, I don’t know if it’s the shorter barrel, deeper rear notch, smaller brass bead, or all of that but when you look down the sights I can go equal height equal light AND see the entire circle of the brass bead. Hmm.

That is one way of saying as much as I love the Smiths, Ruger hit it out if the park with this Lipsey edition. If Lipsey made those exact SP’s but with an 8 shot 22 version it would be my favorite 22 kit/woods gun of all time. You listening Lipsey?

Ruger does list an 8 shot 4.2” barrel SP101.

https://www.ruger.com/products...specSheets/5765.html

Yes they do. I have owned that exact model for years. In fact it is the Ruger I mentioned that had to go back to the factory due to cylinder drag. They got it back to me quick and it’s been good since. Great gun.

That being said the 3” version of the same gun is better aesthetically and dimensionally. If you hold my 4.2” SP it seems barrel long and butt short. The 3” is perfect. It is like the S&W Model 63. Perfect size. As soon as S&W starts removing the Hilary hole I will own a 63 as well.

My 63 is my favorite .22.revolver, even with the Hillary Hole. Just an awesome little gun. Easy to shoot and extremely practical. Honestly, it might be my favorite .22 handgun. I have almost $1000 into a suppressed Volquartsenized MkIV that I also really like, but if I had to pick between the two I'd have a really hard time letting that 63 go.

Funny thing was I wanted that 4.2" SP101 at the time, but I stumbled onto the 63 first. I'm not sad about it.

Nope. The 63 is better. When they introduce the classic line of 63’s I will be first in line.