wanderinwalker
Member
A while back I posted that I'd picked up a no dash, 6", 4-screw S&W Model 17. And posted pictures of it with my 4" Model 18-4. Another poster mentioned he'd be curious to learn which one I find shoots better or which one I prefer shooting. It's taken a few range trips and a little switching back and forth between the two to come to a conclusion, but I've finally reached it. The answer is...
I like them both!
Not a terrible surprise to most, I'm sure. What I've been able to determine, with my limited handgunning skills, is they seem to be equally accurate when fed equal ammunition. The 6" gun with the patridge front sight is a little easier to get a consistent sight picture with. The ramped front sight on the 4" gun can sometimes be a little harder to define, depending on the lighting conditions. My hit percentages on a 3" 25-yard plate are higher with the longer gun as well, though I expect the 4" revolver to narrow the gap now that I figured out it was shooting about 6" high at that distance and finally adjusted the sight.
Here are the revolvers with a couple of targets. Not fired on the same day and I forgot to date the target fired with the 17. By the ruler, these are both just barely under 2" far edge to far edge, 10-shots in each:
As far as any trigger and action difference between the two revolvers due to the 20 year age gap, I can't really say one has a major advantage over the other. I do actually prefer the narrow trigger on the 17 and I feel the heavy target hammer on the 18 makes it more susceptible to variations in grip pressure. The one clear advantage the 17 has is the chambers seem to be a bit smoother. The 18 will inevitably have sticky extraction after only a couple of trips around the cylinder. The 17 will get me through at least a box of 50 CCI Standard Velocity .22s before ejection requires more than a light tap.
Needless to say, neither of these revolvers will be in need of new homes any time soon. The hardest decision is which one to shoot first when I hit the range.
And more pictures:
I like them both!
Not a terrible surprise to most, I'm sure. What I've been able to determine, with my limited handgunning skills, is they seem to be equally accurate when fed equal ammunition. The 6" gun with the patridge front sight is a little easier to get a consistent sight picture with. The ramped front sight on the 4" gun can sometimes be a little harder to define, depending on the lighting conditions. My hit percentages on a 3" 25-yard plate are higher with the longer gun as well, though I expect the 4" revolver to narrow the gap now that I figured out it was shooting about 6" high at that distance and finally adjusted the sight.Here are the revolvers with a couple of targets. Not fired on the same day and I forgot to date the target fired with the 17. By the ruler, these are both just barely under 2" far edge to far edge, 10-shots in each:
As far as any trigger and action difference between the two revolvers due to the 20 year age gap, I can't really say one has a major advantage over the other. I do actually prefer the narrow trigger on the 17 and I feel the heavy target hammer on the 18 makes it more susceptible to variations in grip pressure. The one clear advantage the 17 has is the chambers seem to be a bit smoother. The 18 will inevitably have sticky extraction after only a couple of trips around the cylinder. The 17 will get me through at least a box of 50 CCI Standard Velocity .22s before ejection requires more than a light tap.
Needless to say, neither of these revolvers will be in need of new homes any time soon. The hardest decision is which one to shoot first when I hit the range.
And more pictures:
Like it's some kind of blasphemy to spend more than $200 on a nice rimfire pistol, rifle or revolver. My favorite times are afternoons on the range perforating unsuspecting paper targets, or plinking overly aggressive steel plates with a big box of .22LR ammo handy.
