.22LR revolvers - best/worst?

[2in2out]

I recently stumbled upon an online review of the Ruger New Bearcat from last summer, and it got me thinking about something I don't have.... a revolver in .22LR.

That seems like an expensive gun, but maybe it's worth it. Maybe I'm better off looking for a used gun rather than new.

Unfortunately, I don't know as much about revolvers as I probably should.

What's the best or worst revolver, in your opinion?

[mmcnx2]

Can't really got wrong with a Smith, Ruger or Vintage Colt revolver. It comes down more to preference and fit. I'm a Smith guy (have 3) although I've eyed a Ruger for years and if they made one an SP frame in an unusual cartridge I'm sure it would find its way home with me.

I've heard good things about the Taurus revolvers and have shot other peoples and they seem fine. Again, if they made something in 41 magnum I'd have buy it on principal alone.

[karlobag]

I loved my S&W Model 17-2, before that nasty boating accident. It was only a 6 shot, but do you really need more?

[BigBlue]

I've got a Taurus Tracker 992 revolver with .22LR and .22 WMR cylinders. A very neat gun. Haven't had a chance to shoot it much but I'm looking forward to more. It is a fairly inexpensive gun for a revolver.

[igofast]

Picked up a Chiappa 1873 for under $150. While it functions fine, it's hard to hit the broadside of a barn at 10 yards. It still technically fits my needs to shoot the primer only .22's at pointblank range - but I wouldn't get one again(if given the option) nor recommend it. I expect the floor for a quality .22 revolver is probably in the $300 range.

[Squib Joe]

The SW 617 is about the best you can get but very expensive at over 700 bucks

Single-actions like the Bearcat or Single-Six (or Single-Ten) or SAA clones will be less expensive in the 400-500 range

Least expensive for guns you can buy in Minnesota would probably be the Taurus or Charter Arms Pathfinders which you should be able to find new for around 250-350

The North American Arms Minis are a lot of fun too if you aren't worried about hitting anything past 20 feet

I would not suggest any Heritage or pot metal frame guns (normally coming from Germany under the Rohm or RG brand names).

[LarryFlew]

Had a Heritage and not only not accurate but really not well built from looks standpoint either. Sloppy blueing etc.

I no longer have a 22 in revolver but do have Taurus in 44 mag and 17HMR and both are very accurate and work well. Have shot a lot of the 17 scoped and it's more accurate than I am.

[Spike]

A single six or single 10 is a lot of fun at the range. Especially if you get one that comes with a 22 mag cylinder too.

[Rodentman]

I had a Taurus, an M94 I think. I found the trigger pull unacceptable and it had other issues as well. I got a 617.

[LePetomane]

Ruger Single Six. Nothing made now even compares. Period.

[ijosef]

I had a chance to get an H&R 929 a number of years back but didn't pull the trigger. Does anyone know how well those old dogs perform?

It was one just like this...

[Rodentman]

The comparable 617:

[Drizzle]

The H&Rs sometimes fall out of time as they get older, shaving lead as you shoot. If it doesn't, it's also a little slow to reload. I have an old Charter Pathfinder from the 70s I like a lot, and a Smith M18 that's identical in almost every way to a M15, if you can find one.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[MJY65]

Ruger Single Six. Nothing made now even compares. Period.

Tough to argue with that if you are looking for a single action. My first handgun was a Single Six convertible that I got back in the late 70s. I also now have one that was my dad's. Pre-transfer bar. They are nothing fancy, but get the job done for decades on end without any issues.

[aht_six]

I had a very nice 617, I unfortunately traded it for some reason. I now have a Ruger Single Six with both the .22LR and .22 Mag cylinders. The Ruger is a good gun, but I don't think it's fair to compare it to a 617. The S&W was much nicer and a lot more accurate.