Hi guys,

I was wondering how the stainless 5" taurus revolver compared to the smith 617. My girlfriend was in the store with me the other day, and said she like the looks of the taurus. Figured I'd buy her a gun to shoot with me. Any help would be great.

thanks,
Preston

If the girl friend will be a shooter, and a keeper get the 617. I bought one a 10 shot 6" and believe it to be a far better shooter than I. It is probably an investment. Otherwise you know what to do.
Jim

I agree about the Smith. We have a 4" full lug K-22 and it is quite a pistol. The only complaint I have had with it is that the front sight is regulated for bullseye shooting.

I haven't had a chance to shoot the Taurus 22's, but I have a couple of their revolvers and am happy with them. I do have a 617 though and I haven't seen a Taurus that would compare to it. I don't know if the S&W is twice as good, costing twice as much and then some, but you'll probably keep it the rest of your life so it doesn't really matter anyways. Buy it right and you'll get your money out of it a lot faster than a Taurus.

I haven't had a chance to shoot the Taurus 22's, but I have a couple of their revolvers and am happy with them. I do have a 617 though and I haven't seen a Taurus that would compare to it. I don't know if the S&W is twice as good, costing twice as much and then some, but you'll probably keep it the rest of your life so it doesn't really matter anyways. Buy it right and you'll get your money out of it a lot faster than a Taurus.

I have to agree in regard to the S&W's. I've owned a couple of 5 screw 6" K-22's in the past and liked them but somehow let them slip away but last year bought a Model 18 and it's been the best of the lot. When my shooting goes down hill with the big guns I pull out the 18 to reestablish the basics. This one's not getting away from me.

Well interesting question. I have had several k-22 Smiths and several of the 22 kit gun sized smiths. I now have a Rossi 4 inch revolver which is identical in size to the taurus 22's. Rossi bought out taurus and they are almost identical to Smith's small frame (J frame) 22's.

What I've found is that the steel J frame smiths are for all purposes as accurate as the K frame (Model 17's)

when I originally bought the Rossi it was my intention of getting another steel framed Smith. I stopped at one of the local sporting goods stores and the little Rossi cought my attention. I actually liked the looks of this little stainless 22 better than the Smith.

It helped that it was a hundred dollars less expensive than the Smith besides looking better. I had owned a model 19 Smith in 357 and a 57 in 41 mag and the little Rossi looked just like both of them, except someone had washed it and it schrunk a little.

when I got it home I found it was as accurate as any of the Smiths I had ever owned and now a bunch of years later it still goes with me most everywhere. Two granddaughters have learned to shoot pistol with it and it is still going strong.

Moral of the story. Smiths are excellent guns and will give you a lifetime of shooting. For a woman I would suggest the smaller frame gun being easier for her to shoot. I would not hesitate to get a Taurus small frame either.

Just back from a range visit where by buddy had a new Taurus .22 5". Shoot well, no problems in it's first outing. His compaint was that (1) the spring tesnion seened like it was heavy enough to work a turck's suspension (2) the hammer spur is shorter thna it use to be so you get less leverage (3) the checkering on the hammer spur is sharp and runs right to the very rear edge, he actually cut his thumb on it.

Did go inside of it. Looks like the hammer and trigger are some kind of injection moulded parts..servicable, but they don't inspire the conficence of machined stell...probaly will work just as well. They moved the front cylinder lock from the end of the ejector rod (where S&W still puts it) to the yoke (where Dan Wesson puts it)...that seems to be no big deal na dprobably works just as well...perhaps better as a loose ejector rod won't effect cylinder lock up.

Rear sight is run by tow opposing screws, one on each side, to kind of clamp the rear sight in for windage...doesn't have definative "clicks" but does adjust if you ahve a tiny screw driver handy.

Substituted a new mainspring...one form a J-frame kit...that wasa too light and he got missfires in DA (not in SA as the ahmmer moves farther back and gives a stronger wack to the fining pin). Re-substituted a mainspring from a Taurus 73 .32SWL and it ran right with a bit less tensiuon in cocking the hammer. I could have lived with the hammer cocking effort as it was, but he's 84 and doesn't have the hand strength (which is also why he's getting a .22).


Got after the sharp edge of the hammer spur...not a big smooth bevel, just broke the sharp edge that cut his thumb enough so that it won't happen again.

I kind of like the little gun...would like it more if the hammer and trigger were solid case hardened steel and I'd porefer a skinny barrel option rahter than the full underlug heavy weight, but time will tell if those parts are going to be a problem. Susperct they won't be for the 84 year old.

Your post says it all. I have to go with the Taurus for one simple reason. SHE liked the look of it. If you are getting it for her, then buy her the one she likes. Don't over think it. Yes, the S&W may be nicer but is that the one she wants? Taurus makes nice revolvers and they cost a little bit less than a Smith. Are they the same as a Smith? No, but then she liked the Taurus. Unless you want to buy both and let her shoot both and then choose one of them? That way you both get a new .22 revolver! :D Everybody is happy!

I have a taurus 22, it's the model 96.
It is a blued half lug medium frame gun that is roughly the size of the mosel 17 or better to say, closer to the size of a 586. The trigger is VERY adjustable, and the gun is extremely accurate with it's factory adjustable sights.[front partridge]
It's hammer and trigger are reminiscant [sp?] of a Smith, being case herdened and colorful!
Honestly, it shoots as well as the model 17-6 I had, but not as well as my 18.
I'd say buy that Taurus!.

Attached is a pic of the 96

That's an older taurus...and a good one. Not saying the new ones are "bad", but taht some of the shortcuts are less than thrilling.

HAve a .32SWl Taurus, and have found it a reliable accurate gun...older as is yours, and made the same way. The new ones mnay be just as long lasting...his certainly did well in accuracy and reliability on his first day out with it...other guns have built great reputaions with non-traitional parts, it just means we'll ahve to wait to see if the Taurus' changes are for the better or just a way to keep prices down.

How can you tell? Is the back of your trigger hollow? Is the hammer one bright colored metal...and if you were to take off the side plate, does it have rectangular hollow spaces (and signes that's where the injection mold's feed was placed)? Does the crane have a little detent sitcking up to lock into the frame and the end of the ejcotr rod is solid?

Didn't have a magnet in my kit...wonder if the stuff they used in mganetic.

I have several of the Taurus .22 revolvers from 3-6" and in blue and stain;less. I have never had any problem with any of them and they all shoot better than I do. The only one I ever sold was a .22 WRM in 3". I didn't sell it because of quality problems but, mostly, because it was TOO noisy. I swear it was louder than a 4" .357. Besides in that short barrel I didn't see why I should pay that much for ammo that performed so much like a .22 LR.