The place for general discussion about guns, gun (and gun parts) technology discussion, gun reviews, and gun specific range reports; and shooting, training, techniques, reviews and reports.
Greg wrote:When I bought my 617 and 686 a few years ago, they cost roughly the same..
They cost about the same to make, hence the near identical price.
Oh certainly.
I was originally working up to saying it shouldn't surprise anyone a good medium-ish frame .22 costs about the same as a good medium-ish frame .38/.357, because aside from the size of the holes they're pretty much the same. But I decided to be less long-winded. Oops.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby
If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
Greg wrote:When I bought my 617 and 686 a few years ago, they cost roughly the same..
They cost about the same to make, hence the near identical price.
Oh certainly.
I was originally working up to saying it shouldn't surprise anyone a good medium-ish frame .22 costs about the same as a good medium-ish frame .38/.357, because aside from the size of the holes they're pretty much the same. But I decided to be less long-winded. Oops.
Uh huh. They even weigh about the same, I assume because the extra beefiness of the L frame is made up for in the smaller holes in the barrel and cylinder on the K frame (especially my 617, which only has 6 holes in the cylinder instead of the 9 (or was it 10?) in the newer models). That made the 617 a great cheap-practice gun for the 686 (at least until the price of .22LR went thru the roof).
HTRN wrote:
They cost about the same to make, hence the near identical price.
Oh certainly.
I was originally working up to saying it shouldn't surprise anyone a good medium-ish frame .22 costs about the same as a good medium-ish frame .38/.357, because aside from the size of the holes they're pretty much the same. But I decided to be less long-winded. Oops.
Uh huh. They even weigh about the same, I assume because the extra beefiness of the L frame is made up for in the smaller holes in the barrel and cylinder on the K frame (especially my 617, which only has 6 holes in the cylinder instead of the 9 (or was it 10?) in the newer models). That made the 617 a great cheap-practice gun for the 686 (at least until the price of .22LR went thru the roof).
It's 10. My 617 has the 10 shot steel cylinder (the earliest 10 shot cylinders were aluminum) Exactly my thinking, too. And it's not picky about ammo at all unlike semi-autos.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby
If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
I was originally working up to saying it shouldn't surprise anyone a good medium-ish frame .22 costs about the same as a good medium-ish frame .38/.357, because aside from the size of the holes they're pretty much the same. But I decided to be less long-winded. Oops.
Uh huh. They even weigh about the same, I assume because the extra beefiness of the L frame is made up for in the smaller holes in the barrel and cylinder on the K frame (especially my 617, which only has 6 holes in the cylinder instead of the 9 (or was it 10?) in the newer models). That made the 617 a great cheap-practice gun for the 686 (at least until the price of .22LR went thru the roof).
It's 10. My 617 has the 10 shot steel cylinder (the earliest 10 shot cylinders were aluminum) Exactly my thinking, too. And it's not picky about ammo at all unlike semi-autos.
CB longs are real fun, make about as much noise as a mouse farting. Even less in a rifle (bolt action of course), all you hear is the firing pin hit.
HTRN wrote:
They cost about the same to make, hence the near identical price.
You would be surprised how many gun owners don't get this. American shooters are prone to thinking that a gun's price should be proportional to the caliber. Drives me nuts, since I like a quality .22 pocket pistol (one cannot shoot flintlocks all the time).
HTRN wrote:
They cost about the same to make, hence the near identical price.
You would be surprised how many gun owners don't get this. American shooters are prone to thinking that a gun's price should be proportional to the caliber. Drives me nuts, since I like a quality .22 pocket pistol (one cannot shoot flintlocks all the time).
I think the disconnect comes from bolt action rifles, where a .22 is generally much cheaper than a centerfire because they don't need to handle the pressure of a centerfire. A centerfire rifle chambered in .22 LR would be serious overkill. Revolvers, not so much, although I recall .22 revolvers that were not based on centerfire that were much cheaper. I seem to recall a break top revolver that was seriously cheap.
