Aesthetically, I completely agree with you. I swear they finish stainless S&W revolvers in a clothes dryer filled with steel wool. That alone is probably worth the extra $200 or so.The correct answer is Get Both.
I've owned both. Sold the 617.
The 617 is a fine firearm. Accurate and reliable. It is big and heavy.
Being a K frame all manner of grips, holsters, parts, etc are available for it.
The Colt is smaller and lighter.
Accurate and reliable. Action is butter smooth compared to the 617.
It is built on the old D size Colt frame. Between a J and K frame S&W. Frame is the same as the old Colt Diamondback.
Being as new on the market as it is there are few aftermarket goodies for them as of yet.
Supposed to be available in a 4.25" and 6" barrel length but I have yet to see a 6".
I feel the Colt is the more attractive revolver.
I have a colt new frontier SAHave you considered a Ruger Single-Ten?
I don’t like to chase brass. I prefer to shoot revolversNot sure why anyone would want a revolver, when there are more reliable semi-automatic .22LR pistols available with optics.
For example, Sig P-322 (20 or 25 round mags, mine has shot just about every brand of .22LR being sold with NO failures, including the cheap bulk stuff) Also, hear good things about the Tarus .22 with 15 round mags
I must question the sanity of anyone who thinks a pistol is more reliable than a revolver, especially in 22 rimfire.Not sure why anyone would want a revolver, when there are more reliable semi-automatic .22LR pistols available with optics.
For example, Sig P-322 (20 or 25 round mags, mine has shot just about every brand of .22LR being sold with NO failures, including the cheap bulk stuff) Also, hear good things about the Tarus .22 with 15 round mags
Not sure why anyone would want a revolver, when there are more reliable semi-automatic .22LR pistols available
Ditto.I don’t like to chase brass.
Not sure why anyone would want a revolver