Question about H&R 622

[raftman]

Picked up one of these recently, and so far, rather pleased, it's definitely a great value, actually spent less on it than any other gun I own. Far cheaper than most .22 revolvers and far better than those cheaper than it. However, it didn't come with a manual, and it's rather different from the other revolver I own, so I'm not clear on a few things about it. Am I actually supposed to remove the cylinder entirely to load/unload it? That's a pain in the butt, is there some different, better way that I am not seeing? Sorry if it seems like an idiot question, but I'm not too big on revolvers nor too experienced with them.


And because we all love pictures:

 

[Tom2]

I have a 900, which appears to be a shorter barreled version of the same gun. You most certainly have to take the cylinder out to unload it. And I think that maybe loading it out of the gun is maybe safer, despite the loading cutout in the recoil shield. I see I can advance the cylinder by pulling the hammer back part way and releasing it as soon as the thing moves, and it takes two times to advance each chamber. And you have a clear shot at the chamber only during part of the rotation! So that seems like an awkward, maybe unsafe way to load it despite being possible. Also on mine, it seems that the firing pin nose can protrude thru the frame a bit just by pressing forward on it, therefore I intend to carry with an empty chamber under the hammer! Methinks I might be better served with one of the models with swingout cylinder, or even nicer, the top break action. These must have been the bottom of the price schedule models but could be quite serviceable if you understand the odd handling procedure. Mine is from the early 60's and no box or papers either.

 

[SigP6Carry]

I've got an Iver Johnson that I shoot, it's the same mechanism. I actually put a .22 shell between the hammer and frame while I'm loading it and unloading it. I also use an allen wrench to pop the rounds out through the loading gate, so I don't have to hassle with the cylinder in and out.

 

[James K]

"These must have been the bottom of the price schedule models but could be quite serviceable if you understand the odd handling procedure."

Yep, you get what you pay for. They were an economy price plinking gun, but still better than most of the foreign import junk that was being sold at the same time.

Jim

 

[raftman]

And that's exactly what I was after. I wanted a .22 handgun to plink with, but have had nothing but trouble with semi-autos.

The modern-made .22 revolvers cost more than I'd ever wanna spend on a .22. Even the Taurus models in .22LR generally sell for well above $300. The only truly cheap revolvers are of the RG and Clerke variety which can be bought for $15 but then you get a gun that wont let you hit a pie plate from 5 feet away and will have its barrel fall off after 200 rounds. Pretty much left me with the H&R option only; they're simple, perhaps even crude, but at least reliable and accurate.

But, at least, now, I don't feel like an idiot for not finding a more efficient way of loading as apparently it was designed to load/unload in such a novel way.

 

[Tom2]

Well I think you cannot go wrong with a little H&R for all kinds of plinking, even informal target or hunting. Mine has the fixed sight too, but seems to be reasonably accurate for a not very long barrel. They are not junk but do have to comprimise a bit for the price range. As long as the gun is not loose, and the bore is nice, and the ratchets on the extractor are not chewed up badly, which can cause timing issues, they will work fine. The problem is alot of them are for sale, that have been abused or messed with as at one time they were considered absolutely not worth much. Now nice ones get good money just for not being thrashed. They sure beat the heck out of a plastic and pot metal auto that costs alot more and jams constantly! Yours looks nice and should hold some value as a shooter, as high ammo costs are making people that want to shoot alot look for rimfires, I believe.

 

[raftman]

I actually put a .22 shell between the hammer and frame while I'm loading it and unloading it. I also use an allen wrench to pop the rounds out through the loading gate, so I don't have to hassle with the cylinder in and out.

Tried this method out today, the little cutout isn't beg enough to actually use, the rim of the casing catches against the edge of the opening!

 

[Tom2]

Yep, you got to ask yourself why they bothered to even make this design when they presumably had the swing out cylinder versions and their top break revolvers. I am sure this solid frame style shoots as good as the others, just a huge pain to use and with the safety issues, what if you drop the cylinder on a hard surface while loading it, or trying to insert it back in the gun, all those rims exposed to make the cylinder a sort of live derringer if one goes off, and the issue with mine where the hammer firing pin can protrude thru the frame, if you drop the gun on the hammer, will it fire a round too? Gun is made of quality marterials, I just wonder what they were thinking of. Not worrying about lawsuits, I suppose. Maybe it was considered a load and stash away gun. I should have payed more and gotten a model up the line I guess, or kept my top break model I used to have.

 

[raftman]

Makes the Nagant seem practical by comparison.

 

[SigP6Carry]

raftman, I had the same issue with the IJ at first, it usually catches on just one side, you have to get the cylinder lined up PERFECTLY in order to get it in. If the loading gate is really cut that poorly... that's just a terrible tease.