or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Gun Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gun Appreciation Thread - Page 233

post #3481 of 3773
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekS View Post

revolver guys.... have you checked out the new Kimber snubbie in .357?? looks amazing. Spoke to a friend last night whos at the shot shot this week....I guess it feels just as good as it looks. MSRP around 8-900 though.

 

Wow!  Actually looks great, and straight into the face of the Smith 640 etc.  With one extra round.  Curious they don't mention the weight in the specs - surely one of the first questions for a dedicated CC?  Anyway, no doubt a pile of K6s vs 640 vs SP101 reviews are on the way.

post #3482 of 3773
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

Wow!  Actually looks great, and straight into the face of the Smith 640 etc.  With one extra round.  Curious they don't mention the weight in the specs - surely one of the first questions for a dedicated CC?  Anyway, no doubt a pile of K6s vs 640 vs SP101 reviews are on the way.
Quote:
The Kimber K6s is the world’s lightest small-frame six-round .357 Magnum revolver, and it brings an unmatched level of performance and shootability to concealed carry applications.

The design is beautiful. I'm not sure I'd want to be firing a super lightweight snubby .357 in a self defense scenario.
post #3483 of 3773
I like the monobloc-looking design and think the rear sight looks pretty cool. It seems a little spendy for what it is, however.
post #3484 of 3773
The weight of the new Kimber revolver is 23 ounces. The only other smallish 6-shot .357 I am aware of is the Rossi, which is 26 ounces. I have shot some .357s in the 24 or 25-ounce range, and recoil isn't too bad for a modest number of rounds. The Smith & Wesson 340 weights about 11.5 ounces. I have never fired one of the latter revolvers and have absolutely no desire to...at least not in .357 Magnum! I know a number of seasoned handgun shots who feel the same way or desisted from shooting it after a round or two.

I am somewhat surprised the Kimber, with its hammer shroud, can be made 3 ounces lighter than the Rossi.

I do not care for the aesthetics of the Kimber revolver, but that's a matter of personal taste.

The recessed, drift adjustable rear sight seems like a good idea, though.
post #3485 of 3773

Basically, it's the same weight and more or less the same size as the stainless S&W 640 but with an extra round.  I like the traditional look of the Smith J frames, so the soft hexagonal lines on this jar with me a bit, too.  But looking at it on its own merits, it's pretty slick.  And with the capacity of the 66 in the size of the 640, I think they might have a real contender here.

 

I can't help but wonder how Smith (or Ruger for that matter) are going to respond - if at all.  A completely new J frame to accommodate a six shooter? And with it the final death knell of the K?

post #3486 of 3773
It seems to me that the whole "six rounds vs. five rounds" issue isn't all that important. Do people really care that much? I would think that if you're in the market for a high-capacity CCW gun, you're probably not looking at a revolver anyway.

I am certainly no expert on this market, however.
post #3487 of 3773
As a matter of interest, Colt made a small-frame, six-shot .357 called the "Magnum Carry" for a short time before they got out of the DA revolver business in 1999. I believe it was the final iteration of the Police Positive Special/Detective Special series. When I was a young fellow, Colt made a selling point of the six-shot capacity of the Detective Special. It was appreciably smaller and lighter than Smith & Wesson's 2-inch Military & Police (Model 10), yet offered an extra round (and a more usable factory grip) over the Chiefs Special and its offshoots.

Smith & Wesson actually experimented with a frame very similar to the Colt D frame--a six-shooter that split the difference between the K and J frame--in the early 1970s. They made a few guns on this frame but never put them into production.

"Death knell of the K?" I thought Smith & Wesson had been making their erstwhile K-frame revolvers on the L-frame for some years now, except maybe for some of their "Classic" (or whatever they call them) retro guns.

As I noted earlier, Rossi has offered a small-frame six-shot .357 for some years now. I wonder how Kimber has been able to shave three ounces off the Rossi's weight.

Revolvers are subtle beasts to manufacture. Were I interested in the new Kimber, I would probably hold off until I was sure Kimber--a firm with no experience whatsoever in the manufacture of revolvers--had gotten all the "bugs" out of the guns.
post #3488 of 3773
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Colt made a small-frame, six-shot .357

"Death knell of the K?"

As I noted earlier, Rossi has offered a small-frame six-shot .357 for some years now. I wonder how Kimber has been able to shave three ounces off the Rossi's weight.

Revolvers are subtle beasts to manufacture. Were I interested in the new Kimber, I would probably hold off until I was sure Kimber--a firm with no experience whatsoever in the manufacture of revolvers--had gotten all the "bugs" out of the guns.

 

Interesting about the Colt. On the second point, Smith still make the 66 on the K frame, whereas the L frame 357s now come with seven chamber options - and of course the original 357 N frame comes today with eight.

 

I suppose Rossi just doesn't have the brand cachet that Smith does, but fair points about the Kimber: revolvers might be simple objects in some ways, but for that very reason that should make them harder to improve.  The tiny details of proportion and metallurgy will need to be perfect.  Your caution makes sense.

post #3489 of 3773
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

It's just a personal preference for me. I like the design of the glock and have never been a fan of the 1911's design, both aesthetically and function wise. A self defense scenario usually only involves a handful of rounds so the differences are muted, but if we are talking about taking a gun into combat I don't think there's any comparison between the two. I believe the SEALs just adopted the Glock 19 as their sidearm (although it's a preliminary report). I defer to the people who run reputable training schools and discourage students from using 1911 platforms in their classes, which can involve putting 1,000 rounds through a gun in a single day. Their advice is based on what they've seen after teaching thousands of students. Those guns just don't run as well under such scenarios. Granted, you could make a point that these classes don't reflect what you will encounter as a civilian.

Well, I went to quite a few "reputable training schools," mostly back in the '90s, including Gunsite, Front Sight and Thunder Ranch, and I never fired anything remotely close to 1,000 rounds a day. Frankly, that sounds pretty insane to me. I don't care how practiced or skilled a shooter is, after several hundred rounds, fatigue is going to set in and skill will deteriorate. That volume of fire sounds very counter-productive--unless maybe you were talking about a full-auto course, which isn't the case here. I've heard of 1911s firing 10,000 rounds non-stop without glitches or breakage. Heck, at the final service tests back in 1911 the Colt test pistol shot 6,000 rounds without a hitch. I suspect if 1911s are giving a lot of problems it has been because of tampering like too-tight accuracy jobs and such.

I have been to three courses with ITTS in the LA area over the past several years. Average round count was 600 or less for the entire two-day courses. I have seen more Glocks than 1911s break down in these courses, and I personally had more feed issues with my M&P40 than my 1911s during these courses, which included full days exposed in the rain with magazines dropping into the dirt.

Scotty Reitz of ITTS still advocates the 1911 platform and had Robar design a custom package to his specifications. I don't agree with everything he advocates, but he certainly knows a thing or two about using pistols under stress.

And putting Yeager's politics and personality aside, I have a hard time accepting any guidance from someone who runs a range like this:

post #3490 of 3773
I picked up my S&W M&P 15 Sport today. This evening I took it to the range to try it out. The sights were right on out of the box (at least as far as my limited skill would allow). I'm looking forward to taking it out again soon. smile.gif I can see that my old-man eyes will be the limiting factor for the open sights.
post #3491 of 3773
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekS View Post

so killing time at work and saw this. Come on man. MAKE THIS HAPPEN. icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
I really want to. Investor meeting Monday unless everyone is still snowed in.
post #3492 of 3773
Quote:
Originally Posted by retronotmetro View Post

I have been to three courses with ITTS in the LA area over the past several years. Average round count was 600 or less for the entire two-day courses. I have seen more Glocks than 1911s break down in these courses, and I personally had more feed issues with my M&P40 than my 1911s during these courses, which included full days exposed in the rain with magazines dropping into the dirt.

Scotty Reitz of ITTS still advocates the 1911 platform and had Robar design a custom package to his specifications. I don't agree with everything he advocates, but he certainly knows a thing or two about using pistols under stress.

And putting Yeager's politics and personality aside, I have a hard time accepting any guidance from someone who runs a range like this:


You won't find me defending that photo (who could?), which I've seen before.

James Yeager did a three part video series on the subject. One of the 1911 brands he recommends is Wilson Combat, featured in part two.
post #3493 of 3773
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post

I picked up my S&W M&P 15 Sport today. This evening I took it to the range to try it out. The sights were right on out of the box (at least as far as my limited skill would allow). I'm looking forward to taking it out again soon. smile.gif I can see that my old-man eyes will be the limiting factor for the open sights.

the sport is a great rifle. should be a lot of fun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauro View Post

I really want to. Investor meeting Monday unless everyone is still snowed in.

lurker[1].gif that would be STELLAR
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


James Yeager did a three part video series on the subject. One of the 1911 brands he recommends is Wilson Combat, featured in part two.

wilson makes a fine pistol. is it worth the almost 4K? I think its subjective. But i do know for a fact i shot my DWs better and liked the feel of them better. Thats why i got rid of mine
post #3494 of 3773
Purchased the S&W Performance Center 1911 - expecting to get it later this week. Handled it and compared to Dan Wesson's Valor and Heritage. Valor was amazing, but slightly out of budget, the Heritage was nice but a little too bare bones for me. The S&W trigger was also noticeably better to my finger. None of the Kimber's I handled in the sub $1300 range were great to me but I loved the aesthetics. Happy with my decision overall and can't wait to get this into my hands.

Also grabbed 500 rounds of .45acp. Going to be a fun weekend coming up!
post #3495 of 3773
Quote:
Originally Posted by retronotmetro View Post

I have been to three courses with ITTS in the LA area over the past several years. Average round count was 600 or less for the entire two-day courses. I have seen more Glocks than 1911s break down in these courses, and I personally had more feed issues with my M&P40 than my 1911s during these courses, which included full days exposed in the rain with magazines dropping into the dirt.

Scotty Reitz of ITTS still advocates the 1911 platform and had Robar design a custom package to his specifications. I don't agree with everything he advocates, but he certainly knows a thing or two about using pistols under stress.

And putting Yeager's politics and personality aside, I have a hard time accepting any guidance from someone who runs a range like this:


That's a crazy picture. The photographer is not firing on all cylinders. I can't believe someone would allow that on a hot range.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Gun Appreciation Thread