Is Kimber K6S the best revolver for under $1500?

I had one of the DAO Kimber K6s revolvers and never warmed up to it. A decent revolver with decent sights (white dots) and it holds 6 rounds, but it just didn't have that 'feel'.
So, I sold it and instead bought a Colt King Cobra. (My first Colt ever.) Great revolver!
Smoothest DA pull ever on any revolver I own. My aging eyes didn't do well with the black blade and brass bead, so I easily swapped in a front fiber optic. Perfection!
(All this coming from a guy who only previously owned S&W and Ruger revolvers...)
 
I don’t know if Kimber is the best, but mine is on par with my new and old Colts and S&Ws. I have the 4” Combat model and have been impressed with it. I’d go with my Colt Cobra for carrying but only because a 2” barrel makes more sense than a 4” model for carrying.
 
Super Sneaky Steve said:
Colt and S&W can't do exactly the same thing. They have 6 shot revolvers too but they weren't designed for concealed carry. They are too big and too heavy compared to other offerings that were made for that purpose.

It you look at reviews from people who actually own these and shoot these along side all our other revolvers you'll see mostly positivity. If you look at people giving an opinion about a revolver "they would never own" well then they don't really know what they are missing quite literally.
Click to expand...

6-shot S&W's, Colts and Rugers weren't meant for CCW?!?

Well, that would've been helpful to know back in the days of service revolvers, when we commonly carried 6-shot medium-framed, and even large-framed, revolvers concealed off-duty. ;)

Sure, I eventually adopted carrying some 5-shot snubs in .38SPL and .44SPL because they were conveniently smaller than my issued M66 (and then M686), as well as my collection of assorted Ruger Security, Speed and Service-Six revolvers. They were a damned sight more convenient to carry concealed than my N-frame S&W's and my Redhawk (and I usually carried IWB in those days). :)

Nowadays. when opting to carry a revolver instead of a pistol, I usually choose to carry one of my several J-frames instead of the 6-shot revolvers I still own, but that's only as a matter of personal choice and convenience. I have a selection of concealment holsters for my 6-shot revolvers. Just not as much inclination to carry them as much as I used to as a younger man/cop.

If the big names in concealment holsters didn't see a market for concealment holsters for 6-shot (and 7 & 8-shot) revolvers, they wouldn't be making them. ;)

Matter of fact, I decided to order another couple of new holsters for a couple of my 6-shot revolvers a while back, both for concealment use.

 
If I were to be confined to a small bore DA revolver, my vote goes to a S&WModel 586, 4" barrel.

But to me, the best revolver for under $1500 is a Ruger Super Blackhawk for hunting, or a 4 5/8" Blackhawk in .45 Colt.

Bob Wright
 
Bob Wright said:
If I were to be confined to a small bore DA revolver, my vote goes to a S&WModel 586, 4" barrel.

But to me, the best revolver for under $1500 is a Ruger Super Blackhawk for hunting, or a 4 5/8" Blackhawk in .45 Colt.

Bob Wright
Click to expand...

I agree about the 4 5/8" Blackhawk in .45Colt. Mine is a New Model Convertible .45Colt/ACP, although my other 4 5/8" Convertible is an earlier 3-screw .357MAG/9mm (remains in original condition as 3-screw).


If given my druthers for a medium-sized .357 in DA (other than my prized Service-Six, converted to RB and tuned by MagNaPort many years ago), I'd go with either a 681 or 581, simply for the fixed sights. I carried an issued 4" 686 for several years, and the adjustable sights could be - predictably - rough on clothing. ;) The fixed sight L-frames were pretty nice, and I still kick myself for passing up some good deals in those days.
 
"Is Kimber K6S the best revolver for under $1500?
Not in my opinion. Not even close." 44 AMP

Yep...my thoughts exactly....S&W without a lock fills that niche for me...YMMv and I forgive you, OP.
 
rodfac said:
"Is Kimber K6S the best revolver for under $1500?
Not in my opinion. Not even close." 44 AMP

Yep...my thoughts exactly....S&W without a lock fills that niche for me...YMMv and I forgive you, OP.
Click to expand...
The only thing about SW is that their revolvers of similar size can only hold 5 rounds, instead of 6 rounds.
 
liv4spd said:
Not really.

What is "Load 1, skip 1, load 4"?
Click to expand...
The issue is that you're really new to firearms as we all were at one time. You're asking questions lots of new folk ask and that's fine. But you are also making judgements and proffering answers while you still really don't even have the basics or experience required. Ask away, but stop trying to give definitive answers until you gain some more knowledge and experience.
 
jar said:
The issue is that you're really new to firearms as we all were at one time. You're asking questions lots of new folk ask and that's fine. But you are also making judgements and proffering answers while you still really don't even have the basics or experience required. Ask away, but stop trying to give definitive answers until you gain some more knowledge and experience.
Click to expand...

You asked "Were you ever taught Load 1, skip 1, load 4?". Because I haven't been taught about that yet, I humbly answered "Not really". What is wrong with that? You clearly misunderstood me but decided to go ballistic?

Frank, many thanks for sharing the Youtube link!
 
Last edited:
Does one extra round make one revolver superior?
Click to expand...

Most people would agree that it gives an advantage. One round extra over 5 is a huge difference than one round over 13. 20 percent advantage in the six shot revolver, so yes, it does make it superior. I am sure that many of the old timers loaded six instead of load one, skip, load four when they knew that they were going to a showdown.

I do carry my five shot smith J frames but admit that I miss that extra round that my Kimber of the same size yields. The Kimber and the Smith 60 weigh pretty close to the same. Yes, the smiths are better looking in the traditional way but the Kimber looks elegant in its modern style as well.

The trigger on my Kimber K6 is Way smoother than any of my Smiths. The one round advantage of the Kimber was the whole selling point and exactly why I got one, so Yes, it did make a difference to me regardless of the higher price.

My three carry revolvers are a Smith 360 PD, a Smith 3" model 60 and an original Kimber K6.
 
Last edited:
What does the procedure for loading an old single action revolver have to do with loading a modern and safe double action revolver? Why would one carry a modern revolver with one less round than it is designed for?
 
It has nothing to do with loading a modern swing out cylinder revolver. But it has a lot to do with the concept of superiority.

"Superiority" is subjective and individual. What one person sees as superior may well be irrelevant to someone else.

To say five rounds are superior to four rounds or six rounds is superior to five or seven is superior to six are all simply opinions.

To say five rounds are more than four rounds or six rounds is more than five or seven is more than six is fact. To say a swing out cylinder is faster to load than a single action gated design is fact.

Language and words actually make a difference.

I do not feel any less protected with one of my old SAA Clones loaded using the old 1, skip, load 4 method than with a 5 or 6 round swing out cylinder or with a 22LR than with a 45acp. Others feel differently. I do not find one superior to the other.
 
What does 6 rounds instead of 5 buy you?

We can look at some probabilities if we make some assumptions.

Let's assume:
1. It takes two solid hits to incapacitate an attacker.
2. Our hit rate is about what police see in their shootings--about 30%.
3. We get to use all the rounds in the gun before getting killed, or before getting injured to the point of not being able to resist further.
4. The attackers are determined--that is, they keep attacking as long as they are able vs. running as soon as they see a gun or hear a shot.

With those assumptions, what are the chances of achieving 2 hits on a single attacker with 5 rounds? About 47%. That is, about 53% of the time we would expect to fail to "stop" the attacker in the scenario we created.

What about with the same assumption but with 6 rounds? Now it's about a 58% success rate. We've gone from failing more than half the time to succeeding about 4 times out of 7 by adding one round.

If you go to assuming 2 attackers the odds are really terrible with either 5 or 6 rounds although 6 rounds does provide better than double the chance of success than 5. Not that it's anything to celebrate given that the chance of success in neutralizing 2 attackers with the assumptions above is only 7% with 6 rounds.

The moral of the story is that 5 or 6 rounds and real-world hit rates is a bad recipe for defending against one determined attacker, let alone more than one, but we can see that there is a significant benefit to having 6 vs. 5.

More on the subject:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=494257
 
JohnKSa said:
What does 6 rounds instead of 5 buy you?

We can look at some probabilities if we make some assumptions.

Let's assume:
1. It takes two solid hits to incapacitate an attacker.
2. Our hit rate is about what police see in their shootings--about 30%.
3. We get to use all the rounds in the gun before getting killed, or before getting injured to the point of not being able to resist further.
4. The attackers are determined--that is, they keep attacking as long as they are able vs. running as soon as they see a gun or hear a shot.

With those assumptions, what are the chances of achieving 2 hits on a single attacker with 5 rounds? About 47%. That is, about 53% of the time we would expect to fail to "stop" the attacker in the scenario we created.

What about with the same assumption but with 6 rounds? Now it's about a 58% success rate. We've gone from failing more than half the time to succeeding about 4 times out of 7 by adding one round.

If you go to assuming 2 attackers the odds are really terrible with either 5 or 6 rounds although 6 rounds does provide better than double the chance of success than 5. Not that it's anything to celebrate given that the chance of success in neutralizing 2 attackers with the assumptions above is only 7% with 6 rounds.

The moral of the story is that 5 or 6 rounds and real-world hit rates is a bad recipe for defending against one determined attacker, let alone more than one, but we can see that there is a significant benefit to having 6 vs. 5.

More on the subject:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=494257
Click to expand...
Well done and kudos to your statistical knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top