I'm torn: K6 Target or S&W 627 Pro - Page 2 - Kimber Forum

Kimber


Go Back   Kimber Forum > Kimber Model Specific > Kimber Revolver Forum

Like Tree35Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-10-2020, 10:43 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
2sharp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 13,057
Originally Posted by medezyner View Post
I never have had, or know anyone who has had, a problem with the H-hole safety. I do prefer it not to have the safety out of the need to keep it simple stupid, but that really limits the S&W selection. I dont think there is a new S&W 8 shot without the safety. Maybe a pre-2001 model? Dunno

Your not really limited in S&W selection IF your open to doing some searching and shopping online (read that as GunBroker) lots of pre-lock Smith's. Depending on how old the pre-lock Smith is besides not having an useless lock, it could be free of MIM parts, have a pinned barrel and recessed cylinder. Some model prices are higher than lock models.
Rick in Oregon and medezyner like this.
__________________
The Kimber Family

CDP & RCP Ultra's
Classic Carry Pro (Factory Bone Grips)
Custom Two-Tone 45/.460Rowland
Gold Combat Limited Edition
Master Carry Pro
Sapphire Ultra 9mm
SIS Custom, Pro, Ultra
Stainless Ultra Carry 9mm
Stainless Raptor Custom, Pro, Ultra
Super Carry Ultra Plus
TLE Pro (TFS)

Kimber 84M Longmaster Classic SS .308
Kimber SVT 22lr Stainless Fluted Bull Barrel
Kimber Of America 82 Stainless Fluted .22lr
Kimber 84M Varmint Stainless 204 Ruger
2sharp2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Remove Ads
Old 11-10-2020, 10:53 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Rick in Oregon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: High Desert of Central Oregon
Posts: 1,665
For me, the choice would be easy. One maker has over 150 years of revolver experience, the other has less than ten years......

As 2Sharp mentioned, you can find pre-lock Smiths out there IF you poke about. They may be a bit higher in price, but if you really want one, hold off and keep looking, as they DO come available all the time.

For the record, there are no silly j-locks on ANY of the Smiths in my modest collection. 'Just don't look right on a fine revolver, period!' And if you need it for the intended purpose in a hurry.......???
__________________
Semper Fortis
USN Amphibious/RVN 1966
NRA Life, VVA
Rick in Oregon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2020, 12:10 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 15
Not trying to start a flame war on this well-trod issue, but I'll reiterate my statement, because this is something I feel very strongly about and that bothers me a bit: no matter what anyone says, i.e., "it's really not a big deal" or "it doesn't effect the function of the gun" or "those stories about the lock locking the gun up are all exaggerated" - I'll never, ever buy a S&W with a lock. Pre-lock Smiths, sure. But I refuse to support a product that is, by design, mutilated by anti-gun politicians. Same as why I won't buy a California-neutered AR here in California. I'd rather have a Mini-14 or M1A and at least have a rifle that works as intended, without its fundamental functionality impaired by inane political meddling. Back to revolvers, though, to me a revolver is not just a practical weapon but also a functional piece of art. Like an analog watch, you enjoy it for its utility, but you also appreciate the skill and craft that goes into making it all work. And so, besides opposing the lock on political principle, I also oppose it on (for lack of a better word) aesthetic principle as well. If I want to buy a painting to hang on my wall, why would I buy one a hole poked in the canvas? Likewise, if I want to admire a beautiful revolver, why would I buy one with a hole poked in the frame?

So, sure, at best, a S&W revolver may still function 100% despite the lock (though I'd still rather not chance it), but that hole will always be a symbol of abhorrent anti-gun politics and it will always ruin the aesthetic of an otherwise beautiful gun. And so again, no matter what anyone says, I will never spend my money buying into that nonsense.
welltempered is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 11-12-2020, 05:49 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 10
I think you are looking at two very different guns here. The Kimber is remarkably compact for a six round .357 Mag. The 627 is very, very large in comparison. Dimensions of a few tenths on an inch on paper become huge when you have them in hand.

In my experience, carrying an N-frame S&W gets old quick. A K-frame melts into me when carried IWB and I don’t even notice them as long as the grips are rounded in profile. The L-frames are only slightly larger, but that’s enough to start to make the gun noticeable. I know this sounds obvious but if you get it it you’ll get it- I feel like I’m carrying a gun with an L frame. With an N-frame, it starts feeling like a nuisance. It feels like work. The Kimber is slightly smaller than a K-frame, so carrying it is nothing.

The closest S&W size equivalent to the Kimber would be a K-frame like the models 19, 66, etc, even if those are slightly bigger than the Kimber. The Kimber is closer to the Ruger SP-101 or old Colt Detective Special in size.

For a compromise, I suggest you also look at a S&W 686 Plus if at all possible. It’s an L-frame, so falls roughly mid way between the Kimber and 627, but holds seven rounds. They make them in several barrel lengths and variations.

As far as Kimber vs S&W quality, I too would have once said S&W all the way. Current S&Ws are not up to the standards of even recent years IMO. The workmanship is mostly there, but design shortcuts are more obvious all the time. The two-piece barrel system is a pretty decent idea mechanically, but looks awful IMO. Also, S&W uses MIM parts while I understand the K6 does not.

I have always been a huge S&W fan. Of the last eight guns I’ve bought, seven were S&Ws, but none were current production revolvers. I’d buy another new Kimber K6s without hesitation.
welltempered likes this.
Barry in IN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2020, 03:35 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Shrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 10
a revolver without a lock is the way to go doesn't matter which one
Shrek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2020, 09:02 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 32
You have already gotten a lot of really good comments and information. I will try not to be repetitive, just add my thoughts. Although I am a very big Kimber 1911 fan, I have only handled a few of the K6 revolvers and never shot one. I'm also a big Smith & Wesson revolver fan. I agree with previous comments about the model 27 N frame feeling really large to me. I'm much more comfortable with either the smaller K frame or L frame revolvers. I have never been smitten with the 8 shot revolver, so for me the K or L frame revolvers work just fine. All of my Smith & Wesson revolvers are of older pre-lock variety. I have owned a couple of the newer S&W revolvers with the lock and MIM parts and they have been just fine. It's just that I like the subtle difference in the frame of the older pre-lock revolvers better and I don't see the need for the lock, so as long as pre-lock revolvers are available, and they are, that is what I will own.

Having said all of that, the only way that you are going to know what is best for you is to own both the Kimber and the Smith & Wesson. My only caution is, I know that a pre-lock Smith & Wesson revolver is going to hold it's value really well, whereas the Kimber, ???
wproct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2020, 04:22 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
medezyner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NH
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by Barry in IN View Post
For a compromise, I suggest you also look at a S&W 686 Plus if at all possible. Itís an L-frame, so falls roughly mid way between the Kimber and 627, but holds seven rounds. They make them in several barrel lengths and variations.
+1 on checking out the 686 Plus. My LGS had a 4" (4.125) so I went down today to do some comparisons. Unfortunately they didn't have a 627 (8 round) in stock, but I have to admit that the 686 with the full underlug had a nicely balanced feel to it. It also didnt feel too big. I have a feeling the 3" will also feel damn good, maybe better. More than a few mentioned that on welltemperedís thread. It didn't come home with me, which may turn out to be "doh!" move the way handguns are flying off the shelf.
__________________
"We deal in lead, friend."
- Steve McQueen, The Magnificent Seven
medezyner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2020, 06:36 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
2sharp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 13,057
Originally Posted by medezyner View Post
+1 on checking out the 686 Plus. My LGS had a 4" (4.125) so I went down today to do some comparisons. Unfortunately they didn't have a 627 (8 round) in stock, but I have to admit that the 686 with the full underlug had a nicely balanced feel to it. It also didnt feel too big. I have a feeling the 3" will also feel damn good, maybe better. More than a few mentioned that on welltemperedís thread. It didn't come home with me, which may turn out to be "doh!" move the way handguns are flying off the shelf.

I think if your going to conceal carry it for any length of time the 3" barrel will serve you much better. It's also the middle of the road between 4" and 2" snub.
Rick in Oregon and medezyner like this.
__________________
The Kimber Family

CDP & RCP Ultra's
Classic Carry Pro (Factory Bone Grips)
Custom Two-Tone 45/.460Rowland
Gold Combat Limited Edition
Master Carry Pro
Sapphire Ultra 9mm
SIS Custom, Pro, Ultra
Stainless Ultra Carry 9mm
Stainless Raptor Custom, Pro, Ultra
Super Carry Ultra Plus
TLE Pro (TFS)

Kimber 84M Longmaster Classic SS .308
Kimber SVT 22lr Stainless Fluted Bull Barrel
Kimber Of America 82 Stainless Fluted .22lr
Kimber 84M Varmint Stainless 204 Ruger
2sharp2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2020, 11:00 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Rick in Oregon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: High Desert of Central Oregon
Posts: 1,665
Originally Posted by 2sharp2 View Post
I think if your going to conceal carry it for any length of time the 3" barrel will serve you much better. It's also the middle of the road between 4" and 2" snub.
Completely agree.

I've got revolvers in all barrel lengths, and for CC, the 3" is best IMHO, and for cruising the outback, a 4" is best (for me) in terms of sight radius, velocity, and ease of carry worn OWB or in a shoulder rig.

I seldom carry one of my revolvers for CC, as being all stainless or carbon steel, they're just too dang heavy for all day/every day carry. BUT throw in either a 3" revolver or better yet, an alloy frame 4" or 3" 1911, and wazoo! You've got the perfect combination of all the variables.

My two favorite revolvers for field carry, my S&W 686 .357 Mag, and my S&W 617 .22LR, both 4" (and no silly locks!).



When in the elk timber though, my EDC is always my 3" M629 Classic .44 Mag, loaded with my hardcast 250gr Keith SWC bullets over a stiff load of 2400. Great for deer, elk, coyotes, and hopefully no more cougars. I've had enough "cat experiences".
medezyner and welltempered like this.
__________________
Semper Fortis
USN Amphibious/RVN 1966
NRA Life, VVA
Rick in Oregon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On