Went by the LGS to pick up a few accessories. For the first time they had the K6S in stock, in fact they had three of them (all 2" barrels). I've been thinking about picking one of these up for some time, although I'm in no hurry.

On paper, I thought the K6S looked like a K-Frame with the fat trimmed off. In my hands, it felt more like a J-Frame on steroids, it that makes sense. The overall size and trigger reach felt much more like a J-Frame.

I dryfired each one, and the trigger was consistent from one revolver to another. I hate to say it, because the K6S felt like a high quality product and I'm happy to see anyone else get into the revolver game, but the triggers just weren't up to what I'm used to with a classic S&W. It's smooth but has kind of an odd feel, where I can tell where the hammer is cocked and could stage the action if I wanted to.

It's probably on par with my J-Frames, but it just doesn't feel as good as my 64-3, which has had an action job but still uses full power springs. Does anyone else feel like that too? Maybe the K6S will smooth out over time, or I'd get used to it? Have I been so spoiled by my older Smiths that I've become a revolver snob?

I agree, i rented one and was not overly impressed. I would even say that Taurus revolvers are closer to Smith than the K6 was.

__________________
Smith all the things

It's 23 ounces - the same as a steel S&W J-frame, so comparing it a K-frame is unfair. The K6s is a lot easier to carry, and the ability to stage the trigger is a big plus -- essentially it becomes a single action sort of option. I have been carrying one for two months and am seriously contemplating selling 2 of my 3 S&W J-frames (Kimber has made them obsolete).

There's already after market support. I bought some nice wood grips from Altamont.

Yeah you're right, if you normally carry a J-frame then yes I agree the K6S compares favorably. I'm not a big fan of staging a trigger (prefer a surprise break) but for people who like that they'll probably really love the K6S.

S&W and Ruger really need to find a way to get six rounds into their smaller guns -- if both Colt and Kimber can do it, why can't they?

I've always loved my J Frame 442 and 640. However, what sets it apart is the capacity and the ability to change sights.

I thoroughly enjoy the trigger.

It fits easily into my pocket also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I bought a 64 DAO for a good price, I wouldn't pay the K6 price for any DAO revolver. I thought I could warm up to DAO but nope. At some point I will convert it, there is no converting the K6.

I didn't like the grip. I found it too short for me. The trigger felt good and it was finished very nice. I guess an after market grip would make a difference for me but there doesn't seem to be much in the way as far as grips or holsters. There are some but nothing like you will find like let say a Smith J frame.

I am fairly certain Smith CAN make 6 round cylinders for the J frames, especially if they used scandium. They have an 8 shot 357 for cryin out loud while Ruger wont go past 6 because of the cast steel they use.

Maybe Smith hasnt seen the demand.

__________________
Smith all the things

I'm only going to address one part of your post -- I will say that -YES- your K-frame S&W revolvers have you spoiled.

If you want a double action feel and smoothness that an older pre-lock K-frame is capable of, you'll have to go off this continent to find it and you'll need to bring 3x to 10x the money of a decent, used K-frame.

The good news is that we have like a gujillion of them floating around this great country.

They did at one time, 32 S&W long. I can't understand why they do not have at least a 32 H&R in their inventory, or 327. But Ruger does have a light six shot LCR 327 that is supposed to have an exceptional trigger, if you can find one. It is butt ugly though.

Buds has one for $511, seems like a good choice for pocket carry. Myself I prefer larger revolvers, except for the mini revolver I keep in my pocket.

My K6s fits in a Galco holster designed for a S&W J-frame. As for longer grips, now that Kimber is making a 3" model with longer grips, I am sure that Altamont will start selling those too. I already bought some of the shorter wood ones for my 2" K6s.

Ruger has an 8 shot Redhawk in .357. Model #5033.

1. Great owb holster. MD Whitefield Leather – MD Whitefield Leather Holsters
2. The Kimber trigger is different than S&W's. I have found it to be very comparable to the Kahr semi's. I appreciate the Kimber's ability to let me pull through or still have the option to stage it for a more precise shot. In my opinion the Kimber is the top line model S&W's should have offered years ago.

Yeah, good to know I'm not just imagining it. My first centerfire handgun was a Model 64 with a 2" barrel, for a long time it was my only gun for home defense and carry. That's my standard by which I judge other defensive handguns and it's not easy to find one that compares favorably.

I saw one last Saturday. I was impressed by the trigger. Unimpressed with the price tag.
I have trouble figuring where it fits. Most new shooters gravitate towards plastic autos, and traditionalists want the older revolvers.

__________________
Because of the metric system?

How is the trigger reset on the K6S? I recall reading somewhere that it was way to long with 3 distinct clicks on the way back forward.

I have been shooting mine for months and never thought twice about the reset of the trigger. This K6s trigger, BTW, is way better than any J-frame factory trigger I've pulled. The entire pull is .5 of an inch (the same as a J-frame to my eye). That is the reset as well. If you just let it reset you notice no clicks. If you let the trigger back agonizingly slow and hold the gun next to your ear, there are 3 tiny clicks; one about half way back and two very close to each other at the end. So what?

I suggest you try one.

Reset? I have never seen a revolver with a short reset. Every pull of the trigger has to turn the cylinder, I can't imagine a short stroke having the proper timing.

Well the reset sounds like a non-issue then. I was just going by what I had read somewhere. Maybe I've got it mixed up with some other gun. Anyway, if it's no different than pretty much any other revolver I'll be good with it.

I am sure S&W is keeping a close eye on the Kimber, and probably already has something in the works that no one knows about. If you can get 6 shots in a J-frame, Smith better do it. I love my 640 PRO, but I would love it even more if it was 6 rounds.

I think S&W may have gotten a bit complacent in recent years. I hope that starts changing now that they have some real competition again (I saw that in 2016, Ruger actually sold slightly more revolvers).

If they can't redesign the J-frame for a sixth round, how about bringing back the Model 12, Nightguard 315, or 242 Ti? I think we've seen that a short-barreled K/L frame revolver can still sell, look at the new 66 and 69. One thing I really liked about the Kimber was the sights, I'd like to see S&W give the option of bigger sights on every revolver.

I do not own any Kimbers. I am a S&W, Sig and Colt guy, but I am glad they came out with the K6s, and it appears they are really nice revolvers, and they are selling well. If anything, the success will prompt Smith to do something, and that will benefit all of us that are Revolver fans.

I don't think there is any way to fit 6 .38 Special/.357 Magnum cases in a J frame cylinder, unless you want them to rub against each other .

If S & W wanted to easily produce a product to compete with the Kimber (frame already in production, existing tooling, etc.), a 2" barrel DAO model 64 would be close. With all the alloy J frames rated for + P, I also don't see why a revived 2" model 12 could not be made.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

They did briefly make the Model 73, a K-frame cylinder on a J-frame. I've read that it was very difficult to manufacture, but perhaps today things would be easier?

The 2 (and 3") Model 64s are among the best carry guns S&W ever made, I wish I had bought a dozen of them when prices were lower.

I think the model 73 was slightly larger than the J and smaller than the K (the C frame). Think Colt D frame and you are close.

One of the side benefits of SWCA membership is that I was able to handle and examine a model 73 at one of the Annual Meetings (now called Symposia). Cool gun but probably not different enough from existing models to justify production.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

That is very cool. If putting 6 rounds into a J-Frame isn't feasible, S&W could go the other way and put a J-Frame size grip onto a K-Frame revolver. I don't see why that wouldn't work, considering leaf springs worked in the smaller I-Frame guns. The grip is the hardest part to conceal so I would prefer that for a carry gun.

Get back to me when anybody gives us a 8 shot J frame size .44 magnum.(sarcasm) NOW that would impress me.