Colt King Cobra Target .22 .....

[Maccabeus]

I just recently picked up a 3" model. Altamont grips.







Looks great. Feels great. I haven't put the KCT22 on a scale yet but I was surprised at the heft compared to my Kimber K6S 3". I'm presuming it's almost 10oz more than the Kimber.

I just fired a few rounds through it so far to check its function alongside some other pistols that were getting more attention that range day.

It fired 50 rounds of CCI Mini Mags with no issue.

The trigger felt pretty nice. I don't have much to compare it to in .22lr revolvers other than an old M63 4" I used to have. The DA trigger on the 63 was horrible (the only thing heavier that I've experienced was an AMT .45 Backup) -- and I'm not usually bothered by a DA trigger. I only fired the Colt KCT DA out of personal habit and it seemed on par with the DA pull of the new .357 Mountain Gun. I don't own a trigger scale so, sorry, no specifics.

I couldn't get any better groups with the .22lr than I could with the 9mm, .45, & 38spl. I was firing alongside it.



Something about the sights on the Colt just didn't work for me. My eyes aren't getting any younger, but I don't normally have trouble with the front sight. Basic 3 dot white sights, Ameriglo Troopers, SIG XRay3s, Green FO, the brass bead on the Mountain Gun, whatever, but that red fiber optic just didn't work with my eyes. I could barely make out the red and couldn't distinguish between the edges of the front sight and the edges of the rear sight.

So I can't speak to its accuracy. Nor do I know how it handles a variety of ammo brands/types.

Still, initial impressions are that I'm infinitely happier with it than I was with my 6 shot, 4" model 63.

 

[Jerry in SC]

I just recently picked up a 3" model. Altamont grips.

View attachment 793794

View attachment 793795

View attachment 793796

Looks great. Feels great. I haven't put the KCT22 on a scale yet but I was surprised at the heft compared to my Kimber K6S 3". I'm presuming it's almost 10oz more than the Kimber.

I just fired a few rounds through it so far to check its function alongside some other pistols that were getting more attention that range day.

It fired 50 rounds of CCI Mini Mags with no issue.

The trigger felt pretty nice. I don't have much to compare it to in .22lr revolvers other than an old M63 4" I used to have. The DA trigger on the 63 was horrible (the only thing heavier that I've experienced was an AMT .45 Backup) -- and I'm not usually bothered by a DA trigger. I only fired the Colt KCT DA out of personal habit and it seemed on par with the DA pull of the new .357 Mountain Gun. I don't own a trigger scale so, sorry, no specifics.

I couldn't get any better groups with the .22lr than I could with the 9mm, .45, & 38spl. I was firing alongside it.

View attachment 793802

Something about the sights on the Colt just didn't work for me. My eyes aren't getting any younger, but I don't normally have trouble with the front sight. Basic 3 dot white sights, Ameriglo Troopers, SIG XRay3s, Green FO, the brass bead on the Mountain Gun, whatever, but that red fiber optic just didn't work with my eyes. I could barely make out the red and couldn't distinguish between the edges of the front sight and the edges of the rear sight.

So I can't speak to its accuracy. Nor do I know how it handles a variety of ammo brands/types.

Still, initial impressions are that I'm infinitely happier with it than I was with my 6 shot, 4" model 63.

Check out Harrison Design for front sights.

 

[Maccabeus]

Check out Harrison Design for front sights.

Thanks. That's helpful. I like that they have several options.

I'll look those over along with the Wilson Combat.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

The Harrison Design front sights are nice, but the only thing you need to be aware of is that their front sight is 0.180" tall, and the factory front sight is 0.140" tall. 0.040" difference is quite a lot, so if you are not using Harrison's rear sight blade to go with it, your point of impact may be low and you may or may not have enough "up" elevation travel in your factory rear sight to bring it to POA. I don't know for certain if that will be an issue, but it's something to be aware of.

 

[Jerry in SC]

The Harrison Design front sights are nice, but the only thing you need to be aware of is that their front sight is 0.180" tall, and the factory front sight is 0.140" tall. 0.040" difference is quite a lot, so if you are not using Harrison's rear sight blade to go with it, your point of impact may be low and you may or may not have enough "up" elevation travel in your factory rear sight to bring it to POA. I don't know for certain if that will be an issue, but it's something to be aware of.

Harrison Designs sells .140" fronts as well. I used the Wilson front .180 to get my KCT to POA. I like the Harrison serrated blade front for a crisper front sight picture for targets. The Kensight Elliason rear is a good choice too. I like it better than the Wilson.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Harrison Designs sells .140" fronts as well. I used the Wilson front .180 to get my KCT to POA. I like the Harrison serrated blade front for a crisper front sight picture at targets. The Ken Sight Elliason rear is a good choice too. I like it better than the Wilson.

Ah yes, I see that now. The .140" fronts were in a separate category from the specific KCT section. I had to use a taller than factory front to get mine to POA too, so made my own at .160" tall, which worked out great.

 

[eclayton]

I bought two, one for myself and one for my son. They are great little revolvers. Fit and finish are good, action is smooth, and they are accurate enough for my needs. I wouldn't mind if the hammer spur were a little wider and less sharp; and I don't care for the rear sight Colt is using on its revolvers, so I replaced both rear sights. Kept the factory grips and front sights, as they work just fine for me. I agree with someone else above who observed that Colt is making better new revolvers these days than S&W. For reference, I also have a new model Anaconda and two Pythons. The KC is a little more of a budget gun (not that it's cheap) with its MIM hammer and trigger, but build quality and performance are comparable to my other new Colts.

 

[bobsguns]

I wondered why they didn't counterbore the cartrige holes. Pretty much made it a no buy for me

Extra $$$$$.

 

[Yendor357]

If it had counterbored chambers, you guys would have found another nit to pick.
When was the last time you've ever heard of anyone getting hurt by a blown out 22LR case? When was the last time you ever even heard of a 22LR case letting go, period?

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

If it had counterbored chambers, you guys would have found another nit to pick.
When was the last time you've ever heard of anyone getting hurt by a blown out 22LR case? When was the last time you ever even heard of a 22LR case letting go, period?

Rimfire shells never burst on the rim anyway, as that is an area of strength, with very small surface area of unsupported brass. It would take enormous overpressure to cause it to happen. If that happened, it would be a big issue in lever action .22's and half the bolt actions, where the rim has to be largely unsupported for extraction. There have been lots of revolvers with non-counterbored chambers with nary an issue. I do agree it looks better, and it allows the cylinder to fill the gap at the rear against the recoil shield, so I too prefer it be counterbored just for aesthetics. But there isn't a functional reason why it's better. At least none that comes to mind.

 

[Eddietruett]

I bought a 4" about a year ago. SA was fine although a little heavier than I prefer but the DA was gritty. After a little stoning and polishing, the DA is as slick as my pythons and the SA lightened up to about 3lbs as well. It shoots so well I sold my 617 and model 18