The size differential between the K6 and a J-frame is...well, not significant, but it's there when you start looking at it. First you notice the rear is a bit further out there, then the trigger sits a bit lower, and the ejector-shroud area...and before you know it you realize the K6 is bigger in every dimension. It's closer to a Ruger in size.
As to the Cobra, I'm not saying it's big, I'm saying it's a bad gun, and a bobbed hammer isn't worthy of jazz hands. Notice how the Cobra only got a couple quick rounds of "release" articles in the gun media? When gun'riters don't write about new guns or gear, it means that they don't have anything nice to say. And as a side note, why you don't read negative reviews. They're not glowingly positive about everything that people show them, they just don't publish the bad stuff, or ask the manufacturer if they can review a different product.
I'm carrying a Glock 26, which leads me to chuckle heartily at 5-v-6 arguments.
Taurus is interesting. They're willing to do a lot more experimentation with cartridge/frame combos than anybody else (Raging Hornet, anyone?) but it doesn't pay off very often, and they're never going to shake their potmetal reputation. Still, they manage to sell a lot of guns.
S&W turned out bad guns back in the day, too, the difference is that now everybody has the Internet to piss and moan on. Every company out there churns out a **** every now and then, it's the nature of production. I know a lot of guys that had to return guns in the 50s-80s, the difference is that back then it was between them and their dealer.
The fact that people think that this is a new phenomena is absolutely hilarious.
More like, Kimber and Colt are trying to differentiate themselves from an established brand (and failing). Seriously, what's "fundamental change"? Cramming +1 in the cylinder?
PS--S&W's releasing a hammer-fired .380 Shield with a grip safety and optional thumb safety, complete with handy-dandy racking grip on the back of the slide, and pitching the itty-bitty .380 trend in favor a gun that people can actually use. Probably the last thing I'm going to buy (I fancy myself an "advanced user"), but when it comes to the big-money new gun owner/carrier market, ease of use and manual safeties are probably the two most requested features.
They already have. You're behind the curve.
New small-frame revolvers are not the predominant "CCW market". In fact, I don't even think that real CCW is a significant portion of gun sales. It's not end use that defines market segments, it's the profile of the user. And they're frankly just not that interested in new revolvers. Remember, they can't conceive of just how unreliable automatics used to be. All they know is what the situation is today, where people can reasonably expect to literally buy any 9mm ammo off the shelf and have it function reliably--which strikes even me as insane (I'm not as old as you guys).
