A Revolver from Kimber? SHOT SHOW 2016

Read more at Kimber: http://www.kimberamerica.com/REeVOLVE

Buy a Kimber at GunsAmerica: https://www.gunsamerica.com/Search.aspx?T=kimber
That is right folks, Kimber is making a revolver.   The Kimber K6s is not your run-of-the-mill wheel gun either. Kimber has designed and built a revolver for concealed carry.  They are using a clever catch phrase: REeVOLVE. The Re-evolution of the revolver, if you will.  We had the opportunity to check it out today at the SHOT Show Range Day.  See our photos and video below.

The new Kimber K6s, ready for concealed carry.

The new Kimber K6s, ready for concealed carry.

So what makes this a revolver for concealed carry?  There are a couple of stand out things on the K6s.  First this is a hammerless double-action-only gun. One of the main issues with carrying a regular revolver is that the hammer can get hung up if you have to draw from concealment. Take away the hammer and make it DAO and that problem is solved. Nothing new with this idea.

The cylinder on the other hand is unique. On the Kimber the cylinder is different from your standard wheel gun, this one has somewhat flat sides. There are no flutes here. Kimber claims this is the thinnest 6 shot .357 cylinder on the market.  It sure feels more like a 5 shot than a 6.

Specs on the new Kimber K6s

  • Caliber .357 Mag/.38 Special
  • Satin Finished Stainless Steel
  • Barrel Length 2 inches
  • Trigger Pull 9.5-10.5 Pounds
  • 6 Round Capacity
  • Weight 23 Ounces Empty
  • Height 4.46 Inches
  • Length 6.62 Inches
  • Width 1.39 Inches

The first thing we noticed are the sights. They are low profile and drift adjustable via their dovetail mount in. The sights actually reminded me more of a small conceal carry pistol than the typical ones you find on a lot of revolvers. This design provided excellent visibility with a no snag profile.

The only exposed screw (save for the grip screw) was a star head that retains the cylinder yoke. The cylinder release is checkered and somewhat recessed and definitely over-sized. This allowed for quick reloads without any sharp edges to snag or pinch the user.

The details that you would expect from Kimber are all there, the gun is completely dehorned, with a stainless steel finish that is bright but not gaudy. The MSRP is $899 and is scheduled to for a March release.

Could this be the first of an entirely new line of Kimbers? We hope so.

Read more at Kimber: http://www.kimberamerica.com/REeVOLVE

Buy a Kimber at GunsAmerica: https://www.gunsamerica.com/Search.aspx?T=kimber

The stainless finish is shiny in the sun.

The stainless finish is shiny in the sun.

The trigger guard.

The trigger guard.

The cylinder release.

The cylinder release.

2 inch barrel.

2 inch barrel.

Polymer grips.

Polymer grips.

6 shots.

Some texture on the back strap.

Note the dovetail on the rear sight. A neat touch that someone known for making 1911s must have came up with.

Note the dovetail on the rear sight. A neat touch that someone known for making 1911s must have came up with.

The sights look more like what you would see on a small pistol.

The sights look more like what you would see on a small pistol.

6 Shots

6 Shots

Photo from Kimber.

Photo from Kimber.

{ 117 comments… add one }
  • a window cleaner December 17, 2016, 1:17 pm

    magnificent submit, really informative. I ponder why the opposite experts of this sector don’t realize this. You need to proceed your writing. I’m positive, you’ve a terrific readers’ base already!

  • ralph August 27, 2016, 7:39 am

    ONE of my needs is simple, ultra-reliable, emergency, every day, HOLSTERED SIDE PANTS POCKET CONCEAL CARRY. Which means WEIGHT is extremely relevant. I went LCR 357 magnum at 17 ozs. versus K-6 which is 23 ozs. The only thing I sacrifice is 1 less shot. Quest makes a great holster for either – I just removed the metal belt clip so holster just slips into side pants pocket. And Fyi > I ONLY use factory 38 spcl lights – only thing I’d ever use in any snubbie.

    And that light LCR does not preclude me from carrying a 2nd firearm on my other side by the way.

    Having said all that, if SIDE PANTS POCKET CONCEAL CARRY was not my requirement here, I’d most likely go with the K6 – provided it was proven out to be equal or better than the LCR in reliability & trigger pull.

  • Ernesto Kopecky August 5, 2016, 7:32 pm

    I’ve been absent for some time, but now I remember why I used to love this site. Thank you, I’ll try and check back more frequently. How frequently you update your website?

  • willie wilkens May 5, 2016, 1:07 am

    Revolvers, semi’s, they are all crap. I carry my sawed off 870 Rem 12 gauge on a sling under my trench coat. Gets a little hot during the summer, but I’m ready. I don’t carry to protect myself, I carry so I don’t miss an opportunity.

  • Don Schimpff January 21, 2016, 4:40 pm

    DAO is “for the birds”. Why not have a Protected Hammer that wont snag but can still be used in the single action mode? S&W has them and even my Colt Agent has that feature. Single action is preferaable for an accurate one shot take down. of a perpetrator.

    • Zbigniew January 21, 2016, 11:22 pm

      Double action is the only way I’d shoot a DA revolver in a self defense situation. If you find DA too difficult to place a shot accurately, you probably ought to stick with a single action semi-auto.

      • SmokeHillFarm January 25, 2016, 12:49 am

        Not all situations move fast enough to require a DA shot. I’d much prefer to have the option of a more precise shot placement when time permits, especially with a 2″ barrel. I have carried DA revolvers for almost 40 yrs and practice drawing and pulling back the hammer in one motion. It just doesn’t feel like that big a deal to me, perhaps because my method of carry (shoulder holster) doesn’t risk hanging a hammer on clothing, so I don’t even use a snubbed hammer spur.

        Everyone should carry what feels best for them. No one gun is right for everyone, just like no method of carry is the “right” one. I’d just like to have the option of a usable hammer, so I’ll stick to my old Ruger for the time being.

  • john seppanen January 21, 2016, 1:37 pm

    I WILL be buying one as soon as I can get one. 🙂

  • Doug January 21, 2016, 1:04 pm

    This looks interesting. Would have agreed that the S&W 642 was the way to go until last week. A local gunshop was running a sale on the 642 and I went to the store to buy one. Noticed that the display model in the case had a 1/32″ gap between the frame and cylinder yoke. As a long term S&W revolver shooter, I knew this indicated a problem with the revolver. If the cylinder yoke isn’t supported by the frame on a S&W revolver, it goes quickly out of time. I had the salesman check their entire inventory of new 642 revolvers and they all had the same issue. I love S&W revolvers but wouldn’t spend a dime of my hard earned money for a Smith that had that much gap straight from the factory. Since I had a CCW class scheduled, I ended up buying a Taurus 9mm PT-111 G2 to get through the class. I shop around for a used S&W snubbie for carry later. It will be interesting to see where the street price on the Kimber revolver ends up.

  • NAVYVET January 21, 2016, 12:38 pm

    Not legal in NYC .. Because the local Nazi’s have banned any firearm that holds more then 5 rounds

    Even a Ruger 10/ 22 is not considered an assault weapon

    • Keith Mason January 21, 2016, 6:51 pm

      I disagree. When originally crafted, the law prohibited pistol magazines with greater than seven rounds, then they altered it to allow a 10 round magazine, so long as you did not carry more than seven rounds (very Nazi like). However, i am certain that a 6 round revolver is perfectly legal. I have even seen them in gun shops. Unless there is some other “scary” feature, this should be very legal in NY.

      • TPSnodgrass January 21, 2016, 9:02 pm

        Kimber does have “nice looking” firearms, and this one is no exception.
        However, every single Kimber owner I know, including my own brother, has had to send every single Kimber handgun they purchased back to Kimber for factory “issues and corrections”.
        I love the look of this new revolver, but I will wait at least one year, so I won’t end up an unpaid beta tester for Kimber, who can’t seem to produce handguns that function immediately, out of the box.
        Guess I’ve been fortunate with my oldies but goodies, and my plastic wonder-nines.
        I am glad we said goodbye to my native state of California, 10 years ago and haven’t looked back at all. I can now legally own whatever I want or choose to “need” to own in my new state without fear of the spineless and gutless political-whores-of-Sacramento, mandating what normal people can use, without a thought as to the enforcement of existing California Penal Codes that go un-enforced in many parts of California for “political expediency”.(re: demographics)
        I can empathize with my fellow shooters in NY who have to deal with their own suppurating political prostitutes and a Communist Mayor or two. I would carry this one IN NYC, after a year from now, and make sure I stayed as invisibly grey as I am at this point in my life.
        I feel for the normal folks who are suffering their loss of civil rights under the DeBlasio Regime, and the Machiavellian Cuomo. Even New Yorkers in Manhattan deserve better than either of those two douche bags.

  • Jocko January 21, 2016, 11:31 am

    To all the naysayers: Too heavy? Try shooting an 11.5oz. S&W 340 M&P with full house .357Mag defensive loads one time. Trigger’s too heavy? The DAO pull on most stock S&W J-frames is in the +12lb range. Fancy Dan adjustable sights? Windage adjustment for those of us with cross dominant eyes and at some point after market Night Sights. Too Fugly? COME ON! Look how many semi-autos fit that description and still sell enough to stay in production. Too expensive? Buy any new S&W j-frame Centennial, have a GOOD gunsmith do an action job then have the forcing cone & cylinders chamfered and see where you are. I love my Smith 42 classic (modern production +P rated definitely not obsolete), 640 & M&P 340 but pretty is as pretty does. Don’t knock it ’till you’ve tried it. I want to at least shoot one before I pass judgement and even then it’ll only apply to my personal tastes. Go Kimber.

  • Jake January 20, 2016, 6:13 pm

    I don’t know why everyone is hating on this so and, it sounds great! 6 shots in a thin cylinder, a heavier weight without being absurd, lowpro adjustable sights, and a 9.5-10 trigger pull on a Kimber? That’s gonna be a dream to shoot! I’m The kind of person who likes to put about 100 rounds a month minimum through my carry gun and you don’t want to shoot like that through a airweight magnum! The trigger is probably gonna be like butter! My ONLY problem with it is the 2 inch barrel, I personally won’t carry a revolver with less than a 3 inch barrel, the fps in a 357 you can gain from 2 to 3 is anywhere from 90-180 fps so there’s that, but I personally think this will be great! And just for the record I carry a Glock 43 or a Ruger Sp-101.

  • JOHN January 20, 2016, 5:02 pm

    Looks like an answer looking for a question. But to be real MSRP and street prices are very seldom close. But I think I will stick with my S&W 638 and model 12.

  • bob h. January 20, 2016, 1:30 pm

    When one can buy a five shot DAO S&W revolver for about half of this gun’s MSRP the price is simply too high.
    Adjustable sights on a 2″ barreled firearm are useless. Regardless of its accuracy potential I can’t think of a single reason to buy a 2″ barreled handgun as a target gun. I know I can put five shots into the ten ring on a standard slow fire bullseye target at 50 yards with my S&W Model 36 (converted to DAO and hammer bobbed) but aside from doing that just for fun, what’s the point? Its not a target gun. Its a carry gun and there’s no realistic “real world” situation that will ever mean I’ll be taking 50 yard shots with it.

    • Michael January 21, 2016, 3:01 pm

      50 yards 10 yards, who cares. Some people like adjustable sights. I am one of them. Even if it makes just a little difference its a difference I prefer. To each his own.

  • petru sova" January 20, 2016, 10:18 am

    It might be a very good gun but did the Morons who designed it ever consider Aesthetics in the creation of it. Maybe they never heard the expression “Sex Sells” and an ugly gun
    goes unnoticed.

    • Michael January 21, 2016, 2:56 pm

      Ugly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like it. Can’t wait to handle one.

  • Jonathan H January 20, 2016, 1:36 am

    A S&W 340PD has a weight of 11.4 ounces so I fail to see why you would want to carry 23 ounces around all day.

    • BDub January 21, 2016, 11:54 am

      The extra round, I suppose.

  • C.Hallmark January 20, 2016, 12:44 am

    I think Kimber is a bit too late in the game . Please tell me why they think there revolver is worth a MSRP like that . For that price it should have CT grips. I carry a Taurus 445 UltraLite it is a little wider but it is also a 44spl weight is only 22oz I also have S&W 642 Air weight .Both of these guns together did not cost as much as the kimber. I do not see anything that can justified in this economy. for that price it should have interchange barrels concealed 2” & 6” target . Now if Colt starts back making revolvers { snake guns } they can charge that +$ but thats Colt

  • best defense January 19, 2016, 10:52 pm

    It looks like they took a S&W J frame, put Ruger cylinder latch on it and a Colt detective 6 shot cylinder on it.
    They seem to think they have invented something new. They just borrowed from 3 other manufacturer’s designs and rolled them all into their “new’ product.
    If they make it in blue with a laser grip, I might buy one.

  • Mark from Bristol January 19, 2016, 10:42 pm

    All of my sidearms are revolvers. I had one pistol, a Taurus .380 738 TCP that I purchased for my 81 year-old mother, but the problem was that she couldn’t pull the slide back. Truth be told, it was a bit tough, so I gave it to my brother-in-law. I purchased a Charter Arms South Paw .38 Special for her, and pulling the hammer back is a bit tough for her, but she can do it. Bit tough though at 81. Then I tried a Ruger LCR .38 Special, and since its a hammerless double action, the trigger pulls like melted butter. Mom has zero problem with it, other than even with a Crimson Trace, it won’t hit the broad side of a barn. The Charter Arms are much better, but the hammer is tough for her. I had been thinking of a Smith J-frame .38 Special for her, but now might have another to consider in the Kimber K6. Now, if Crimson Trace makes a laser for it, that way if Mom ever has to use it, she just needs to paint a dot and fire. I take her and my sisters out quarterly on my property to practice so they are familiar with their sidearms, but in a pinch, a laser on a hammerless is just what the doctor ordered…paint dot, fire.

  • charlie ray January 19, 2016, 10:39 pm

    I would like to try one before considering buying. I have tried the Smith Wesson Model 642 light weight handguns.Great to carry But! H*** to shoot. Will beat you up, if you shoot a full box in one setting.And +P OUCH! Got rid of it . Went to 9mm Auto. The light weight revolvers tend to be Comfort Guns not intended to ever be used.

  • RON January 19, 2016, 10:25 pm

    Is there really much demand for another short barreled .357 revolver? S&W and Ruger pretty much have that base covered for a reason. Their revolvers are great and affordable. I have to admit that I do own a Chiappa Rhino (2″ barrel), but I bought it because of its unique design and it definitely has less muzzle flip than the traditional revolvers. It conceals pretty well too with the flat cylinder. I just don’t think there will be a lot of demand for this gun and the Kimber name is not going to get people to plunk down more cash unless they are getting a lot more gun, which does not seem to be the case.

  • Rainmaker January 19, 2016, 9:44 pm

    No Thanks! My S&W 38 special air light hammerless got it beat hands down!

  • Nahum January 19, 2016, 9:44 pm

    Hard to believe they would sink money into something like that.

  • Tom Greenwood January 19, 2016, 8:28 pm

    I own 3 revolvers. Colt Anaconda, Colt King Cobra and a Colt Trooper Mark III. I would never but a Kimber piece of crap. Stick to you semis.

    • Lars Gleson January 19, 2016, 10:02 pm

      You would never “BUT” a Kimber piece of crap…. Stick to “YOU” semis…????? Proofreading would go a long way with your piece of crap post. Grow up, love your Colts, stop hating….

    • Mark from Bristol January 19, 2016, 11:00 pm

      The Kimber K6 isn’t due out yet for a couple of months, but you’re already sure that it’s a “piece of crap” and that they should stick to pistols. All of your listed sidearms are nice sidearms. Fantastic even. No argument here. But what makes you so sure that it’s a “piece of crap” when it’s not yet available and you obviously haven’t tested one? Just curious. What if someone told Colt to stick to either pistols or revolvers, one or the other? Same with Smith? Same with Ruger? The list goes on and on. Should Kimber stop making longarms as well? Just curious.

  • ATheoK January 19, 2016, 6:56 pm

    Just the kind of revolver that Bloomberg and his army of thugs would love!

  • Garry Shumann January 19, 2016, 4:39 pm

    Sorry, I’m sold on the Ruger LCR. Light weight with a revolutionary polymer frame and made with or without an exposed hammer. Absolutely the best trigger pull on the market today. Available in 5 calibers, this is the revolver of the future and can be found for less than $500.

  • D D January 19, 2016, 2:05 pm

    Sure you can buy a lightweight J-frame for $400, but have any of the people who are griping about the price of the Kimber priced a full size S&W lately? You would be looking at $850 and up for anything similar. Many of the S&W revolvers top a grand. For what this Kimber is it isn’t particularly out of line.

  • John Bibb January 19, 2016, 1:59 pm

    ***
    Impressive shooting for a snubbie! How ’bout one chambered for 9mm Luger–+P?
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

  • Larry January 19, 2016, 1:19 pm

    Sorry but that sucker has gone clear past ugly & into the fugly category!

    • lee harvey January 19, 2016, 8:32 pm

      My Thoughts exactly – could replace the Chiappa Rhine as ugliest revolver ever.

  • Scott January 19, 2016, 1:05 pm

    I think the responders who said 18th Century technology meant 19th (which translates to the 1800s). Also, my experience with Kimbers was a brand new Ultra Carry II, on which the thumb safety broke after the 2nd trip to the range. I hope their reliability is better with this model!

  • Tom Filline January 19, 2016, 1:00 pm

    Kimber didn’t reinvent the wheel, they reinvented the dog sled. Double action only is S&W model 40/42 technology. Which, by the wasy, was a much better looking firearm, but not even that saved them from the obsolete bin. The S&W model 38 and its’ decendents are the premier concealed carry revolvers. Always were and still are. Once you scare the attacker with double action fire it would be nice to be able to actually shoot him. The model 38 single action fire gives you that ability and the hammer shroud provides the same “draw” protection offered by the Kimber. The model 38 design has yet to be improved and the workmanship will never again be equaled.

  • silverbullet January 19, 2016, 12:47 pm

    While I really like the idea of a Kimber revolver, this seems more than a little disappointing. It seems heavy, with a heavy trigger, and the inability to fire single action. Sights are interesting but not revolutionary. Try the S&W 638 Airweight… Sorry Kimber, I’m a big supporter but not on this bandwagon.

  • MrBill January 19, 2016, 12:11 pm

    No mention of the trigger pull? Have you seen this gun in person or is this just a writing assignment to sell Kimbers? Not sure. An expensive Kimber is not a surprise. And everybody steals whatever designs they can. Gaston Glock did not invent the striker fire, nor the polymer pistol. But he did some very innovative things regarding pouring that plastic with the metal pieces already in place. When Henry Ford started producing automobiles, they were so expensive, who would have put money into them, when you could buy 5 horses for that same money? That’s part of why Ford paid his factory workers outrageously high wages, so they could buy cars. It caught on.

    I’m not saying Kimber is an icon of industry, as Ford is. Just that, they are out there trying to fill a niche in a market I love to see thriving. Good for them. Now, all my handgun needs are satisfied by other less luxurious price tags, so I won’t fund this venture. But you can count on it spurring others to innovate something comparable (pounced, “steal” by some) that fits my needs. I’m in favor of it. I wish this review were a review of the gun’s features, not the barebones selling points.

    • ATheoK January 19, 2016, 6:53 pm

      Under the article in the list:
      “◾Trigger Pull 9.5-10.5 Pounds”

      Meaning they probably come factory set @ or above 14#

  • Dave January 19, 2016, 11:59 am

    Make it a 7 shot and we’re on…

  • motoquahunter January 19, 2016, 11:43 am

    Kept hearing the chime with every shot but never did see dust from the ricochet. Did the script writers come into play?

  • D. W. January 19, 2016, 11:42 am

    I very much like the enhanced sights and the 6-shot capability on this revolver. However, the price on this Kimber seems way too high if Kimber intends to sell many. I mourn the passing of the 6-shot S&W K-frame snubs, and wish that S&W still offered the NightGuard light weight 6-shot K-frame.

  • Paul January 19, 2016, 11:36 am

    This hasn’t “evolved” anything. It’s tossing ideas from several other revolvers and advertising it as an innovation…(with a high price tag, I’d imagine!) You can keep it, Kimber…..

  • Gary W January 19, 2016, 11:33 am

    Good God, that has got to be the ugliest revolver I’ve ever seen. They even have Ruger’s ugly revolvers beat! No need to reinvent the wheel (gun). Love my Kimber 1911’s, but no Kimber revolver for me.

  • Art Caprario January 19, 2016, 11:20 am

    I rather carry my 15 oz S&W model 642 with 38 cal + P ammo. Half the weight and half the price. That’s why both me and my wife ach have one.

  • Rob January 19, 2016, 11:11 am

    Was hoping to hear more about some “new and improved action” that is rugged, reliable and dependable – which is what has endeared me to S&W and Colt revolvers (Okay, Colt Python!) for 30+ years! Plus, seems the more you shoot a S&W the “smoother and better” the action feels – and Colts (especially the Python!) pretty much came that way from the factory back in the day before the prices skyrocketed… Also want assurance this gun wont eat through the top strap with any regular 357 Mag loads… Meanwhile, I’ll stick with a S&W hammerless, lightweight, 5 shot, 38+P revolver – as 23 ounces is NOT what I’m looking for in a CC… Kimber makes good stuff – I own four currently – and I don’t mind paying more for quality (see Colt Python above!) but tell us why this new wheel gun warrants anything more than a look???!!!

    • robert January 19, 2016, 1:02 pm

      have a s and w 38 plus p body guard light in weight,omes with laser sight and costs half the money only 5 shots but with a revolver the weight difference isworth it

  • Robert Smith January 19, 2016, 10:52 am

    It’s great to see a major gunmaker getting into revolvers. Ruger and Smith & Wesson are basically the only companies left that make quality revelovers. Taurus, yes, but poor quality control and terrible DA triggers. Charter, EAA, Chiappa, Colt, Uberti are OK but very limited product lines. Revolver making is an art that takes time to devople. I hope Kimber sticks with it, what ever the consumer is response to their first attempt.

  • R Joseph January 19, 2016, 10:50 am

    I WANT ONE!

  • glen January 19, 2016, 10:46 am

    In the hand, its at best a pig of a revolver. Just try to conceal that thing anywhere ya like. No way I’d be comfortable hauling that hunk around without someone noticing. Well, maybe on a winters day.

  • Dan January 19, 2016, 10:32 am

    Waited for years for that perfect carry revolver – still waiting!

    • Thumper47 January 19, 2016, 1:25 pm

      I had found my perfect carry revolver years ago, started carrying a S&W Model for the Govt. in 1971 and got real good service from it. I was happy. Changed to a Mod. 19 .357 in the real world, per Col. Cooper. Did the job, just fine. When I got crazy and changed over to the 1911…loved and still believe in it but not happy with it in concealed carry. I know…silly, but here in Texas, I like my smith’s and stumbled across what I believe is the perfect partner for me. She is the S&W Mod.65, 3 in bbl. Almost indestructible, stainless, 6 shot .357, rubber grips, I’d like to have 20 minutes and a PR-24, with the thief that stole it. But I’d rather have the revolver back.

  • warren January 19, 2016, 10:23 am

    TAURUS 605 SS spurless for $315.00.

    Use the other $500.00 on holster and ammo. By the time you are theough with the ammo, you will be able to hit without aiming. 5 shots will do the job.

  • rt66paul January 19, 2016, 10:21 am

    While I am no expert, the few people I know that decided to put the extra money on the table to buy a Kimber ended up with a beautiful gun that was awesome when it worked. The problem is, with thier guns, was they were tweaky and needed help 2 – 4 times each. This is not my experience, but others I have known.
    A CCW should go bang every time you pull the trigger, sadly thiers did not. Buy a Makarov for yourself and your wife/son/daughter and do not worry about that happening again – and they lie flatter than a wheelgun.

    • Vanns40 January 19, 2016, 11:11 am

      I could not agree more. You buy a Kimber with the knowledge (or at least you should) that it “likes” certain types of ammo. WHAT? Are you kidding me? For the price you pay it not only should digest everything made but should serve you breakfast as well! I’ll stick with my Glocks and others can choose what ever they like but Kimber? No thanks. If I was to return to 1911 technology it would probably be a Remington at a fraction of the cost.

      • SmokeHillFarm January 25, 2016, 1:19 am

        That’s my major problem with carrying any semi-auto — too many have certain likes and dislikes for ammo, and usually that “dislike” turns into a gun that fails you. I have carried revolvers for many decades and it’s the only thing that I trust to ALWAYS fire when I pull the trigger, no matter what’s been loaded into it. Even if it’s a dead round, you just move to the next one in the cylinder. Makes me feel very secure.

  • WC January 19, 2016, 9:42 am

    Just bought my first handhun at 42 yrs old so I am not an expert at all. To me that thing is just butt ugly. For 900.00 I could buy another semi auto my wire dinner and take the kids to chuckee chesee now that is a win win win

    • Eric January 19, 2016, 10:41 am

      Amen on the butt ugly. I like a good revolver but go to the bank when it comes to this one, it will never find its way in to my safe.

      • buckshotjoe January 19, 2016, 2:58 pm

        A carry firearm shouldn’t be in a safe anyway unless the children are around.

  • Arizona Cozmo January 19, 2016, 9:41 am

    Too Heavy too expensive. I carry a S&W Airlight in .38. Its half the weight and half the price. Although it’s light recoil is very mild. The modern .38 cartridge is excellent for self defense purposes. My Airlight fits in my front jean pocket very comfortably without a holster. Leave the wheel gun job to the experts Kimber.

  • RimRox January 19, 2016, 9:31 am

    Guys, guys! MSRP- It’s Manufacturer SUGGESTED retail price. Rarely is any item sold at full retail, Plus there may be some improvements made before first issue. And like a wise old man told me, it’s better to have a few GOOD guns in your safe, rather than a whole bunch of cheap ones. Like it or not your guns of choice will end up on the secondary market or in a relatives hands at some point. Better to pass on or resale something of value. Just today’s food for thought…

    • warren January 19, 2016, 10:16 am

      You are right about guns not selling at MSRP, until Obama opens his mouth. Then there is no parking at the gun shops. Remember, the Keltec 22 mag? MSRP was $465.00 or there abouts. If you could find one, they were $800.00+. Fortunately for me, i didnt get one. Im too cheap. Then i shot one, HATED IT!

      Obama, shhhhhhh.

      You are also right about having something that is special as a legacy to hand down when we leave. I have a few that were handed to me. Today, they arent worth much except to me. However, i have chosen a rifle, a shotgun and a pistol that i feel reflects me, so my daughter will have sometjing of me other than my ashes. I make a big deal out of my moms and uncle’s gun so she will be inclined to keep them.The utility guns and hunters are cheap but reliable, i use and wear them out.

      This pistol is special. As far as i know, it is a first for this manufacturer. Good or bad pretty or not, it is a first. If i find one reasonably priced, ill get it. But right now, that S&W SS 44MAG 4″ on the shelf for $849.00 is looking good. It just costs too much.

      Damn those plastic guns for raising the price of real guns.

  • Sam W January 19, 2016, 9:31 am

    $900 for a 2″ snubbie ??? Makes NO sense with all the other options on the market. This pistol is clearly aimed at those more concerned with name recognition than common sense.

  • George Alger January 19, 2016, 9:28 am

    If Kimber wanted to get it right, they would come out with a nice 40 cal. Revolvers still only carry six rounds, and even with speed loaders, (not mentioned and bulky) are slower than loading a magazine. Just saying…

  • Lying Bastard January 19, 2016, 9:25 am

    hammerless double-action-only revolver without exposed hammer: I could swear other revolvers have done that since, say, the early 1900s?
    flatted cylinder: I could swear Chiappa Rhinos had been doing that.

  • Andrew M January 19, 2016, 9:25 am

    This really looks interesting to me! Well, not the price tag, but I like the concept of revolvers evolving into CCW. This looks like it would be easy to conceal in an IWB holster. Plus, hey 6 shots of 357! Awesome! Well, I hope this spurs on some other manufacturers to follow suit. Might be a big revolver comeback. We’ll see. I’m glad companies are innovating.

    • warren January 19, 2016, 10:19 am

      When they come back, they will evolve into plastic too. God help us when that happens. Ill be out of the market then.

  • Lew Barnes January 19, 2016, 9:05 am

    I carry all sorts of semi auto and revolvers, but my favorite is the Ruger SP-101, stainless. While it is only a 5 shot, mine does have a hammer, which I prefer, and very accurate. I have been shooting all types since I was 6 years old and am now 69, so feel I have a little bit of experience. This may be a very good gun, but I’ll take $500 or less over $900 any day. I know the quality of the Ruger GP-100 and its little brother the SP-101, and for almost half the price, I’ll take the Ruger. My oldest son is at the Shot show, as I write this. Just my opinion, everyone has one, agree or don’t, your right.

    • John Fried January 19, 2016, 2:21 pm

      I agree about the SP-101. I have it in .327Fed with SIX shot cyl. Love it! First had trouble with the sights, only ignorance on my part. I did not realize the adjustment was all the way to the left. I was missing paper at 20 feet. Range guy with experience on these adjusted it for me…. Now a tack driver at 75 feet! (if I do my part.)

    • JAY B HEATH January 19, 2016, 5:53 pm

      I AGREE WITH YOU. I HAVE A 3″ SP101 IN .357 MAG. I’M 61 YRS OLD, AND I WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THE FACTORY TRIGGER PULL. I FOUND OUT ABOUT WOLF REDUCED POWER SPRINGS (FROM MIDWAY), AND WITH SOME HELP FROM YOUTUBE I REDUCED THE FACTORY 14LB DOUBLE ACTION TO 8 LBS, AND THE 8LB SINGLE ACTION TO 3 1/2 LBS. GUN FITS IN BACK POCKET OF JEANS. GUESS THATS WHY SOME REVIEWERS CALLED IT A “POCKET CANNON”. KIMBER CAN KEEP THE EXTRA SHOT.

  • Gary D January 19, 2016, 9:02 am

    I currently use my Ultra Carry II w/CT (.45) for CC; it carries nicely, stays close to my side and is easy to draw/shoot. I have had two other Kimber 45s (Ultra Carry II stainless and Ultra TLE w/CT), and liked them too. All of them handled every piece of ammo and I never had a single problem with any of them.

    Having said that…..it seems as though Kimber is trying to be all things to all people (i.e. 1911, polymer DA, and now revolvers);, and I believe quality is being compromised for quantity. At the very least, Kimber’s price points are indicative of an elitist corporation and does not bode well with many consumers……even those who can readily afford the products.

    As I looked at, and read about, the new revolver, my first three thoughts were: they left off 1 third of the grip; it is too heavy and too expensive. Without doubt, some people will buy it just because it has the Kimber name….but I suspect a lot of them are going to wish they hadn’t. As for me, if I were to buy a revolver, this is not one I would even consider.

  • JR January 19, 2016, 9:00 am

    When I first started shooting, the 70’s, revolvers were pretty much the standard for the average Joe and law enforcement. S&W, Colt, were the Kings.
    I have an affinity for good revolvers. They are accurate and dependable. I carry a S&W N Frame 627 with a barrel just short of 3 inches on a daily basis and I’m good with it. Elmer Keith was quite correct when he stated that in the right hands a short barreled revolver could be just as accurate as one with a longer barrel.
    That brings us to the Kimber being offered. I don’t see this revolver as a primary carry option but more of a revolver designed as a back up piece/home defense role and probably a very good one at that.
    Any new gadget that hits the market is priced to reflect to recover research and development costs. Why do you think some of us are paying 6 or 7 dollars for the newest razor blade? R&D.
    Is it worth $900? Only your bank balance knows for sure. I imagine the price will drop, probably like a rock, as time goes by or it will be short lived venture. There are just to many options from other manufacturers for this type of revolver, at a much lower price point, to compete with.
    This is not to disparage Kimber in any way it’s a great company and I’ve got six of their 1911’s. But despite rumors to the contrary the economy is still in shambles and I think $900 may be more than the average citizen will willingly part with.

    • T. Kampert January 19, 2016, 10:43 am

      Gotta agree with J.R. ..Lots of R and D costs involved it that price point. I carry a revolver every day…S&W Body Guard .38 and it was less than half the cost of the new Kimber…R and D costs already recouped (sp?). I would suspect that there will be significant cost reduction in the mfg. process and,when it hits the market the price will be much more affordable. That said..Still won’t buy one. If and when they move out of New York….then I will consider their products…not until that happens.

  • anasq-38 January 19, 2016, 8:40 am

    I often carry a Kimber Ultra Raptor II when I’m not carrying my factory-ported Smith 60. I have to agree in theory with some of the other comments concerning the MSRP of this revolver. While it’s great that Kimber has decided to dip it’s toe into the highly competitive carry revolver market, I do believe they potentially missed the mark on their research regarding cost versus value. I understand there are huge initial costs related to research, engineering, manufacturing/tooling, marketing, etc that come into play when introducing a new product line but the outcome will be determined by a consumer that already has a wide variety of proven alternatives for a lot less money. I must admit, I did pay a premium for the quality and functional reliability of my Raptor with no regret however in the case of autos, there does exist a greater opportunity of reliability issues with lesser priced models. It’s just my opinion, but I don’t consider the “reliability factor” to weigh as heavy in my selection of a name brand carry revolver in today’s market. There may be the need to factor in long-term durability in my selection especially in light-weight magnum revolvers but I have little to no concern for near-term reliability risks with other popular carry revolvers. Weapons designed for carry typically do not see enough heavy use to raise much concern for long-term durability forecasts. I rely on a Kimber now and without a doubt, I know I could rely on this one as well. I just hope it makes it to the street and is not one that is destined for the collector market.

  • BruceB January 19, 2016, 8:33 am

    23 ounces?!? Have they been paying attention to the CCW market? I’m thinking not so much…

    • Ed M January 19, 2016, 9:02 am

      No kidding. A SW 642 is only 15 ozs. Ruger LCR is 17 ozs.

      • Richard Frischkorn January 19, 2016, 12:18 pm

        Ed MI agree with the S&W 642.A whole lot lighter and a whole lot cheaper.Seen them on sale for less than 400 bucks.Also can you imagine the recoil with those small grips using .357 ?.That’s gotta hurt

  • Ed M January 19, 2016, 8:32 am

    As usual, about a $400 premium for the Kimber name.

  • Phil January 19, 2016, 8:28 am

    Kimber made a $900 Ruger…

  • Richard McGinley January 19, 2016, 8:21 am

    I think Kimber is just hedging their bets in case the politicians eventually win their fight to ban any black, semi-automatic handgun with a high capacity, removable magazine. They wouldn’t want to be left without an offering especially in New York.

  • Griffendad January 19, 2016, 8:16 am

    Looks like a Ruger with a Chiappa cylinder. Nice to have dovetailed sights but Smith’s is easier to adjust with a small screwdriver. Experience in revolver building. .357 could also use an optional full 3 finger grip to control that flip.
    $600 tops.

  • Lester January 19, 2016, 8:14 am

    Sadly it has 2 strikes against it right out of the gate,,1st 900 bucks,,SERIOUSLY??? For a plain Jane snubby,,it ain’t happening!! 2nd,,it’s made in NY , even though this may be my own personal protest I won’t put a penny into the NY economy due to there ridiculous gun laws! Even though I love Kimbers products and have more than 1 presently. Myself and many of my friends no longer ,,visit ,hunt,snowmobile, camp or 4 wheeler ride there any longer and I backed out of a 100 acre land purchase I was going to build a family camp on. NY can P*** up a tree stump IMHO. I haven’t spent a penny there in >4 years and I’m darn proud of it!!! I’m done with anything related to NY. I visit NH and ME nowadays and support there economy’s instead.

    • Neirinckx January 19, 2016, 8:29 am

      Although I agree with you Lester, a way to skirt “supporting” the NY economy is to buy it used from your local guy. This way, you get the product you want, support your local economy and keep those Kimber Employees (and Execs) working. Win-Win for all.

      • shrugger January 19, 2016, 8:48 am

        The best way to keep them working is to pick up and move across any one of NY’s borders. Period!

    • Roger January 19, 2016, 8:43 am

      One can agree with what you stated about New York and its politics. But not spending money on a gun that is made by a private company that is located in New York, just because it is in New York, is just nonsense.

      • T.Kampert January 19, 2016, 12:58 pm

        No, NOT nonsense. Kimber pays taxes to New York State based on sales. Those tax dollars are used to fund enforcement of Unconstitutional laws and anti-second amendment activities. Why should we pay for them to infringe upon our RIGHTS? I stand with “Shrugger” on this one.

        • Greg January 19, 2016, 8:07 pm

          I agree, we as gun owners should let it be known that any state that doesn’t support our 2nd Amendment rights will not be getting our money.

  • Mark Tercsak January 19, 2016, 8:13 am

    From Time to time I read about revolvers and People and how they complain that the Hammer can get hung up if you try and draw, I have dramn Revolvers from holsters and have not had an issue, but I understand in theory it could happen. Hammers are like an extra safety, lets say you have an encounter that goes bad and it gets worse and you have to draw and your starting to squeeze that trigger to that certain point, than all of the sudden the bad guy has a change of heart and runs, Your thumb automatically comes up on the spur of the hammer, you take hold and lower the hammer in to the safe position. My Father was a Cop and War Vet and he scene his shear of Chases and Shoot Outs etc. he was not found of Hammerless Revolvers and Hammerless Revolvers are not a new Idea they have been around since at least the 1890’s if not earlier, Such as Smith&Wessons Lemon Squeezer. The other issue with Hammer guns I like is the fact Pops pointed out much like the pump action shotgun, as you with draw your hammer revolcer from holster the thumb threw training goes on the hammer spur and your cocking as you draw, As Dad said is is ammazing how ones senss change and become more keen and sense you did not know you posses you find out you have, The Person who has put you in to this position can hear that hammer clicking back, and they have a change of Heart in most cases and back down .

  • Michael January 19, 2016, 7:58 am

    Oh wow…yawn… a $900 Kimber revolver that has a neat cylinder and a ridiculous price tag. I will be sure to like those crappy, hard to see sights too. For that much $$, I would expect at least fiber optic if not night sights. But then again, I left Kimber 1911s for NightHawk Custom and never looked back, so I will probably pass on a re-invented 18th century technology gun for almost a grand to get the edges smoothed. And considering this is there FIRST foray into wheelguns, the initial pricing should be about half of what it is. I would not fork out a grand for an unproven design concept to stake my families safety on.

    • Jeffrey L. Frischkorn January 19, 2016, 8:17 am

      I (mostly) agree with your assessment though I do take issue about your comment of how revolvers are “18th Century technology.” My Rossi stainless .357 revolver sits in my nightstand and I know that whether at the range or (heaven forbid) I ever need to use it the gun will go “bang.” If it doesn’t than all I have to do is pull the trigger a second time… That being said you are spot on regarding the sights… For $900 I would expect something a wee bit better than what Kimber is providing.. And that price? Pee-you… I gather that Kimber believes shooters will line up to buy this over-priced and under-achieving handgun simply because it bears the name “Kimber.” Thanks, but no thanks….

    • Paul Helinski January 19, 2016, 8:17 am

      You know what’s funny? Over 15,000 people have clicked on this article as of 8am eastern time this morning and a handful of you self important fools have felt the need to expound about your negative and speculative musings. Some ignorant Jew hater even felt the need to share “kosher kimber.” Imagine all of the normal and nice people who just enjoyed the free and home delivered information from SHOT this morning. Is your opinion really that important to anyone? We certainly don’t judge our success as do many websites by how many morons comment on an article. Nobody cares about what you already bought that you think is better, or a better buy, or blah blah blah. If you don’t have anything positive to say, don’t say anything, like the other 17,000 people that have read this now as I write this comment.

      • Roger January 19, 2016, 8:49 am

        I concur with your excellent statement. Gun people can be so high and mighty with their mere opinions. They need to monitor themselves and be respectful, and respectable. They need to keep their opinions to themselves really, in most cases. MAybe let THEM design, manufacture and market that perfect gun in all aspects.

        • T. Kampert January 19, 2016, 1:54 pm

          Hmmmm..don’t express an opinion unless it’s favorable to the product. Is that a form of political correctness? You know…don’t offend anyone ? As a former Shooting editor for an outdoors magazine I have attended SHOT on many occasions and can tell you from experience that the manufacturers WANT our input. This revolver is a CONCEPT. Not unlike the auto industry with its Concept cars. If the reviews are not favorable, and the asked for modifications are not economically affordable for a profitable marked share, the whole project will be set aside or canceled. If Kimber is serious about this revolver they will listen to what is being said here. Your negative comments regarding the unfavorable reviews posted here show complete ignorance as to the the importance of “gun people” to the survival of the industry. WE …”gun people”, are the driving force that keeps the industry alive and profitable. Your comments would indicate that you favor a unhealthy firearms industry.

          • Paul Helinski January 19, 2016, 2:00 pm

            That is true of print magazines but not so much on the internet. There is a difference between constructive criticism and “I’ll stick with my…” comment that does nothing for anyone. The internet has given a voice to people who never earned one, and do nothing with it but drag it and the rest of us through the mud.

      • LVE4GOD January 19, 2016, 1:06 pm

        You know what’s funny? This is a COMMENTS SECTION, and you left a fairly lengthy comment whining about other people’s sometimes whiny comments. If you don’t like the comments, you can disagree with them, or better still just don’t read ’em! But to get on a Comments Board and essentially complain about its very existence. . .that’s a genuine head-scratcher.

        • T. Kampert January 19, 2016, 3:42 pm

          What Paul above fails to recognize its the fact that ALL OF US are potential customers. WE dictate what the market offers. If they offer a product that is to costly or doesn’t fit a need we tell them so. No manufacturer wants to produce a product that has no market.. Kimber will read the reviews and comments offered here and on other forums…they are not stupid…and will decide if this revolver is going to be a viable product or an over priced bomb when offered in the market. The comments I’ve read here are pretty much what I would expect when one compares what is currently available at a much lower price. I see no place for the Kimber. There is no need for another snub nosed revolver and that is especially true of one priced at 900.00.

          • Paul Helinski January 19, 2016, 5:20 pm

            And as I said, it is now over 42,000 people today read this and didn’t have anything nasty to say. The guns you compare it to have MIM parts made by OEM suppliers, including Taurus. Ignorance is bliss. But sharing your ignorance…

  • Mike P January 19, 2016, 7:55 am

    It will be interesting to see if it has as many problems as the Solo did when first released.

    • Noel P. January 19, 2016, 6:41 pm

      The Solo is the reason that many of my friends, and myself included, no longer buy Kimber products. The attitude of the company when weapons were returned for repair was such that we did not wish to give them our business.

  • X-Ray January 19, 2016, 7:54 am

    My preference is a hammer on any handgun I use for self-defense, auto or revolver, for control and feel without looking. The Kimber fails for me.

  • Steve January 19, 2016, 7:33 am

    And the response was………….underwhelming

  • W.P. Zeller January 19, 2016, 7:07 am

    It’s not cut for moonclips? A five-dollar upgrade on a nine-hundred dollar gun and they neglected it?
    It’s still the Nineteenth century, apparently.

  • Bryan January 19, 2016, 6:21 am

    [Yawn] So what sets the Kimber apart from the competition? Oh yea, the price, got to pay for that name.

  • Bryan January 19, 2016, 6:21 am

    [Yawn] So what sets the Kimber apart from the competition? Oh yea, the price, got to pay for that name.

  • Nero Martian January 19, 2016, 6:09 am

    Kimber K6s revolver, neat !
    Ask them to include a fiber optic (or similar) front sight for better low light visibility ?

  • George January 19, 2016, 6:04 am

    Very good looking revolver ,i bet will not pass the Mass. standers ha ha ha ,do to the name …

  • crpoc January 19, 2016, 4:55 am

    I’m in!

  • Chris Baker January 19, 2016, 4:49 am

    It’s pretty nice looking and I like the deburring, nothing to hang up when drawing it, but darned if I want to fire the thing. Call me a wimp if you will, that’s fine, I carry a little Beretta 32, It’s small and easy to leave in a pocket and not bulge just as this is and doesn’t recoil nearly as much as my GP100 4″. Yes 357 is a lot more powerful than 32 ACP but if you hit the bad guy in the right spot it won’t matter. I hate to think of the muzzle blast from a 357 in that short a barrel. I would prefer a revolver to the autoloader but I don’t know of any in 32 caliber while still being as narrow and light.

    • >Mark Tercsak January 19, 2016, 7:58 am

      Chris even though this pistol is chambered in .357 Remington Magnum they state you can also use .38+p Loads or Standard pressue .38 Loads. I would Recommend the Standard Pressure .38 Special Loads , A Few weeks ago I took Dad’s carry piece when he was a Detective out to the Range, The Colt Cobra which is a light frame version of the Colt Detective Special, it is only rated for 38 Special Standard Loads, and I had Pops standard grips on it, That Pistol was a handful , I rather shoot the 480 Ruger. I agree with my father the 2 inch Revolver should be left two experts, They should come out with a Three or Four inch Barrel .

    • Paul January 19, 2016, 8:51 am

      Get yourself a Ruger LCR in .327fed mag, same power as the .357 and you have 6 shots.
      Also you can shoot the .32H&R mag ,.32s&w long,.32s&w short, and there are some claims of the .32acp being used in it also.
      And for less than half the price of the Kimber.
      Way more versatile gun in my opinion.
      And if anyone questions the capability of the .327 round then I invite them to do the research to find out for them selves

  • Georgie K January 19, 2016, 4:23 am

    Not for 900-bux they bloomin’ well ain’t! The balls on these guys.

  • An10nee757 January 19, 2016, 4:11 am

    It looks great and very modern looking.

  • Juan January 19, 2016, 4:02 am

    It’s pretty! But I can think of alot of guns I’d rather have for $900. This gun makes sense to be in the $550-650 range, but who wants it for $900 when you can get a tried and true S&W or Ruger for half the price?

  • James M. January 19, 2016, 3:16 am

    I like Kimber. I love revolvers. Here is the but.. Kimberly isn’t known for revolvers, so why is their first $900? Who is to say that this isn’t going to be just another revolver. And one to that is close to the same price as a well built 1911 from Kimber or Sig? At that price I would gladly take two Rugers or Smith’s. Surely Kimberly could toss a modest price on their only wheel gun. If only to push them for this probable fad. Anyway, just my two cents. And definitely not two cents going towards a Kimber.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend