# Kimber revolver



## The Whale (Jan 12, 2001)

No kidding. Kimber is bringing out a 6 shot 357 mag snubbie ! Looks very nice, reviews seem very positive. Kimber priced as typical. Love the revolver, the revolver is your friend.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

I am a revolver man. To me S&W has the higher end market covered. Though people are not happy with the locks and MIM parts.

Concealed carry is a booming market. Though a lot of it seems to be in semi autos. Most snubbies are 5 shot. Be curious how big the cylcinder is. If they came up with some strong forged cylinder with thin walls, it may be of interest.

I suspect it will be out of range for my interest. I like my J frame.


----------



## cedarlkDJ (Sep 2, 2002)

Nice looking revolver!










Way over priced, even for Kimber.......http://www.kimberamerica.com/k6-stainless
But, you pay extra for pretty with a Kimber. (I have 3 Kimber 1911's)


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Oh, oh. May need one of those.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

Weight is nothing special. I was thinking maybe they would shave it below 20.


----------



## The Whale (Jan 12, 2001)

Shooting 357's from a snubby, I'll take a few ounces more. I shoot my guns more than most folks I know. I like to shoot, shoot something or another most every day. I use full power real deals and know what to expect EVERY time I hit the trigger from all of my guns. If I want to shoot lengthy extended sessions it may mean to bring along something less demanding on the hands (meaning less recoil/ smaller caliber/bigger frame etc)


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

I agree that weight helps recoil, but for carry gun, I will take less weight, which means I will have it more often.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

.357 from a 2" snubbie Is ballistically the same as a 9mm from a 3" semiauto. And the overall length of the firearm is the same. But the semiauto is thinner, has a higher capacity and quicker reloads. Not to mention lower ammo costs.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

ESOX said:


> .357 from a 2" snubbie Is ballistically the same as a 9mm from a 3" semiauto. And the overall length of the firearm is the same. But the semiauto is thinner, has a higher capacity and quicker reloads. Not to mention lower ammo costs.


You are going to have to back that one up with some facts.


They also make powders that burn better for short barrels.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

But the reason I carry a revolver, is it always goes bang, and it doesn't carry what you feed it.

If I am going on coke buy, I bring a semi auto , with revolver back up.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

My semiautos always go bang as well. Buy quality arms and ammo and reliability is never an issue.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Rounder said:


> They also make powders that burn better for short barrels.


Yes they do, in many calibers


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

According to that link 18" 9 and .357 have the same fps. As I said choice of powder makes a big difference.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Barrel length makes a bigger difference when you are talking the difference between 2 & 3"


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

Do you believe 1" makes a 9mm a .357? I get the idea that the first few inches may not burn enough powder to reach potential, but you have that issue with both calibers.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

Lyman manual, with 4" barrel has 125 grain 1119 most accurate load, and one listed for 1163. You link 1226. Maybe you can chalk that up different lds and testing

.357 125 4" 1478 accurate load is close to your link 1471.

I got some books somewhere that have loads for snubbies, have to find them. I understand a it has to reach potential.

What I find interesting is a semit auto 3" is about the same amount of barrel as 2 revolver, since the revolver has the bullet in the cylinder.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

I am seeing some graphs that support what you are saying, also debate on loads for short barrels. Over 1200 with a 2 1/2 barrel. So maybe the kimber 2" is not the best choice. Though is it really picking up that much speed in a 1/2?

You need to match powder burn to barrel length. But I do get your point that the .357 really develops at 3"


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

This is from another forum, so I can account for if it is real. I have seen other data for 2.5" that supports it. 

Either way my .357 snubnose is 2.5", and I feel pretty good about that.



I know is my data for a 135gr Speer Gold Dot short barrelfrom a RugerLCR 1.875" barrel in 357 flavor:

Factory Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel135gr 357 Magnum:

High - 1107
Low - 1089

Avg - 1092 FPS - 357 ft lbs energy

My reloads:

High - 1265
Low - 1221

Avg - 1252 FPS - 470 ft lbs energy

I like real word numbers from my handguns not published numbers


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Rounder said:


> Over 1200 with a 2 1/2 barrel. So maybe the kimber 2" is not the best choice. Though is it really picking up that much speed in a 1/2?
> 
> You need to match powder burn to barrel length.


yes it's picking up that much more velocity in 1/2" it's a 25% longer barrel. 

Again, you can burn faster powders in any cartridge, so the playing field is never tilted. 


Sent from my iPad using Ohub Campfire


----------



## cleew (Apr 12, 2011)

Well, lets' take a quick look at the anticipated muzzle velocity of each:
357 Mag, 2" barrel, 158 gr Hornady XTP - perhaps around 850 FPS
9MM, 3" barrel, 125 gr Hornady HAP - maybe as much as 1050 FPS
357 mag would generate about 250 pounds of energy at the muzzle
9mm would generate about 300 pounds

Not a great deal of difference either way.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

cleew said:


> Well, lets' take a quick look at the anticipated muzzle velocity of each:
> 357 Mag, 2" barrel, 158 gr Hornady XTP - perhaps around 850 FPS
> 9MM, 3" barrel, 125 gr Hornady HAP - maybe as much as 1050 FPS
> 357 mag would generate about 250 pounds of energy at the muzzle
> ...


And under that scenario the 9mm has a 20% advantage over the .357. 
That was my purpose in pointing out the snubbie weakness 
Things are not always as it would seem at first glance. 
But go to s 6" barrel and the .357 is cooking the 9.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

cleew said:


> Well, lets' take a quick look at the anticipated muzzle velocity of each:
> 357 Mag, 2" barrel, 158 gr Hornady XTP - perhaps around 850 FPS
> 9MM, 3" barrel, 125 gr Hornady HAP - maybe as much as 1050 FPS
> 357 mag would generate about 250 pounds of energy at the muzzle
> ...


why not compare 125 grain in each gun? 125 grain is a common carry load in .357


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

ESOX said:


> y
> 
> Again, you can burn faster powders in any cartridge, so the playing field is never tilted.
> e


Correct, and the .357 will generate more power then a 9mm. The playfield is titled to the .357. More powder.


----------



## cleew (Apr 12, 2011)

OK, I'll give the125 grain a try in the 357 even though my 686 booklet says to avoid the 125 grain bullets.

With a 125 gr XTP and an 8" barrel, the 357 hit 1500 fps at the muzzle. I kept playing with the QuickLoad software until I got a powder charge that hit 1500 fps. I then only changed the barrel length: 6" BBL= 1365 fps
4" BBL= 1155 fps
2" BBL= 711 fps

The 9mm with a 4: barrel and the 124 gr XTP hit 1106 fps. Reducing that to a 3" BBL brought the speed down to 1008 fps

At 1008 fps the 9 generates 281 pounds of energy while the 357, at 711 fps, generates 140 pounds.

The problem is the 2" barrel. With the Python and its' 8" barrel, the powder total burned ranged from 85 to 100%. Those same powders, out of a 2" barrel burned from 35 to 50%. There's a fine line between using a slightly slower powder and compressing the load but still not generating enough pressure and using a faster powder, which can result in an overpressure situation with only a tenth or two of a grain more.

Bottom line, the 357 does shine with a minimum of a 6" barrel. Much less than that and it does not perform anywhere near it's intended purpose.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

I've fire lots of 125s in my 586. Why wouldn't an L frame handle that? Are you sure on model number? Not a J or K frame?

But either way we are discussing ballistics.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

https://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/other/S&W_Revolver_Manual_12-15-2014.pdf
Doesn't mention 125. Just says don't use +P in K frames prior to 1958 and don't use +P+.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

What year is your 686, for along time they just come with a generic revolver manual that covers various calibers.


----------



## cleew (Apr 12, 2011)

My 686 was (have since got rid of it) purchased in 2012. It was the stainless, 7 shot model. The manual highly recommended avoiding high velocity 125 gr ammo because of the possibility of flame cutting the top strap.

Also, it's very difficult to compare the barrel/chamber of a revolver to that of a pistol. Really, a revolver does not have a chamber or throat. To compensate for the cylinder perhaps being very slightly out of time, they have a forcing cone (think of a funnel) leading the bullet into the barrel. Plus, since the cylinder does not provide very much thrust for the bullet (the pressure is not contained), measuring the length of either barrel would be appropriate.


----------



## cleew (Apr 12, 2011)

Oh, I also seem to remember a concern with premature forcing cone erosion using lighter weight, high velocity ammo.

Bottom line. it was extremely accurate when loading up 148gr wadcutter bullets (38 Spl. loads). Going to 357 magnum loads, however, it would not group less than 6" at 25 yards. I sent it back and they said they replaced the forcing cone. Went to the range and found absolutely no improvement in accuracy. Sent it back again, they replaced the barrel that time and I quickly sold it.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

The manual I gave the link for was dated 2011 listed for 2014. Never heard of a concern for a L frame 686. 

My 586-5, has a fairly thick forcing cone. It is older then yours, MIM same as yours.

I am not sure how the pressure build varies between revolver and pistol, since you have the cylinder gap, but the bullet travels farther on revolver, then a SA auto of the same size barrel. A 9mm is 1.1" inches down the barrel before it even starts to move.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

I can't find any internet hysteria about 686 having issues 125s. Talk about K frames. Also I kinda doubt S&W would admit it in a manual. My 696-0 has a somewhat thinner cone, beefed up on -1. Lots of internet hysteria/debate out there, easy to find. S&W doesn't address it to my knowledge.

125 grains has been an extremely popular round for the .357 for 50 years. K frames were developed for the 38s over 100 years ago. L frame was made for 357.


----------



## cleew (Apr 12, 2011)

I had to test my memory so I just got off the phone with S&W. The tech person I spoke with said the 120 gr and less bullets are prohibited from use in the 686 (could void the warranty) and the recommendation is to minimize use of the 25 grainers. The reason given was, as expected, premature forcing cone erosion and the possibility of flame cutting the top strap.

Basically, my memory was off by 5 grains!


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

120 and less are not common grains but 125 is very common.


I think a light load in 110 should be fine.


But I have never heard of an l frame 357 having problems with anything before.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

You would think it would be in the manual if it voided warranty.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

cleew said:


> Well, lets' take a quick look at the anticipated muzzle velocity of each:
> 357 Mag, 2" barrel, 158 gr Hornady XTP - perhaps around 850 FPS
> 9MM, 3" barrel, 125 gr Hornady HAP - maybe as much as 1050 FPS
> 357 mag would generate about 250 pounds of energy at the muzzle
> ...


Do you mean 357 magnum or 357 maximum? I have never heard of maximum in a 686, but I could be wrong. I could check my S&w book. I got the book for looking up serial numbers and codes.

But I think something is mixed up here.


----------



## coyote wacker (Dec 25, 2015)

Go and shoot your semi-auto while your coat pocket.....odds are it will be jammed....do it with a revolver you will able to fire it until its empty.....

You will never have a Fail to Feed in a revolver .....with a revolver Fail to Fire pull the trigger again....


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

When it comes to life or death, I prefer it.

Plus I don't think.most people train enough or maintain there semi autos properly.

I would not want my wife to have a semi auto. Maybe a carbine around the house. I think lever 357 would be better.

Even with a shotgun I worry about safety, and I am probably going to waste a round racking or forget and get killed.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

Looking at my loading data 120 grain gets close to 100 FPS for some loads, vs 125. For 357

Maybe close to 1k psi.


----------



## The Whale (Jan 12, 2001)

??? Did you mean 1k "feet" per second ?


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

I meant 1000 cup, pressure.


----------

