>6 shots >sleek sp101-esque profile >sleek S&W-esque

File: 14265456451656.jpg (87KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1280x720px

>kimber

>>32348709
It's a kimber so, buyer beware.

File: lolKimber.jpg (2MB, 4000x2653px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x2653px

>>32348750
pretty much

>Kimber

I'd steer clear unless you enjoy wasting money.

The reason why, unlike almost every other subsection of the firearms market, the price of revolvers has not been driven down by cheap foreign competition is because revolvers are hard to make compared to other guns.

This is the reason why Taurus can make a Beretta M9 copy that's alright but can't make a revolver that doesn't suffer from parts breakages and bad lockup. It's why Armscor, which has no problem making a functional 1911, makes an absolutely pitiful copy of the Colt Detective Special. It's also why Colt will never make the Python again, no matter how many times fudds and pop culture retards ask them to--they simply do not have the skilled machinists and assemblers necessary to make them in a competent and profitable fashion anymore.

Where am I going with this?

Kimber, a company that's known for having atrocious QC and ridiculously overpriced products, is selling a revolver for ~$899 MSRP with a street price of probably ~$700. You can buy a used Chief's Special in great shape for $350 or a K-frame snub for even less than that. There is zero reason to shell out for a Kimber, unless you think that owning a Kimber revolver confers some kind of prestige (Protip: It doesn't).

File: image.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>32348750
>>32348757
>>32348763
>>32348971
>Kimber memes
I get it.

Any other commentary about this gun itself?

>>32349129
Go ahead and buy it op. Make sure to buy the hottest ammo you can get your hands on and hold it real close to your face when shooting.

I don't want one, not because it is a Kimber, but because I just find it so damn ugly...

I'd love to buy one but its too expensive for me. I am going to buy the hammerless sp101 soon though

>>32348709
Just shoot .327 Magnum and get a real man's gun.

>>32349814
>hammerless

Enjoy your 14 pound DA trigger.

>>32348709

It's always great when the market has one more option available, but I'd sooner accept the limitation of 5 rounds and stick with a J-frame S&W when it comes to a snubnose revolver. Trusted, proven design

If it turns out these things are great, great, but it's too soon to tell, especially from a manufacturer who specializes in 1911s and can't even get that right compared to competitors who charge less for similar products

I can't believe the number of people who seem to think that machining a revolver is like some kind of magic that was lost sometime between the 1950s and now. As though every facet of engineering and manufacturing isn't superior now to any time ever.

>>32348709
Does it fit your hand?
Comfy to fire?

I'd say go for it, OP.

>>32350207

For reference, look at Remington's abortive attempt to revive the Model 51 as the R51. Yes, engenerring science has come a long way since Pedersen's original design, but sometimes that isn't enough.

File: detective special.jpg (141KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 800x600px

>>32349223
I thought I was the only one. I mean, how do you fuck up a revolver as far as aesthetics go?

>>32349129
Fuck off shill.

>>32350207
Information and technology doesn't diffuse by osmosis, you need to pay for good engineers and revolvers are somewhat complex.

>>32348757
>>32348750
>>32348763
>>32348971
Kimber's quality has vastly improved since that jew left for Sig.
pre-Jew: Good
Jew: bad
post-Jew: Good

>>32348709
6 shots just means the cylinder will be thicker than appropriate for pocket carry or even really IWB. The biggest drawback to revolvers is that the thickness of the cylinder makes them uncomfortable to carry.

File: image.jpg (437KB, 1000x746px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1000x746px

>>32350744
I feel like I could design a revolver. Again, this isn't rocket science. People actually do rocket science. All of them could design a revolver.

>>32351337
Which Jew?

t. Jew

>>32348709
>made by kimber

its a no-go guys, false alarm. everybody go home. just potmetal garbage here

>>32351360
the (((Cohen)))

>Ruger
Known for making revolvers that are practically indestructible while still having good handling and aesthetics.

>S&W
Their guns are known for for their great handling characteristics and aesthetics while being almost as robust as the Ruger.

>Kimber
Known for making overpriced 1911s with shoddy QC. Have now decided to make a type firearm that requires stringent QC to not make HueHue tier blow off half your hand garbage.

Go for it, OP.

>>32351360
In the jew's defense, he did make Kimber more popular and it is always hard to keep quality control while expanding. However, according to many, many sources, Kimber's quality took a nose dive under his watch and quickly started rising after he left. QC takes money. He chose to spend that money on advertising. There are signs he is doing the same with Sig who never had quality problems before.

>>32351354
No they couldn't. Rocket scientists don't deal with that kind of stuff. They deal with propulsion systems and all sorts of stuff, but if you took a rocket scientist and asked them to design you a 6 shot revolver, it would most likely be a piece of shit if it did work

My understanding is that people are very happy with the revolvers unless they have huge hands.

>>32351354
Physicist =/= engineer

They'd have the aptitude, but they'd be starting from scratch and would need to figure out how to machine everything.

>>32351554
You'd get a gyroc

>>32351552
Sounds like the typical bean-counter suit that fucks up good companies trying to "cut costs".

>>32348971
This

Fucking 5 star post DESU senpai.