revolver

A Gun to Ride the River With: The Smith & Wesson 686

Many of the guns I have purchased have been done so with the idea of being the “last rifle” or “last pistol” I’ll ever need to buy. Of course this never actually works out in practice – something new comes along and I catch the bug. Once in a while, though, I find something that is pretty much perfect as-is, and it endures. An example of this phenomenon: the venerable Smith & Wesson 686. It is my One if I could have only one, my hell or high-water sixgun, my “gun to ride the river with.”

Smith & Wesson 686

The 4″ Smith & Wesson 686 is the revolver that captured my imagination more than any other as a kid. Because I didn’t handle many actual revolvers as a kid, my fascination was merely due to the aesthetics of the thing. And I admit that to this day, no other revolver comes close to achieving the perfectly balanced look of the 4″ 686 (except maybe the 3″ and 5″ 686s…which still only come close). But calling a revolver perfect based on looks alone could responsibly be characterized as irresponsible. So why do I consider the S&W 686 to be the perfect revolver (and maybe even the perfect handgun)?

Perfect Revolver — My 4″, pre-lock 686-3.

It’s made to shoot. The 686 is built on the L-Frame, Smith & Wesson’s medium-large revolver chassis. The L-Frame was designed to correct the weaknesses of the smaller, lighter K-Frame with a thicker top strap and heavier forcing cone, while keeping the grip the same size. A few other dimensions in the gun were increased, resulting in a revolver that is designed for hard use with full-power .357 Magnum ammo.

The mid-large dimensions of the L-Frame make the 686 heavy. This is not the worst thing. First, it soaks up recoil like a sponge. You can run the gun hard and run it fast. You can shoot any SAAMI-spec’d .357 Magnum load available, and do so with a smile on your face. The heft of this wheelgun also lends some stability when more precision is desired. In competent hands, a revolver of this size can be counted on to ring steel reliably at 100 yards or more. It is likely that it could also make an ill-intentioned rifleman of mediocre skill downright uncomfortable at similar remove.

Check out the rest of this review on RevolverGuy.com!

Ammo Evolution: .38 Special Treasury Load

When I was a young man in the 70s, my brother and I spent a lot of time on police ranges, because our dad was an officer and rangemaster for the California Highway Patrol (CHP). As “range rats” of the highest order, we gladly took care of the chores that none of the officers wanted to do, such as posting targets, policing spent brass, issuing ammunition, and so forth.

In between relays, we got to shoot a bit ourselves. Mostly it was with our .22s, but sometimes we shot our dad’s duty gun (a 6” Python) with the hot .38 Special cartridge issued by the Patrol. This cartridge, known as the “Treasury Load,” is frequently confused with the more popular “FBI Load,” and there’s a lot of misconceptions about it in the shooting world. Therefore, I thought the RevolverGuy audience might enjoy it if we explored this interesting bit of revolver history and set the record straight on it.

Back In The Day . . .

If you could go back in your time machine to the 1950s or 1960s to visit with an American police officer, you could pretty much bet your return ticket that he’d be carrying a .38 Special revolver loaded with cartridges that contained 158 grain, round nose lead (RNL) bullets. This ammunition was used almost exclusively, despite its well-deserved reputation as a poor fight stopper, because there really weren’t many other options in the most popular of police calibers. At best, you could switch to a semiwadcutter (SWC) design, which might do a better job in some situations (such as, if a bone was hit), but you could still count on it over-penetrating the target and generally performing quite miserably. Any serious attempt at improving your sidearm’s potency would have to begin with a caliber switch, moving up to a .38/44, the .357 Magnum, or one of the big bores beginning with a “4.”

A small group of experimenters was determined to change this state of affairs, and get the .38 Special up off its knees. In the late 1950s, men like Jim Harvey and Lee Jurras were playing with jacketed, .35 caliber rifle bullets that had been turned down on lathes, and given a hollowpoint cavity up front. They shot them in .38 caliber revolvers with great results, and were encouraged to develop the concept.

A Super Idea

Harvey and others like him were making important contributions to the birth of jacketed hollowpoint (JHP) bullets for handguns, but it was Jurras who turned the idea into a commercial reality. In 1963, Jurras established an ammunition company to go mainstream with the idea of pushing a jacketed hollowpoint bullet at fast velocities to promote expansion out of handguns. His company, known as SuperVel, would seriously upset the apple cart with this radical idea.

Jurras’ early JHP designs were unlike anything the market had seen. There were molds available to cast all-lead hollowpoints before this, but the relatively soft bullets smeared in barrels when pushed too fast. Encasing the base and the bearing surface with a copper jacket prevented leading, while allowing the unjacketed front end of the bullet to remain soft, for expansion. There had been no commercially-available handgun ammunition loaded with JHPs like this prior to Jurras bringing them to market.

The JHP design was only part of the special formula, though. The other part was the use of a lightweight-for-caliber projectile that was launched at high speeds, to ensure the cavity would open. Those old, heavy, 158 RNL bullets plodded along somewhere in the 800 fps range (and possibly slower) from the 4” guns carried by most police officers, but Jurras’ new .38 Special load pushed a lightweight, 110 grain JHP out the barrel in the neighborhood of 1,100 fps. At this speed, the primitive hollowpoint had enough energy to expand, increasing the effect of the bullet while also reducing the likelihood of over-penetration.

With his high speed, lightweight, JHP designs, Jurras was not only introducing a new technology to the market, but an entirely new philosophy for achieving the desired performance from a defensive handgun. When introduced around 1965 to 1966, the idea captured the imagination of the shooting world, and when the highly influential Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office contracted with the fledgling company in 1967, it accelerated law enforcement interest in the concept of a high speed, lightweight, JHP.

Sadly, the innovative SuperVel company soon fell on hard times, and closed its doors by January of 1975, but the high speed, lightweight, JHP was an idea that was too compelling to go away.

Not Just Currency

In the 1970s, the Department of the Treasury was the home to such diverse law enforcement agencies as the Customs Service and the Secret Service. Given the unique nature of their mission, the latter was intrigued by the idea of a hard-hitting, .38 Special load that wouldn’t overpenetrate and risk injury to innocent bystanders.

At the time, the FBI was starting to look hard at the 158 grain lead semiwadcutter hollowpoint (LSWCHP) which had been pioneered by the Saint Louis Police Department (accordingly, the Winchester product code for this load was “W38SPD”). This cartridge was loaded to Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer’s Institute (SAAMI) +P pressures, and clocked around 900 fps in the early versions out of a 4” barrel (1000+ fps velocities were reported by some sources, but these were probably from test barrels, not real guns), but before long the recipe was changed and velocities dropped about 100 fps. The FBI adopted this cartridge in 1972, leading to the popular “FBI Load” moniker, and kept it until it was replaced by a 147 grain +P+ Federal Hydra-Shok in the late 80s.”

Same bullet weight; Radically different performance! The 158 RNL was a miserable stopper, but the 158 LSWCHP was the real deal. It started as a special load for the St. Louis PD (note the product code) but later gained popularity as the “FBI Load.” The FBI Load was actually more common in police service than the Treasury Load.

The 158 +P LSWCHP developed an early reputation for excellent performance in such diverse cities as Saint Louis, Chicago, Dallas and Miami, but the Secret Service was more drawn to the high speed, lightweight JHPs pioneered by SuperVel. The 110 grain JHP at around 1,100 fps was especially attractive to the Secret Service, because the bullet still had sufficient velocity to expand when it was fired out of a compact revolver, like those frequently carried by the plainclothes agents. The 158 +P LSWCHP performed great out of a 4” or longer service gun, but when it was fired in a 2” gun it frequently failed to expand and risked over-penetration, which was unacceptable in the crowded environment that characterized the Secret Service operation.

The Real “Q”

So, with SuperVel already struggling to meet demand and pay the bills (largely because the majors were choking off their supply of new cases) the Secret Service contracted with Winchester to supply the desired product.

Then and now, it was standard practice at Winchester to add a “Q” prefix to the product code of loads developed for law enforcement and military contracts. As a result, the load developed for the Treasury Department’s Secret Service was given the product code, “Q4070.”

Not surprisingly, the Q4070 load followed a familiar pattern. It had a 110 grain jacketed hollowpoint that clocked about 1,100 – 1,150 fps out of a 4” barrel, and about 1,000 – 1,050 fps out of a 2” tube. The 1,000 fps mark was a critical target, because designers hadn’t yet learned how to optimize the shape of hollowpoint cavities, and these early bullets needed the velocity to develop enough hydrostatic shock to force the walls of the cavity open.

Reaching this velocity with available powders was not possible within the industry standard pressure limits for the .38 Special or .38 Special +P. At the time, SAAMI used a non-linear unit of measurement known as a “copper unit of pressure” (c.u.p.) to evaluate internal case pressures (now superseded by the more precise pounds per square inch, or p.s.i.). Standard pressure .38 Special was capped at around 18,900 c.u.p. (now, 17,000 p.s.i.) and the higher pressure .38 Special +P was capped at about 22,200 c.u.p. (now 20,000 p.s.i.), but even this wasn’t high enough to reliably squeeze 1,100 fps out of the cartridge. As a result, Winchester took the unprecedented step of loading the Q4070 to pressure levels that exceeded SAAMI standards by 15% – 20%. This made the Q4070 a 23,500 c.u.p. cartridge, which was well beyond any of the .38 Special or .38 Special +P loads from the major manufacturers.

Under Pressure

Since Winchester had exceeded SAAMI standards for the .38 Special +P, and didn’t want the ammunition to find its way into older revolvers with questionable metallurgy, or newer revolvers with aluminum frames or cylinders, they marked the cartridges with a first-ever “+P+” headstamp (“WCC+P+” on top, and “xx” on the bottom, where “xx” represented the year), and marked the packaging with a warning that covered the entire rear panel of the box. Winchester would only sell the ammunition directly to law enforcement agencies (a “For Law Enforcement Use Only / Not For Retail Sale” warning on the box would later cause consternation among the misinformed when surplus made its way into the commercial market), and even they had to sign a waiver that acknowledged the potential for firearm damage as a result of the nonstandard pressures.

In truth, the SuperVel load that preceded the Q-load was probably operating in the same region (numerous anecdotal reports indicate the SuperVel load was actually hotter, and gun writer Patrick Sweeney recently discovered that an old box of SuperVel 110 grain .38 Special tested over 1,700 p.s.i. beyond the SAAMI .38 Special +P pressure limit but the small outfit had never marked their cartridges accordingly. As a SAAMI-compliant operation though, Winchester wanted to ensure that everybody understood this was a tiger of a different stripe.

Science . . . Fiction?

Shortly after the Secret Service’s adoption of the Q4070, which became universally known as the “Treasury Load,” the federal government launched an intensive study of police ammunition that was funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and their Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). The project, which began in 1973, introduced the concept of the Relative Incapacitation Index (RII), which was intended to allow comparisons between ammunition and express a load’s ability to stop an opponent.

The RII was the output of a model that had many flaws. The worst were an overemphasis on temporary stretch cavity dimensions and a scoring system that rewarded shallow penetration depths. In the model, only frontal torso shots were evaluated, and since the vital organs are close to the surface of the body from this angle, the model favored loads that expanded quickly and created a large stretch cavity in 20% ballistic gelatin very early in the wound track.

Rounds that performed like this were given a higher RII value than those that didn’t when the test results were published in 1975. For example, the low energy, non-expanding, and highly penetrative 158 RNL received an RII of only 8.6, but the high energy, rapidly expanding, and shallowly penetrating Treasury Load scored a 17.9 RII. The FBI Load didn’t score as well as the Treasury Load, earning a 17.2 RII in the test.

Street Results

Buoyed by the results of the NIJ study and its prestigious adoption by the Secret Service, the Treasury Load was adopted by many federal, state, county and municipal agencies across the country. The largest of the non-federal agencies was the influential California Highway Patrol, which adopted the round in 1976 along with their new Smith & Wesson Model 67 and 68 revolvers, and their Second Six speedloaders.

For agencies that were accustomed to the performance (or lack thereof) of 158 RNL, the Treasury Load was a significant improvement. Officers and agencies reported that the round hit harder, and did a better job of stopping hostilities than the old 158 RNL “widow maker.”

However, there were still some issues with the new round. The biggest problem with the Treasury Load was its shallow penetration (using a modern day yardstick: About 10” through heavy denim into 10% ballistic gelatin from a 4” gun, as compared to 13” – 15” for the FBI Load), which prevented the bullet from going deep enough on some cross-torso shoots, some shoots where an arm was struck before the round entered the torso, or even some frontal shoots on very large individuals with a lot of fat or muscle mass. Additionally, the round often didn’t have what it took to get through tough intermediate barriers like automobile bodies.

But these criticisms have to be measured by the standards of the period. Today, we’re spoiled by advanced, “barrier blind” bullets that can punch through intermediate obstacles and still have enough energy to penetrate and expand in the target, but not overpenetrate. We can “have it all” with today’s high-tech bullets, but at the dawn of the 1970s things weren’t as good. Back then, you could choose from: A low energy icepick (.38 Special 158 RNL); A high energy icepick (anything in .357 Magnum); A low energy, pure lead hollowpoint that would penetrate reasonably, but might or might not expand (the FBI Load), or; A high energy, jacketed hollowpoint that would almost always expand, but not penetrate very deeply (the Treasury Load). If you wanted to get into cars, then you had to dump the .38 Special entirely and go with a .357 Magnum firing 158 grain semiwadcutters or jacketed softpoints, and expect them to overpenetrate in human bodies like a hardened drill bit. You pays your money and you makes your choice.

Industry standard test protocols, 10% ballistic gelatin, 12” minimum penetration depths, and an emphasis on permanent crush cavity over temporary stretch cavity were all still more than a decade away when the Treasury Load knocked its first felon into the dirt. Judging by contemporary standards, the Treasury Load was a really attractive option.

As a result, many agencies made it their own. It generally performed well for them in the street, particularly out of energy-robbing snubs (which were tough on all loads, but especially the FBI Load). While the FBI Load was more popular and widespread, its track record in police shootings was virtually identical to that of its high speed, lightweight cousin. You could argue a good case for either load, but one thing that everybody agreed on, is that the two competitors offered a dramatic improvement over the dismal 158 RNL that they replaced.

Other Issues

One difference from the FBI Load was the strain that the overpressure Treasury Load put on the guns and shooters that fired it. The Treasury Load had a loud bark and made a lot of flash for a .38 Special (more so than the 158 +P LSWCHP) and this could be a difficult issue for some shooters to overcome.

More significantly, the intense pressure generated by the Q-load took a toll on frames, cylinders, and lockworks. Even the stronger .357 Magnum revolvers suffered from accelerated wear when fed a steady diet of the Treasury Load. Magnum loads would wear a gun out faster, but the Treasury Load came close, and created stretching and endshake problems much faster than any other .38 Special or .38 Special +P did (but that’s a story for another time).

Lastly, the Treasury Load could be really dirty (especially in short barreled guns). The burn left a lot of soot, and a lot of extra powder flakes left behind to migrate under the extractor star and into all the nooks and crannies that you’d normally want to keep clean on a wheelgun.

The Other Treasury Load

Federal Cartridge Company introduced their own version of the Treasury Load shortly after the Q4070 appeared from Winchester, and assigned the product code “38F – TD” (“TD” for Treasury Department) to it. Like Winchester, Federal restricted sales of this product to law enforcement agencies that were willing to accept the risk of operating beyond SAAMI +P pressure standards.

Federal didn’t headstamp the cartridges or label the packaging with the “+P+” logo like Winchester did, but these were definitely +P+ loads. The Federal cartridges started with a “FC LE” headstamp, and later went to a “FC xx” headstamp, where “xx” represented the year of manufacture.

The two products were similar in design and construction, but there were differences between them. While both Winchester and Federal made continuous changes to the cartridges over their lifespan (i.e., new cavity designs, the addition of jacket skives, changes to jacket lengths, different powders, etc.) it can be generally stated that the Federal version of the Treasury Load wasn’t loaded as hot as the Winchester, had a bigger hollowpoint cavity, was less consistent in terms of velocity, and the Federal bullet wasn’t as robust.

In service, many agencies reported that the Federal bullet expanded to greater diameters than the Winchester and was prone to fragmentation, especially when fired from 4” or 6” barrels (like the Winchester, it expanded but didn’t fragment in the 2” snubs). Therefore, the Federal didn’t penetrate as deeply as the Winchester product, which typically clocked 50+ fps faster than the Federal and retained its full weight with greater reliability.

The Federal 38F – TD was treated as a “substitute standard” by many agencies for the Winchester Q4070 load, but some agencies used it exclusively. The Federal load was used by such agencies as the U.S. Border Patrol (1980 – 1984) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (late 1970s to 1992) as their mainstay, while others (such as the CHP) used it intermittently with the Winchester product, as contracts changed.

Interestingly, the agencies who complained the most about failures with the Treasury Load were those who used the Federal product. The inconsistent velocities, explosive fragmentation, and shallower penetration of the Federal round seem to have handicapped it as a general issue, police duty round. The agencies using the Q4070 load seemed to be more satisfied with the results on the street.

Changes

As mentioned, Winchester and Federal tweaked and advanced the designs as they matured over time. The Winchester Q4070 product code evolved into a Q4169 product code in the mid-1980s, and again into a RA38110HP+ product code in the late 1990s.

Yet, neither of the companies relented on their “law enforcement use only” policy, so other manufacturers, such as Cor-Bon, stepped up to provide their own +P+ versions of the Treasury Load to a hungry commercial market in the late 1980s to early 1990s. Many of these were actually loaded beyond Winchester’s own +P+ pressure specs, plunging shooters ever deeper into uncharted territory.

In time, advances in bullet designs and propellants allowed manufacturers to deliver the desired performance within SAAMI .38 Special +P pressure limits, and the .38 Special +P+ loads disappeared from the market. Even the reincarnated SuperVel has managed to stay within SAAMI +P specs on their new .38 Special load.

The Treasury Load was a big advance in its time, but we have better alternatives to choose from today. Still, I think Lee Jurras would be amazed by the avalanche that his little SuperVel rock started!

About the Author: Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Mike Wood is a certified revolver nut, an NRA Law Enforcement Division-certified Firearms Instructor, and a columnist at PoliceOne.com. He is also the author of Newhall Shooting: A Tactical Analysis, the definitive study of the infamous, 1970 California Highway Patrol shootout in Newhall, California. Please visit the official website for this book at www.newhallshooting.com for more information.

Find more articles like this at RevolverGuy.com!

The Biggest Little Roundgun: The 3-Inch Kimber K6s

It is no secret to regular readers that I have been dying to get my hands on the 3-inch Kimber K6s. Thanks once again to the hard work of Mike and Steve, I finally got my chance to test out this revolver. This field report will cover my general impressions, and shooting and carrying what I have dubbed the “biggest little roundgun!”

The K6s made a big splash when introduced, and Mike did a phenomenal job of setting the table for this report a couple of weeks ago. The standard K6 offers a number of improvements of existing steel-frame snubbies, but it wasn’t quite enough of an upgrade for me to immediately make the leap. The 3-inch version is a different animal altogether, though. In my estimation the overall improvement in this gun is greater than the sum of its parts.

Craftsmanship & Aesthetics

The first thing you will notice when you pull this revolver out of the box is its excellent craftsmanship. I’ve handled a lot of revolvers in the past two years and none has impressed me like the 3″ Kimber K6s. First, the finish (at least on my exemplar) is absolutely impeccable. The stainless steel is pleasingly softened by a uniform bead blast. It feels smooth to the hand without being “grabby” like a highly polished surface might be. This finish highlights the grain of the steel, and is absolutely gorgeous.

Expecting to find a few machining marks on the inside of the yoke, I opened up the cylinder. There were none there, so I pulled the grips off. Still nothing. Finally, I resorted to peeling off the side-plate for a deeper inspection but found nary a blemish. I was (and remain) impressed with the general quality and craftsmanship found in this revolver. I hate to gush over the thing but my exemplar is exceptionally well made.

One thing that is conspicuous in its absence is the lack of admonishments to read the instruction manual or that the gun will fire if the trigger is pulled, or other such warnings. Kimber leaves the finish on the K6s relatively unscathed. The right side of the barrel bears and understated, matter-of-fact “.357 Magnum”; the left a stylized “K6s”. The right side of the frame is marked with an elegant “Kimber”, while the left tastefully records only the manufacturer, city of origin (Yonkers, NY, USA) and the serial number. This is in contrast to the billboards that some manufacturers choose to install on the barrels and slides of their handguns, and I appreciate it.

In its totality the 3-inch K6s initially presents a slightly awkward appearance. I thought it might just be me, but my FFL commented on it, too. The long nose and matching factory grip seem somewhat at odds with its diminutive frame. One quickly adapts to the somewhat unbalanced physique, especially in appreciation of the view of the gun that matters the most: the one from behind the sights.

Notable Features

I promise I won’t retread everything Mike wrote about the development of the Kimber rotator. There are a few features that are important to my primary area of interest: the use of the revolver for self-defense. These four features define the 3-inch Kimber K6s in my mind, and differentiate it from all other stock revolvers on the market. Any of these features would be an upgrade on most revolvers and the four of them together create an inimitable combination. They are:

Sights: I can’t count the number of small revolvers I’ve rejected because of the sights. The sights on most small revolvers seem to be an afterthought. “Hey guys, we forgot sights. No sense reinventing the wheel, we’re already tooled up. Hmmm. . .let’s just mill a groove in the top strap and call it good!” This is not the case with the K6s line. Kimber equips all variants of the K6s with excellent sights. Though they bear the ubiquitous triple dot setup, they are visible and fast. Kimber even offers fiber optic and tritium replacement options. I’d love to see a two-dot setup à la Heinie’s Straight Eights. For now the factory sight pictures will more than suffice, and be a considerable upgrade for most revolver users.

Lengthened Barrel: The second thing that sets the 3-inch Kimber K6s apart from most carry-sized revolvers is the extra inch of barrel. It doesn’t seem like a lot, but the added sight radius makes a world of difference. It also lends some additional heft. Though Kimber’s specification cites the weight at 25.1 ounces, mine weighed in at 26.67 ounces unloaded. I don’t mind the discrepancy; this a great carry and shooting weight, though it does create a slightly nose-heavy feel.

Trigger: The K6s’s trigger is a thing of beauty. If you’re used to the 12-14 lb. pulls on S&W J-frames, get ready to be impressed. I allowed a few people to shoot the K6s at the handgun competition course I recently attended. Uniformly they were all impressed by the trigger. One individual asked me no fewer than three times, “is that really the factory trigger?!” The excellent trigger allows one to take advantage of the sights and added sight radius, and makes this revolver a heck of a shooter.

The Sixth Round: I love that Kimber chose to make this a six-shooter. Several times at the range I caught myself pausing after firing the fifth round, accustomed as I am to the J-Frame. Having that sixth shot is certainly reassuring in a self-defense revolver.

Range Time

I took the 3-inch Kimber K6s to the range half a dozen times. Approximately 450 rounds were fired through her, in an assortment of standard-pressure .38, +P .38, and a spectrum of Magnum ammo. I also put the K6s into the hands of some others with varying bodies of revolver experience including a State Trooper and self-described RevolverGuy, a female first-timer shooter, and some experienced auto-shooters with little practical time on revolvers.

My impression upon firing the first shots through the 3-inch Kimber K6s was that I had been deceived. While it packs like a J-Frame, it handles like a K-Frame. This caused me to misjudge it and naturally, I expected recoil to be on par with a K-Frame. Aaaand I quickly learned it’s not quite there. Still, I was comfortable enough to put it in the hands of a woman who has never fired a handgun (loaded with light .38s, of course).

If I had it to do over again I probably would have chosen a different firearm. It wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t the best choice. Fortunately she was more impacted by the muzzle blast from the AR in the (indoor) booth next to us than the revolver in her hand. She has gone to the range with me since, and seems inclined to continue to do so. The lesson for us experienced revolver shooters: it might be big for a little gun, but you should mostly load it like it’s a little one.

The next thing I learned is that I don’t love the factory wooden grip on the 3-inch Kimber K6s. It is beautiful and if feels great in the hand and on the belt. But it quickly becomes slippery. Even with warm .38 ammo I found my hand slipping higher and higher on the grip with each shot. The higher my hand went on the backstrap, the angle at which my finger addressed the trigger became more and more exaggerated. This makes it very difficult to get apply a straight, rearward press to the trigger. I contacted VZ grips and they promptly sent a set of stippled G10 replacement stocks that corrected this issue. Also of note to those of you who intend to keep your gun in display-case condition: the factory grips quickly became dinged up by ejected brass.

Finally, the sight regulation on the 3-inch Kimber K6s could be better. The K6’s sights seem to be regulated for standard pressure .38 Special. I was thrilled to note that my first few cylinders of Geco .38 ammo were dead on. As soon as I loaded up some +Ps my excitement began to droop, along with the placement of the shots. I wish Kimber had considered this and regulated the sights for carry ammo. I imagine most users will carry .38 Special +P ammo, and a few (like me) will carry light .357s. Fortunately for me I am somewhat accustomed to this phenomenon and am used to aiming an inch or two high, a habit I had to work to break when transitioning to the M&P.

Shoots Like a Big Gun. . .

After becoming acquainted with the 3-inch Kimber K6s, I pseudo-tested three loads for accuracy. This test was not a bench-rest exercise. I loaded six rounds of each, ran my targets out to 10 yards, and recorded the first group captured with each load. This was not a slow-fire exercise, but rather a pretty vigorous test of three potential carry candidates.

The first load fired was the new SuperVel .38 +P Super Snub. This load launches a 90-grain JHP at a blistering 1300 FPS from a 2″ barrel, and at a verified 1,350 FPS through the Kimber’s longer tube. This load was at once the loudest and lightest recoiling of the bunch. Due to the higher velocity of this ammunition, it grouped somewhat low, with with the widest lateral dispersion of the three tested.

The next load tested was Remington’s old school 125-grain +P SJHP. This round grouped well, and was only slightly lower than point-of-aim.

Finally, I shot the load I’ve been carrying in the K6s, the .357 Magnum version of the Speer 135-grain Short Barrel Gold Dot. This group wasn’t bad, and the one stray round at 7 o’clock was a called flyer. At this distance the load is roughly 2 to 2.5″ low, and within my range of acceptability.

Though these targets aren’t terribly impressive, I am still happy with them relative to what I can do with other small revolvers. Even more impressive is the gun’s performance at extended distances. At the Seeklander course, I put the K6s in the hands of a State Trooper named Mark. Mark’s first shot was at a man-sized steel target at 100 yards. The first round went low. He corrected, and the next five found the target. I was able to duplicate his efforts. After firing the gun enough to be comfortable in its reliability, I holstered it up.

. . .Carries Like a Little Gun!

As regulars here know, I recently made the switch to soulless plastic for daily carry†. I’ve had some misgivings about appendix-carry of a striker-fired firearm. Tucking the 3-inch barreled revolver in my waistband gave me an old, familiar comfort. Even though all models of the K6s are outfitted with excellent triggers (more on that later) the 10 lb pull on the Kimber provides a comfortable margin-for-error that is absent on the striker-fired gun.

I fired roughly two hundred fifty rounds through the Kimber before I felt comfortable carrying it. Once this was done, I was ready to take it on the street. The weight and size of the Kimber preclude pocket carry, so I reached out to DeSantis for some leather. They responded with two holsters for the 3-inch Kimber K6s. The first is the outside-the-waistband DeSantis Speed Scabbard. The other is the DeSantis Flex-Tuck. I quickly discovered that I greatly preferred the Flex-Tuck and IWB carry with the K6s. I will examine these holsters in more detail in a future review.

I was pleased to find I was able to continue my habit of AIWB carry (in about the 1 o’clock position), and do so comfortably. The Flex-Tuck supported the gun well and was comfortable for AIWB, a claim not all holsters can boast. The K6s was right at home in the expertly molded holster and my belly failed to find any sharp edges on the gun. After two weeks of day-in, day-out carry, I can confidently say I can and would carry the K6s. It carries like a little gun, but feels and shoots a lot like a big one!

The 3-Inch Kimber K6s Vs…

Naturally any concealed carry revolver invites a comparison with my Smith & Wesson 640 Pro Series. I carried this revolver daily for over two years and became intimately familiar with it, and it taught me a lot about running a wheelgun. So how does the Kimber K6s stack up? I hate to say it, but if you plan to carry a revolver as your primary sidearm, the K6s is better in almost every conceivable way.

With its smoothed edges and despite its additional (almost) four ounces, I found it just as comfortable for carry. Equipped with a longer barrel and slightly greater heft, the K6s is more practically accurate, giving one confidence in the ability to take longer and more precise shots. With an additional round of ammunition. . .well, you don’t need me to explain that one to you. If you’re on the fence about one of the two of these guns, go with the Kimber. But be advised: it’s not perfect.

The Bad Stuff

The 3-inch Kimber K6s is perhaps the finest small revolver I’ve had the privilege of shooting. It is well made and accurate. It comes in five configurations to satisfy a variety of users, and Kimber shows little sign of slacking off in the development of additional models. But committing to carrying a gun is really committing to a system. This system includes (in the case of revolvers) grips, holsters, and reliable ammunition. If you are an enthusiast it also means you crave aftermarket sights, lasers, and perhaps other accessories.

Speedloaders for the K6s are notoriously difficult to find. All models of the K6s ship with a DeSantis Swift Strip. I like the DeSantis as much as the Bianchi Speed Strip. Still, I can’t quite commit to this revolver without a proper reloading apparatus. Though 5-Star Firearms makes a loader, it is a “twistie” model, and I prefer inline-motion loaders to the exclusion of all others. Additionally, Colt Detective Special loaders are rumored to work, and some K-Frame loaders have been made to work. I was unable to make K-Frame Comp IIs work. Until there is a readily available, factory-produced inline speedloader I would have some hesitation about moving to the K6s.

If I were to purchase this gun, I would also have to do something about the sight regulation. At Kimber’s price-point (and with an existing manufacturing capability) I would love to see sights corrected for modern carry ammunition. Failing that, it would be nice to see front sight blades in two or three heights to accommodate different carry loads. Failing that, I’m sure someone like Hamilton Bowen could make a height-appropriate front sight, but that raises the cost of the already-expensive K6s considerably.

Currently the market has not caught up to the K6s, and I sorely hope that changes. This is one revolver I would really like to see the market back. I’ll throw some of that back into Kimber’s court; I hope they are encouraging high-quality Kydex benders and other accessory providers. I think the support I want to see for the K6 will happen eventually; it just hasn’t happened quite yet.

The Bottom Line

All of the complaints I have lodged against the K6s have not been against the gun itself. They have all been directed at the lack of aftermarket support. Don’t let that distract you from the bottom line: the 3-inch Kimber K6s is an excellent revolver! There aren’t many bad things I can say about it. For a revolver made by a bunch of 1911 guys, they got this one better (a lot better) than just about anything from most of the industry’s old guard.

Though it certainly isn’t a pocket or ankle gun, the Biggest Little Roundgun comes close to being an all-in-one revolver for most civilian owners. It is small and shapely enough to be concealable, but big enough to be very shootable and capably fill the home defense role. It offers a near ideal “kit gun” size (if not caliber), and is a fun range gun. The handsome 3-inch Kimber K6s is my interpretation of the “Glock 19 of Revolvers” paradigm. If you’re looking for a revolver for primary carry, I think you’d be hard pressed to do better with any other revolver in current production.

Find more great content like this at RevolverGuy.com!

This article was written by Justin Carroll

Field Report: The New Colt King Cobra

Revolvers hailing from Colt’s Manufacturing Company are a class of firearm for which I’ve traditionally exhibited only the faintest interest. It’s not because they aren’t fantastic guns; To the contrary, it may be because they’re too fantastic! Since going out of production, Colt’s revolvers have become collectable and priced well outside my reach. With Colt’s re-entrance into the revolver market, wheelguns bearing the Rampant Colt Pony are once again on dealer shelves. Colt’s was kind enough to loan us one, and this Field Report will detail my experiences with the new Colt King Cobra.

I tested the Colt King Cobra in accordance with our Revolver Testing S.O.P., with one exception that will be explained below, and corrected as soon as possible. Before diving into the results of of the RT-SOP, I will cover the features of this revolver. After concluding the Field Test results I will offer my personal conclusions.

The New Colt King Cobra

The Colt King Cobra is a stainless steel, double action revolver built on a modified version of Colt’s D-Frame. Though released earlier this year there has been precious little in-depth media coverage on this gun, and we’re proud to take an early – and long – look at it here. Let’s start at the nose and work our way backward.

The new Colt King Cobra sports a three-inch barrel that is dressed up with a pleasing full underlug. The muzzle crown is deeply recessed, which both protects the crown and presents a certain aesthetic appeal. Atop the barrel sits a front sight post that I will address separately, further along in this review. Below the barrel is what I consider to be a partial length guide rod with a sharply knurled tip that is shrouded by the underlug. The right side of the barrel is adorned with the words “KING COBRA” in stylized script, along with the classic cobra’s head. These rollmarks are actually applied with the original King Cobra tooling. Below it is a very tidy, “.357 MAGNUM”. The left side of the barrel bears Colt’s serpentine logo along with the city, state, and country of manufacture.

The barrel blends smoothly into the curvature of a conspicuously thick top strap. It is thicker than those of the slightly older Cobra and Night Cobra models to handle the more powerful .357 Magnum cartridge. It is also perhaps thicker than it absolutely needs to be to accommodate the rear sight groove that runs its length.

The mid-sized (technically “small” in Colt nomenclature) frame of the Colt King Cobra supports a six-shot .357 cylinder. True to Colt form (and somewhat confusingly to a Ruger/S&W guy) it rotates clockwise. The cylinder is held in place by Colt’s distinctive rearward-activated cylinder release latch. Aft of the cylinder is a spurred hammer with sharp cocking grooves that conceals a transfer bar safety system.

The trigger guard of the new Colt King Cobra, like those of the new Cobra and Night Cobra, looks as though the gun was dropped on it. Rather than a smoothly swept oval, the trigger guard has a noticeable stutter, appearing right below the tip of the trigger. Colt marketing materials indicate this is to increase the size of the trigger guard to facilitate gloved firing.

Having no opportunity to shoot the King Cobra while wearing gloves, I found this made no difference for me. Aesthetically I’d prefer the trigger be smoothly rounded as decades of looking at revolvers have taught us a trigger guard should look. I did find that after a couple of weeks of daily handling I ceased to notice this little distinction.

The trigger itself is narrow and smooth. The left side of the trigger bears an unsightly circle from the MIM mold where this component was born. The Colt King Cobra ships with an enlarged, pebbled rubber grip from Hogue. The Hogue handle bears a subtle Colt serpentine logo on each side and encloses the backstrap of the revolver. If you don’t like the factory grips, excellent aftermarket grips for the Colt King Cobra are available through VZ Grips.

A Note on Markings: The right side of the frame bears two markings that do not appear in photos here: the gun’s serial number and a QR code. Both of these have been edited out of the photos that appear here for my own privacy. For exact location of these items, please see the King Cobra owner’s manual, page 36 [opens to .pdf].

Fit and Finish

I’m not one to engage in hyperbole (I generally consider it to be the last resort of the poorly-lettered), so take my word at face value when I say, the fit of this revolver is absolutely superb. I was slightly surprised by this, since I was generally unimpressed with the fit of some early production new Cobras that I saw. The King Cobra represents a massive refinement over the early Cobras, however.

I initially noticed the near-perfect mating of parts in the interaction between the frame and the cylinder crane. The interplay of these two components is one that is easy to overlook, but on the King Cobra it is a thing of beauty. Upon closing the cylinder the leading edge of these two parts mate perfectly, and the photo below doesn’t begin to do it justice. One also notices the fine fit in the action of the trigger, when cocking the King Cobra’s hammer, and when spinning its cylinder. The cylinder feels as if it is spinning on ball bearings. Unfortunately no photograph can illustrate this. You simply have to feel it.

The exception that proves this rule is one little imperfection that sticks out like sore thumb. The sideplate and frame are ever-so-slightly misaligned. The edge of the sideplate is recessed under the frame by a few thousands of an inch. In a lesser revolver this would hardly be noticeable. On the Colt King Cobra, where nary another unintended sharp edge exists, it is almost glaring.

The King Cobra’s finish is a near equal to its fit. All exposed surfaces, minus the cylinder release, hammer, trigger, and front sight, are a mildly polished stainless steel. This is in contrast to more common bead-blasted finishes (as seen on the new Cobra) and is rather handsome, if a bit more difficult to keep free of visible fingerprints.

A Note on the “King Cobra” name: Unaccustomed and emotionally unattached as I am to Colt Revolvers, I brook no complaint with the re-use of the “King Cobra” designation. I understand that some might. To those I would say the following: don’t let sentimentality for a couple of words trick you into overlooking this fine defensive revolver.

Mid-Sized Marvel

The Colt King Cobra fills a notable niche in the defensive revolver market: the medium-sized revolver. Regular readers here may remember back to only a couple of years ago when I lamented the absence of a meaningful, mid-sized, current production, carry revolver. For years individuals wishing to carry a revolver for defense have had to make the same miserable choice. They could accept the discomfort of carrying serious iron and opt for a large-framed revolver like S&W’s L-Frame line or the Ruger GP100. The alternative was to content oneself with carrying a J-Frame/SP101-class revolver with a reduced round count.

Revolvers between the five-shooter and full-sized revolvers were few and far between. Perhaps the best fit in this gap was (at the time) the S&W K-Frames, but even these are fairly large for concealed carry. The Colt King Cobra slips easily between these two classes of firearms and even though Colt’s considers this a “small” frame I find it to shoot and carry much more like a medium frame gun.

I believe that Kimber also saw this gap in the market when they released the 3″ K6s and perhaps Colt’s sensed the same void. The Colt King Cobra is small and light enough for comfortable, all-day carry. My specimen weighed in at 1 lbs, 12.2 ounces (just 0.2 ounces over an advertised 28). It’s also large enough for real shooting. The large, comfortable grips and trigger (which I will expound upon shortly) are contributors, as are the gun’s size and heft.

This review found me sorely wishing I’d purchased the Yonkers-born wheelgun for direct comparison purposes, but suffice to say, both of these revolvers will probably appeal to the same potential buyers. I believe, due to the slightly larger frame, the Colt’s revolver would edge out the Kimber in a head-to-head comparison for best middleweight round gun.

Function: Sights

The Colt King Cobra’s front sight is one borne of thoughtfulness. It is a steel front blade with an inset brass bead. By loosening a single screw just above the muzzle, the end-user can replace it with a tritium or fiber-optic front sight. This is a feature that is sorely lacking in many modern defensive revolvers, and a vast improvement generally over integral front sights.

The rear sight on the Colt King Cobra is more traditional, consisting of a milled groove in the top strap. This sighting arrangement is doubtlessly familiar to revolver shooters. In light of the accuracy results below, I don’t dislike this setup as much as I otherwise might. Still, I found myself longing for a version of the King Cobra with an adjustable (at at least better) rear sight, like the original King Cobra. I believe the current rear sight artificially limited the accuracy potential of this standout revolver.

The sight picture is fine for close-in work (of, say 15 yards and under) but difficult to refine at distance. The rear notch is not sufficiently deep to allow one to see the entire front bead. Combined with the sloped outer edges of the rear sight notch, the overall sight picture ends up coming out with a somewhat rounded apex (I tried, numerous times, to photograph the sight picture one sees when the gun is at full extension. I failed.). This hampered efforts at precision at distances exceeding fifteen yards. I understand that the Colt King Cobra is probably not intended to be a forty-yard gun, but a better rear sight could take what is already a good trail companion and turn it into a great one.

Function: Trigger

Having never fired a Colt’s revolver, I was naturally curious about the storied Colt’s trigger. Everyone and their brother seems to have an anecdote about the beautiful, glass-like trigger of the legendary Python. I was excited to try one of these triggers, but also had to wonder if some of the hype was the result of inflated memories of, or nostalgia for, yesteryear.

And I have to say, I was impressed. The Colt King Cobra’s trigger was incredibly smooth. It’s difficult to quantify that but it was on par with the smoothest revolvers I’ve ever shot, and is the first time the word “buttery” has made any sense to me in regards to a trigger. The Colt’s trigger famously exhibits “stacking” and becomes gradually heavier as it moves through it’s rearward cycle, but I didn’t find this to be detrimental in any way.

The double action pull weight as measured on my Timney Trigger gauge averages a very reasonable 9 1/4 pounds. This relatively light and incredibly smooth trigger no doubt contributed to the accuracy I was able to squeeze out of the Colt King Cobra. The single action trigger consistently and cleanly broke at an even 5 pounds.

There are a couple minor negatives about the Colt King Cobra’s trigger. The first—it seems to induce what I termed a “premature reset response.” When one completes a cycle of the trigger and releases it, there is an audible and tactile “click” and accompanying drop-off in return-spring tension about 2/3rds of the way through the trigger return. I was wont to arrest the trigger’s forward travel at this point and begin pulling it through its next cycle, only to find the trigger locked up. This didn’t happen often mind you, but enough times that were I adopting the Colt King Cobra as a carry gun I would work hard to overcome this.

I contacted Mike and asked if this trait was peculiar to Colt. Mike allowed that he had experienced this, but believed it to be caused by a surfeit of work with short-triggered semi-automatics. Initially this explanation sounded good, but then I realized I haven’t had this problem with any of the other revolvers I shoot consistently, which include the GP100, 686, 640, and some others I’m testing. I also observed this issue with my girlfriend. She is far from being a seasoned shooter, but at least 95% of her lifetime shooting has been done with double-action revolvers. The first time she dry fired the Colt King Cobra she locked the trigger up in this fashion.

Mike later confirmed that two older Colt’s revolvers exhibited this same trait. This isn’t “no-go” criteria for me, but I do believe it merits mentioning. If you intend to use the King Cobra for defense of life and limb, mastering its trigger should also mean mastering the trigger’s full reset cycle.

The second minor problem is that the trigger is a bit too narrow. This wouldn’t be an issue in a self-defense situation, but during long range and dry practice sessions it is. It placed a lot of pressure on one particular point in the distal joint of my trigger finger. Initially it was a bit painful; by the end of the session the tip of my trigger finger would be slightly tingly. . . and not in a good way.

Function: Extraction & Ejection

As expected, there were no major issues with extraction and ejection but I do have two minor notes. The first is that the user’s interaction with the ejector rod needs to be vigorous. I found that when “administratively” ejecting brass, one or two chambers wanted to hang on to their brass. This was never an issue if I exerted an appropriate amount of force on the ejector rod. This issue is not peculiar to the Colt King Cobra, as one could expect it with any revolver.

I do bring it up because of the second issue, however. The tip of the ejector rod could be better. The ejector rod’s tip is only scantly larger in diameter than the rod itself (and I believe what our friend Greyson would call a “cigar cutter” format). This creates a natural disincentive to slap the rod with gusto as it tends to cause a lot of pressure to concentrate itself upon a very small surface area on the user’s palm. I’d love to see this revolver refined ever so slightly to include a larger ejector rod tip – again, like the original King Cobra.

I have run across two reports, one firsthand and one secondhand, of the Colt’s ejector rod tip becoming lodged in the channel when depressed vigorously enough. As a user of the Universal Revolver Reload I was on the lookout for this. I didn’t happen during my first range session so I attempted to induce it. With the power my two hands could muster (and all the punishment the heel of my right hand was willing to endure) I could not replicate this malfunction. That may not fully put the problem to bed, but those are my results.

Function & Reliability

I followed our RT-SOP here, firing 500 rounds of ammunition from at least three different manufacturers, over at least three range sessions. My range sessions with the Colt King Cobra broke down thusly:

25 March: 150 rounds, no malfunctions of any kind
- 100 rounds Winchester “Service Grade” .38 Special 130-grain FMJ
- 50 rounds Remington HTP .357 Magnum 110-grain SJHP

27 March: 150 rounds, no malfunctions of any kind
- 100 rounds Winchester “Service Grade” .38 Special 130-grain FMJ
- 26 rounds Remington HTP .357 Magnum 110-grain SJHP
- 12 rounds Speer Gold Dot .357 Magnum 135-gr. Short Barrel JHP
- 12 rounds Speer Gold Dot .357 Magnum 125-gr. JHP
- 6 rounds SuperVel .38 Special +P 90-grain JHP

03 April: 150 rounds, no malfunctions of any kind
- 100 rounds Prvi Partisan.38 Special 130-grain FMJ
- 18 rounds Federal .38 Special +P 130-grain HST Micro JHP
- 6 rounds Speer Gold Dot .357 Magnum 125-gr. JHP
- 6 rounds Hornady Critical Defense .38 Special 110-grain (standard pressure)
- 8 rounds Sig .38 Special +P V-Crown 125-grain JHP
- 6 rounds SuperVel .38 Special +P 90-grain JHP
- 6 rounds Remington HTP .357 Magnum 110-grain SJHP

04 April: 50 rounds, no malfunctions of any kind
- 50 rounds Prvi Partisan.38 Special 130-grain FMJ

The Colt King Cobra functioned at 100% with everything I deigned to put through it.

Handling

The confluence of features found in the Colt King Cobra make a gun that is exceedingly pleasant to shoot comfortably and accurately. The weight of this revolver contributes to both factors, absorbing some recoil and helping one steady it at arm’s length.

Though I do have a disinclination toward grips with finger grooves I found the factory Hogue extremely pleasant. Its enlarged circumference placed my trigger finger perfectly on the trigger and permitted an exceptionally strong firing grip. The soft rubber perhaps cushioned recoil somewhat, but more importantly prevented slipping of the hands under the forces of recoil.

Recoil was extremely manageable with .38 Special and .38 +P ammunition. With a firm grip it was possible to lock the gun in place and run it about as fast as I’d run anything. I’m surprised by this only a little. Though I repeat myself, I attribute this to the gun’s large grip and 28-ounce heft.

Recoil was a bit more spirited with .357 Magnum ammunition. Some softer-shooting Magnum loads were comfortable, and dare I say, even controllable. Loads of this ilk are the 110-grain Remington SJHP and the Speer 135-grain Gold Dot Short Barrel loading. I didn’t have the stomach for much of the heavier Magnum offerings, and limited my shooting of them to under two dozen rounds. While not painful, recovering from recoil is a fairly lengthy affair.

Accuracy

That beautiful trigger, lengthened sight radius, and the ability to acquire a firm, comfortable grasp permitted accuracy beyond what one typically expects of a small revolver. I fired the prescribed two iterations of Dot Torture. The first was fired at three yards with rounds 50 through 100. I managed to score a 48 out of a possible 50.

The accuracy testing iteration sparked an internal debate. I debated on what distance from which to test the accuracy of the Colt King Cobra. Our RT-SOP specifies a distance of 10 yards for concealed carry guns and 25 for field/duty-sized revolvers. With it’s medium size and 3″ barrel, shooting at a mere ten yards made me feel like I was doing the gun a disservice. Nonetheless, I fired the first test string at 10 yards using the Speer Short-Barrel Magnum load (135-grain). The photo below illustrates that group.

The group was so good, I decided to push the distance out to 15 yards. When I ran the target back in I almost couldn’t believe my eyes. With the exception of one shot (the first one, and completely my fault) the group was almost as good at fifteen as it was at 10.

I didn’t know what to make of that. I almost considered shooting all successive groups at fifteen yards. I might have, had the very next load not been the Federal .38 Special +P 130-grain HST Micro. The King Cobra did not like this particular load†. My first two groups at the fifteen-yard line were both at least five inches in diameter, so I moved the target back to ten and stayed there.

In addition to not particularly caring for the premier load from Federal, the Colt King Cobra seemed to demonstrate a preference for the other two .357 Magnum loads I grouped: the Remington 110-grain semi-jacketed hollowpoint and the full power (and I mean FULL power) 125-grain Speer Gold Dot. Excluding fliers that were almost certainly not the fault of the gun, the worst of the .357 Magnum groups were tighter than the best of the .38 Specials††. Below are the six other loads for which I recorded groups.

The Remington HTP 110-grain SJHP load (above) was loved by the King Cobra. I shot 82 rounds of this loading and all of them grouped surprisingly well, though this is only one I photographed. This load produces a mighty roar and a massive muzzle flash, but isn’t otherwise intolerable to shoot.

Despite the intense muzzle flash, noise, and recoil generated by Speer’s full-on 125-grain Gold Dot, the King Cobra seemed to like it.

This group is by far a “best of three” with the Federal Micro HST .38 Special, which performed somewhat erratically for me.

Dot Torture session two was also impressive. Instead of firing it at the same three yard where I’d fired the first iteration, I backed up to a full five yards. I pulled of a 47 out of 50. I know I dropped a point from the first Dot Torture session, but I’m OK with that considering the increase in distance. By comparison I only managed to pull off a 44 at three yards the last time I shot my 640, a gun with which I have many times the rounds and hours on.

Carrying the Colt King Cobra

The sole RT-SOP criteria that I was unable to complete prior to publication was the concealed carry portion. This was due to unavailability of leather in time to get the requisite hours in. Not very many holsters are being manufactured for this revolver just yet, but Kramer Leather did step in and provide us a holster. Despite the shortcoming in our field report, Mike and I made an editorial decision to get this review out as quickly as possible.

The Colt King Cobra is very similar in size to my daily carry pistol. I foresee few issues with carrying the King Cobra, but we’ll test it just the same. When we do we will post that as a separate, followup article that will be linked here. Speaking of follow-ons, stay tuned because I’ll be hanging on to this gun for a bit longer and I’ll make you guys aware of anything else I find out while using it.

The Bottom Line

This revolver fills an important role in the RevolverGuy’s battery, somewhere between his full-sized shooting iron and his snubby. My personal hope is that the Colt King Cobra (along with a couple others) are the vanguard of a trend toward revolvers in this class; small enough for daily concealed carry, but big enough to shoot comfortably and well.

The Colt King Cobra isn’t perfect. If I had my ‘druthers I’d ask for a couple minor modifications: higher profile and/or adjustable sights, a wider trigger, and a friendlier ejector rod, in that order. Oh, and maybe a bobbed hammer. I’d also ask for the market to get on board with this excellent revolver and provide us with holsters and inline-operated speedloaders.

Despite these shortcomings, the Colt King Cobra is one of the best revolvers I’ve ever shot. My exemplar proved itself capable of extremely good accuracy within the confines of its sights, and it is pleasant with all but the heaviest Magnum ammo. The overall quality is one that is seldom seen these days. The trigger is outstanding, and the sixth shot is certainly a welcome addition. And of course, the three-inch, Goldilocks barrel and the beefy frame really make this revolver something special.

To paraphrase myself, revolvers will work if you’re willing to make them work. This one will probably work better than most, and it probably won’t take quite as much work as most. Though reports were mixed on the “new model” Cobras, the King Cobra is truly a phenomenal fighting revolver. The Colt King Cobra has an MSRP of $899, and I see them going for about that on Gunbroker. Honestly though, my exemplar seems to punch well above that weight class. If I didn’t know better you could tell me this gun cost a third more than that and I’d probably believe you.

The bottom line is that this is a damn fine revolver. Had the King Cobra been an option when I initially entered the revolver market I daresay it would have been at the top of my list, provided aftermarket support made it a feasible carry option, and there’s a good chance I’d still be carrying it today.

†We have heard some anecdotal reports of poor accuracy with this load, and will be conducting some further testing of the .38 Special HST in the future.

††Because of this disparity, Mike and I have some additional testing planned to explore the accuracy differential between .38 Special and .357 Magnum loads from .357 Magnum revolvers. The questions raised in this footnote (and the footnote above it) probably merit benching the guns and doing some true inherent accuracy testing.

Find more great content like this at RevolverGuy.com!

This article was written by Justin Carroll

What’s the best ammunition for small .357 Magnum revolvers?

There are two sides of the debate over shooting and carrying .357 Magnum ammunition in a small revolver. Both sides seem to be a bit dogmatic in their position, and I’ve been confronted with this a couple of times recently. I carry a J-Frame revolver as my primary defensive arm, and I carry it loaded with ammunition headstamped “.357 MAG”. I am a man who can appreciate a little nuance and I generally shy away from generalizations, so here are my thoughts.

WARNING: I’m about to take a hard right into revolver-geek territory. Proceed with caution.

Side A: “You can’t Control a Magnum…”

The first side of this debate says you cannot carry magnum ammunition in a revolver. No ifs, ands, or buts. This side seems to have the most acceptance, and I don’t mean to suggest that this bit of conventional wisdom didn’t come from somewhere. In most cases magnum ammunition in a small revolver is uncontrollable and unnecessarily loud. I tend to come down on this side…mostly. But obviously not completely because I carry magnums, so let’s look at the other side of this coin.

Side B: “In a gunfight, You won’t Notice…”

There are also those that completely ignore convention and go the other direction, saying, “in a gunfight, you won’t notice the recoil.” I find this idea curious. It seems to suggest that the biggest concern is noticing the physical pain imparted by recoil, or the psychological effect produced by the blast and muzzle flash.

On a popular firearms podcast I recently heard one of the hosts idiotically state that he carries full-power, 125-grain .357 Gold Dots in his LCR. These cartridges are on the higher end of the recoil spectrum. In an LCR this recoil is exaggerated, and this round isn’t known for wonderful performance in short barrels, anyway. It’s literally the worst of both worlds. There is also a person in my family who bought his wife an ultra-lightweight revolver. Along with it he bought two boxes of ammunition: one box of light-recoiling .38s, and a box of rip-roarin’ .357. You already know why, right?

I agree that in a life and death struggle, the discomfort imparted through recoil is not the biggest concern. I concede that you might even be able to ignore it. But, I am deeply concerned about ability to deliver rapid, accurate fire beyond that first round. I further believe this ability is impeded to an unacceptable extent by excessive recoil. Does the name on the box of ammo mean that that particular cartridge will produce unacceptable recoil, though?

Finding the Recoil Threshold

A few weeks ago I ran the Hardwired Tactical “Super Snubby Test” at the request of Chris Baker. This was his idea, and he had already run through the test with multiple guns and loads. I ran the test once each, with four different loads, then ran them all again with a different gun. Though the test dictates starting from the low-ready at all stages, I shot from concealment at the 10 and 5 yard lines, and from the low ready only at the 3. I am happy to report a passing score with all rounds up to and including my carry load (135 is considered “passing” out of a possible 150). My results are as follows:

	S&W 640	S&W 686**
Fed 130 FMJ .38 Spl	139	146
Rem UMC SJHP .38 Spl +P	138	146
Speer GDHP SB 135 .357*	136	143
Rem UMC JSP 125 .357	102	135

*This load is my daily carry load.
**I shot with the 686 only as a comparison.

Now, I don’t think this is the “end all, be all” of shooting tests, but I did glean a couple of things from it. With an all-steel gun there was very little difference with the .38 and .38 +P loads. There was some increase in blast and recoil with the .357 Short Barrel, but not to an unmanageable extent – my times were similar to those recorded for the .38s, and accuracy suffered only slightly.

The 125-grain Remington was a different experience entirely. This load was far more powerful than the others, and is what I imagine most people conjure of when they think of .357 Magnum ammo. The main problem was that the gun physically moved in my hands. After about every other shot I had to adjust my grasp. The recoil had caused the gun to jump “up” in my hand, breaking my firm, two-handed grip. This lack of purchase forced me to reacquire a firing grip before continuing the drill, and slowed my rate of fire. This is NOT the type of thing that you can just ignore, and ignoring the blast and recoil won’t change physics.

The massive movement of the little gun also made it hard to keep the gun on target. Reacquiring the sights (and for this drill sights are a necessity) took time and effort, and even with effort my strings suffered. This round is definitely well above my recoil management threshold. I definitely wouldn’t carry it in my 640. Though I eked out a passing score with the 686, the recoil and blast still made these JSPs less pleasant than the 640 with the Short Barrel Gold Dot.

Firing three strings of this ammunition through my 640 was a chore. My thumb ended up bruised and remained sore for a few days. I don’t rule out the possibility that this is the type of thing one could ignore in a gunfight – it may be possible. Where I could not ignore it is on the practice range. This would necessitate practicing with a round that produces much lighter recoil. I don’t think accustoming oneself to a soft shooting round, the carrying a harder-hitting one is a great idea.

Considerations

Before answering this question satisfactorily, we have to acknowledge a couple of things. First, there is great deal of disparity in what constitutes “magnum” ammunition. Magnum itself is nothing more than nomenclature – an marketing name from S&W and Winchester. There is no agreed upon definition of what comprises a magnum load or cartridge. Secondly, the guns that fire these cartridges come in a wide array of shapes, sizes, and weights. The third component of this triad is the shooter him- or herself.

The Ammunition: There are two variables in ammunition that contribute to recoil. First is bullet weight. Conventional, non-exotic bullets for the .357 Magnum are available in a wide range of weighs, from 110- to 200-grains. With all things being equal, a heavier bullet means heavier recoil. Velocity is the next factor to consider. Velocity in factory-produced ammunition may be below 1,100 feet per second (FPS) to over 1,600 FPS, or anywhere in between. Velocity will also be greatly influenced by barrel length.

The Gun: The next factor up for consideration is the gun itself. There is no shortage of sub-factors to consider in this one either, but the chief factors are weight and grip. The heavier the gun is, the more it helps to mitigate recoil. Larger grips also generally help in recoil management by allowing your hands to achieve more surface area and a firmer grasp on the gun. For many “larger” equates to “longer” but I also firmly believe the width of the grips is important. Thicker grips, especially on a J-Frame or equivalent, help to get more of your palms onto the panels.

The Shooter: Finally, there is some consideration for the shooter. I hesitate to point this one out because at one point or another we have all probably held the belief that we are impervious to the effects of recoil. I am slightly embarrassed to admit that I stoked my first J-Frame (a 3″ Model 60) with hot-rod .357 ammo because…well, because I was gifted with the naivete of youth. In any case, a more seasoned, trained shooter may be able to control more recoil effectively than a less experienced shooter.

The combination: Finding the right combination of ammunition, gun, and shooter is imperative. There are many revolvers that I would not wish to charge with the .357 Short Barrel load, and others that I would be comfortable with something a little stiffer. On the other hand, there are those who would be best served with milder .38s, even in a big gun like my 686. Finding a workable combination requires some due diligence, and some honestly with oneself.

The Bottom Line

Bottom line: bullet performance will probably have little effect in a fight, relative to your performance behind the gun. Telling the casual shooter to go with .38s is sound advice, as he or she probably has a lot of other things to worry about first. However, if you’re reading this blog, I assume you are a little more serious about revolvers than most. This is a nuanced question and I think it deserves a nuanced answer for those of us with the interest to pursue it.

If a couple of practical factors were different I might go with even lighter-recoiling ammo. My personal bottom line is: I can control this to an acceptable degree of speed and accuracy, I already own a ton of .357 Short Barrel Gold Dots, and it seems to perform well from both 2″ and 4″ barrels, covering all the revolvers I own. By extension it should also do well in a 3″ gun, should the day come when I can afford one.

There are several .357 Magnum loads, including the Winchester PDX1 and the Remington Golden Saber that expand and penetrate well while falling on the lighter side of the recoil curve. Don’t judge a cartridge by its headstamp. Shoot it and find out where your recoil threshold is – the point where speed and accuracy start to suffer to a point that any benefits of using the hotter round are negated.

Ultimately, it’s not the words stamped on the case that make a cartridge hard to handle. Likewise, it’s also not the “MAG” headstamp that ends fights, either. It is some combination of the stuff inside the case, the gun the case is shoved into, and the person firing it. It’s a complicated cocktail and it’s up to you to mix your own.

Find more great content like this at RevolverGuy.com!

This article was written by Justin Carroll

Author Bio: Justin Carroll is a former MARSOC Marine and veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Leaving service after eight years in the U.S. Marines, Justin continues his involvement with a variety of government agencies to this day. Justin began RevolverGuy.com in late 2016 with an simple idea: provide an source of high-quality information for revolver enthusiasts.

The NeoMag RASC (Revolver Ammunition Strip Concealment): A revolver revolution

It’s not often we see revolutions in the field of revolvers. Revolvers are revolvers, right? They work and work well. The revolver is still a very popular choice for concealed carry and revolver carriers have likely thought the market and technology for revolvers, has become stagnant. Well NeoMag, a company known for creating a concealed carry magazine system is now working on revolvers. They’ve given us the RASC, or Revolver Ammunition Strip Concealment, which is a pocketful of revolver revolution.

Breaking Down the RASC

The RASC is a very simple device that is made up of two components, a revolver speed strip, and an anodized aluminum handle and pocket clip. It will accommodate Speed Strips from Bianchi or Tuff Products Quik Strips. The RASC as a device has two screws that you loosen which allows you to remove the top of the RASC. You then insert the Speed Strip tab or handle and put the top back on lock it all down. The RASC also has a titanium pocket clip that can be removed and reversed for different shooters.

Currently, the RASC is only available for use with 38 Special/357 Magnum speed strips. These are the two most popular rounds for concealed carry with a revolver so it makes sense. Will more RASCs be added in the future? It’s likely, so keep an eye out.

The MSRP is 29.99 and its available here.

How It Works

It’s simple, once the strip is installed into the handle, load it, and put it in your pocket. The design of the pocket clip makes it look like nothing more than a pocket knife. The profile is no larger than a pocket knife and once it’s in your pocket it’s invisible. Better than just being concealed the RASC makes it easier to draw and reload the revolver from.

Speed Strips are great but without a pouch, pocket carry is a bit of a pain in the ass. Pouches are okay, but a bit big and ugly. The strips bounce around a bit, the rounds can fall out of the strip, and can be difficult to retrieve.

The RASC acts as both a means to conceal the Speed Strip and as an extended handle. Speed Strips are often small, thin, and somewhat difficult to grasp. Even harder when it comes to drawing them out of the pocket.

Carry and Concealment

Carrying the Neomag RASC is very easy and as I mentioned its quite easy to conceal. It does render your pocket a bit useless. Tossing in a cell phone, keys, or more can tangle up the RASC so make sure you have the room to do so. The RASC is comfortable, no poking, no prodding, and it’s easy to forget its there.

Even when seated the RASC doesn’t stand out or print through my pocket. It’s virtually invisible. The RASC is easy to carry in jeans, khakis, and shorts. The only time I ever saw any evidence of printing was in the pocket of the traditionally tighter female jeans and that was only when seated. That being said its hard to tell exactly what it is even when printing. Most folks won’t recognize revolver rounds in a line in the pocket.

The pocket clip is just long enough to conceal the rounds and is made of titanium so it’s not likely to bend and become useless without some effort on your part.

Reloading with the RASC

You reload the same way you would with a traditional Speed Strip, only now you are retrieving it from its vertical pocket position. The RASC itself acts as an outstanding handle that gives you a better grip and more control over the Speed Strip and makes it way easier to hold onto. Speed Strips and those little tabs are always a pain, and the addition of a handle makes them much easier to use.

There are a lot of ways to skin a cat and a lot of ways to reload a revolver. I hold the gun with the cylinder open in the palm of my non-firing hand and retrieve the RASC. I load two rounds twice and finish by topping off the last round of my 5 shot J frame. The RASC makes it easy to bend and strip the rounds from the Speed Strip without much hassle.

With the RASC I’m way faster on the reload, and the chances of me making a flub grabbing or gripping the Speed Strip is eliminated. My hands aren’t slipping, and I don’t fail to properly strip the rounds when reloading. If you are packing a revolver for any serious task I would strongly advise checking out the RASC.

Once the revolver is loaded I drop the strip and resume firing. A big benefit is the ability to quickly top a gun off. If I fire two shots I can eject the two empties and reload just two rounds with the RASC. The pocket clip design makes it easy to take off and put on without effort.

The Revolver Conundrum

The problem with revolvers is limited capacity so it’s more likely you’ll need a reload than if you were rocking a Glock. Another issue is the fact you can’t just slam a magazine into a revolver and keep shooting. You have to find a way to load a revolver quickly, and how to carry ammo to load that revolver. With a doubt, a technique is needed, but technology plays a part as well.

Speed loaders are great but hard to conceal, and worse than that you can’t top off a revolver with a speed loader. It’s all or nothing. Also, speedloaders and J frames can be a bit of a pain with the little clearance between the cylinder and grip they can get hung up.

When it comes to revolvers I like to think to think it’s less Speed Strips versus Speed Loaders and more like Speed Strips and Speed Loaders. Why not have both? If you don’t want to carry two devices I’d recommend a Speed Strip, and these days I’d recommend a Speed Strip with the RASC.