My take on the S&W 637 vs. Kimber Solo CDP

[littlebluevette]

I took both my S&W 637 and my Kimber Solo CPD to the range this morning and here is my take on these two great guns. I have put over 3,000 rounds thru each of them.

Conceal ability... The Solo has a slight edge because it is slightly smaller and thinner.

Weight... The 637 is two ounces lighter than the Solo

Ammunition... The Solo 6+1 vs. 5 for the 637 Plus the Solo is much faster to reload.

Recoil....It is a close call. They both bark a bit but I think the 637 has the stronger bite.

Grip... I would call it a tie. The Solo is easier to grip than the (pictured) 637 but I have another 637 that has laser sights which is easier to grip than the solo.

Trigger... The trigger on the Solo feels both shorter and lighter than the 637 and gives it the edge expecially on fast round shooting.

Sights... The sights on both guns are great but the Tritium night sights on the Solo give it the edge.

Laser... Both my Solo CDP has laser sights and my other (non-pictured) 637 has factory installed Crimson laser sights. Other than looking good and bragging rights both seem to be a waste of monehy. Save your money and buy a good set of night sights instead.

Accuracy... It is a toss. They are both much more accurate than I am.

Maintenance... The 637 is simple and can be cleaned in less than half the time of the Solo.

Reliability... Both the Solo and the 637 have been relialable for me but I have to give the 637 the edge on this because of the simplicity of design.

Price... The cost of the Solo is close to 3x the cost of the 637. But what does that matter because the greatest long term cost of either gun is going to be the price of the amnunition.

Summary... I think the all around winner depends on an individuals personal preferences. These are my two favorite weapons. Both are excellent and do a great job. But for me, I have to give the slight edge to the Solo for a deep conceal self defense purposes.

 

[orionengnr]

Maintenance... The 637 is simple and can be cleaned in less than half the time of the Solo.

Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
The revolver has five cylinder holes plus the barrel.
Takes me at least as long to clean a revolver as any semi-auto.

Other than that, good report.

 

[340PD]

Great review. Thanks.

 

[skt239]

Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
The revolver has five cylinder holes plus the barrel.
Takes me at least as long to clean a revolver as any semi-auto.

Other than that, good report.

Agreed. I've always found cleaning a revolver to be labor of love... I disagree with you about the Crimson Trace, I think they are worth every penny and then some.

Good report.

 

[jem375]

My son bought a S&W 637 for carry when he is on his Harley and is that an accurate little handgun... He really likes it and I am getting ready to get a Ruger LCR 357 Mag. myself...

 

[Haywood]

Give me a SP101, LCR357, and a 442 J-Frame for backup anytime.

 

[Creature]

Grip... I would call it a tie. The Solo is easier to grip than the (pictured) 637 but I have another 637 that has laser sights which is easier to grip than the solo.

Trigger... The trigger on the Solo feels both shorter and lighter than the 637 and gives it the edge expecially on fast round shooting.

Reliability... Both the Solo and the 637 have been relialable for me but I have to give the 637 the edge on this because of the simplicity of desig

Grip: the grips on a 637 can be changed to many different materials and profiles. Boot Grip, Combat grip, target grip, etc. The Solo is far more limited. Basically its down to the slabs that are available. Clearly the edge here goes to the 637.

Trigger: The kimber does not offer a SA trigger. The ability to manipulate the 637's hammer for a SA trigger is why the 637 is the winner here.

Reliability: The 637 offers a "second strike" capability. The Solo does not.

For a personal protection CCW, in my eyes, the 637 is by far the best choice.

 

[SwampWolf]

Reliability: The 637 offers a "second strike" capability.

Well, yes, but a "second" strike delivered to a specific recalcitrant round on any five-shot da revolver would require pulling the trigger five more times in order to get back to it (or, even more time-consuming, I guess you could manually rotate the cylinder back to the offending round and have at it again).

 

[Creature]

I understand the "technical" aspect of true second strike capability on a dud round, but the reality is that in a life & death, "shoot now or else situation", the 637 is clearly superior simply because the Kimber would require a clearing drill to get it back in action and get a shot off. In many situations, you may not get that chance.

All things considered, the most "reliable" semi-auto pistol is completely reliant on the cartridge in the chamber to cycle the weapon. If it's a dud round, the non-second-strike-capable semiauto, which are so very plentiful in this day and age of modern striker-fired semiautos, is out of action until a fresh round is manually cycled into the chamber.

Personally, I am not willing to chance my life on a single point of failure, which is what it boils down too when I am carrying a semi-auto. I can very easily foresee a situation in civilian life where a single shot is all I might get in order to save my own life or those of my loved ones. The ability of the revolver to move on to another cartridge by simply pulling the trigger again...versus having to manually rack the bad round out of the chamber when using a semiautomatic pistol is what I am looking for in a "truly reliable" CCW weapon.

I long ago put my semiauto away in favor of a snubnosed revolver.