testtest

Kahr CW9 9 mm lugar

As the two other members above have written, Kahr's pistols have typically been held in high regard.

They're not as well-known in the industry, but they make quality pistols which are priced accordingly.

The PM9 (and its full-steel sister, the MK9) was there well before the single-stack Sub-Compact 9mm craze of the last 5 or so years. With the current follow-on "one-and-a-half stack" higher-capacity guns, though, one could argue that the single-stack Kahrs are somewhat out-of-date. That said, the PM9 and CW9 -along with other single-stackers- do make for a pocket-able 9mm pistol, where the newer higher-capacity variants can be either too large and/or too heavy to be able to do the same.

What really sets the Kahrs apart are their excellent double-action only triggers. The path and its characteristics are akin to a well-tuned DAO revolver's (if a bit lighter in pull weight), so shooters who are fans of that particular genre often find easy transitions to these auto pistols.

Depending on the individual shooter, they may find weapons manipulation more demanding, due to the smaller size of these pistols.

Kahr products also enjoy typically excellent customer-service, due to their Made in the U.S.A. status, if not also simply the Moons' views on firearms ownership.
 
Oooh! Forgot to add:

Kahrs still seem to require a bit of old-school break-in, even today. Their Owner's Manual recommends ~200 rounds for break-in before assessing for truly reliable operation, and many owners have reported that this is accurate.

I can't say this for-sure, as my PM9 was purchased second-hand from a gentleman who'd already put about 300 rounds on it.

----

For any smaller handgun, my recommendation has been and always will be for the potential buyer to try to get his/her hands on it for some live-fire testing prior to making the purchase. For as much as "fit" is crucial to factors such as natural-point-of-aim and felt-recoil for a bigger gun, it becomes all that much more magnified, ironically as the gun gets smaller in one's hands.

When I looked to purchase a Sub-Compact single-stack 9, really the only players in the game were the PM9 (and MK9) and the Kel-Tec PF-9. I took both the PM9 and the PF-9 to the range, and the PM9 was noticeably *less* work for me to shoot, versus the PF-9, and that's what I based my purchase off of.

Years later, my buddy got a Glock 43 that he at the time wasn't so fond of - I picked it up and absolutely loved it. This, versus my experience with the just-as, if not more, popular S&W M&P Shield.
 
Last edited:
Oooh! Forgot to add:

Kahrs still seem to require a bit of old-school break-in, even today. Their Owner's Manual recommends ~200 rounds for break-in before assessing for truly reliable operation, and many owners have reported that this is accurate.

I can't say this for-sure, as my PM9 was purchased second-hand from a gentleman who'd already put about 300 rounds on it.
Ok thanks
 
^ I'm not sure which one. It's all tied to the Moon family, both varying Churches and the company, but I haven't delved much into the who's and what's. :)
 
Oooh! Forgot to add:

Kahrs still seem to require a bit of old-school break-in, even today. Their Owner's Manual recommends ~200 rounds for break-in before assessing for truly reliable operation, and many owners have reported that this is accurate.

I can't say this for-sure, as my PM9 was purchased second-hand from a gentleman who'd already put about 300 rounds on it.

----

For any smaller handgun, my recommendation has been and always will be for the potential buyer to try to get his/her hands on it for some live-fire testing prior to making the purchase. For as much as "fit" is crucial to factors such as natural-point-of-aim and felt-recoil for a bigger gun, it becomes all that much more magnified, ironically as the gun gets smaller in one's hands.

When I looked to purchase a Sub-Compact single-stack 9, really the only players in the game were the PM9 (and MK9) and the Kel-Tec PF-9. I took both the PM9 and the PF-9 to the range, and the PM9 was noticeably *less* work for me to shoot, versus the PF-9, and that's what I based my purchase off of.

Years later, my buddy got a Glock 43 that he at the time wasn't so fond of - I picked it up and absolutely loved it. This, versus my experience with the just-as, if not more, popular S&W M&P Shield.
I read that I guess if I get her I have feed her a hundred at a time 2 range trips too bad hahaha 😝
 
Back
Top