TexasCHLforum.com

terryg wrote:I guess I was just surprised when I tried the Kahr's. Given the price, I was expecting a really smooth trigger. Granted I haven't actually fired either of them - just fingered them in the store. But I remember thinking that one of them had a much worse trigger than the PF-9. It felt really gritty - I don't remember which model. And the other was pretty close to the same pull and weight as the PF9's. But these were also display models and that can make all of the difference in the world.

Lubrication might have had something to do with it, and break-in might have also. I bought my first Kahr, the PM9, used and the trigger was already well broken in and very smooth. The trigger on my wife's CW9 is not quite as smooth although it is still pretty good. I've heard from others that breaking in makes a world of difference, so I'm assuming that hers will improve over time. But realistically, even if it never did, it would be just fine.

mrvmax wrote:Through the Kahr NRA instructor program the Kahr mk9 is $410. The PF9 is much less but not as refined. The pf9 trigger is better than the LC9.

I forgot about that program. My NRA Basic Pistol Instructor's class instructor told us about it. I'll have to remember it the next time I buy a gun.

terryg wrote:Morgan,

Have you tried a PF-9 yet? I know you have had a hard time getting them in. I know a lot people think they are too cheap, but I have had no misfeeds. I did have some magazine drops while firing when I used the pinky extension - but once I stopped using the extension it has been fine. I added a Houge Hand-all Jr. to the grip which increased the shooting comfort greatly.

While I like most things about the PM9 and the CW9, I actually prefer the trigger on the PF-9 to either of them.

Is that trigger better than on a Kel-Tec P3AT? I ask because I couldn't stand that trigger and finally sold the gun, and the one PF9 I have dry-fired seemed gritty to me.

Gun Tests magazine did a recent comparison of the PF9 to the LC9, and they preferred the Kel-Tec. http://www.gun-tests.com/issues/23_4/fe ... 868-1.html (note: you have to be a subscriber to be able to read the entire article). Their final reasoning was that although the Ruger had a nicer fit/finish to it than the Kel-Tec, it was 2.5 oz heavier, and $111 more.

In this review (http://www.gun-tests.com/issues/23_6/fe ... 886-1.html) of the Kahr CM9, they said (again, you have to be registered to see this part):

We really liked the Kahr CM9. We tried it in rapid-fire against the same-size Kimber Solo and our previous favorite, the slightly larger Kel-Tec PF-9. In short, there is no way the Kimber, as delivered, could match our results with the Kahr CM9 in our hands, because the Kimber consistently spun sideways after the first shot, and also gave us a very painful gouge on our third finger. Several times our shooter, in extreme haste, missed the small safety of the Kimber and was unable to get off a shot. The Kimber’s trigger was excellent, but most of us preferred the Kahr for hand comfort, control, and its superior ability to land multiple fast shots. The Kel-Tec PF-9 was about as fast and about as controllable as the Kahr, or perhaps a bit easier to control because its grip is just a little larger. However, with heavy loads the PF-9 does get the shooter’s attention.

Our Team Said: Bottom line, of all the small nines tested by our Idaho team thus far (the Sig Sauer P290 is next), we like the Kel-Tec PF-9 the best with the Kahr CM9 next. The $565 price of the Kahr will always tend to keep it in second place, compared to the Kel-Tec’s very low price of $333. By the way, now that we’ve tested the Kahr CM9, we see no pressing reason to buy the more costly PM9.

My own perception is this: Given the price difference, the Kel-Tec is probably the better deal. I don't know what PF9s are actually going for, but CM9s can probably be found in the $450 range....so perhaps the price difference isn't quite as dramatic as when comparing MSRPs. Also, I haven't held both pistols side by side, but the CM9 is a 6+1 capacity pistol, compared to the PF9's 7+1 capacity—which puts the PF9 squarely in competition with the CW9. That means that it isn't really a pocket pistol—which the CM9/PM9/MK9 most definitely is; so we're talking about somewhat different pistols to begin with. I have compared the PF9 to the CW9 side by side, although I haven't fired the PF9, but I have dry-fired both pistols side by side. The CW9 is 3.1 oz heavier than the PF9. I've measured my wife's CW9 trigger on a Lyman digital trigger pull gage, and it averages out to 6 lbs even, compared to the 5 lbs claimed by Kel-Tec for the PF9; but seat of the pants, I couldn't tell any difference in pull weight, and the Kahr trigger was not as gritty. The one thing I really liked about the Kahr was the tactile feel. The pronounced checking on front and back straps makes it very controllable under recoil....even the smaller "M" series pistols. Little things, like fit and finish, were of higher quality on the Kahr. I'm not saying that the PF9 is a bad pistol. For the price, it is probably a great pistol. But to some extent, you do get what you pay for. I could have saved money by buying a PF9, but I don't have any regrets about buying either of our Kahrs.

ryanr1299 wrote:I have to agree. A buddy of mine just picked up an LC9...I can see why, because until you shoot it the thing is awesome. I love the size, look, and feel. It's just a pain to shoot, though. I couldn't hit anything with it. The trigger is just too long. If you're looking for a small single-stack 9mm, the Kahr is the way to go.

I have a Kahr PM9 and I love it. It is very easy to shoot, and fairly accurate to boot. My wife has a CW9, and that is a great little pistol too. My next .45 will be a CW45.