I've owned several over the years. The only one I've had that was a problem was a P380 that I could not get to function reliably. The only one I didn't enjoy shooting was a P40 that recoiled too violently for my taste. My favorite was an early PM9 that was my off duty gun for many years. It was easy to carry and very accurate for a pistol that small. I carried Glocks on duty, and ultimately I couldn't get past the Kahr's lack of trigger reset.

I've had many Kahrs over the years. The best I have had was the K9 and T9 . I have a PM9 now and the still have the T9 as well. Never had a problem with any of them except my first one which was a P380, I never could get that one to run. I think it is important to follow Kahr's suggested break in procedure.

T9

I've had a CW40 and 3 CW9's over the years.

I only bought the 40 because the LGS was out of 9's at the time. I sold the CW40 in the classifieds here when I finally got my hands on a CW9.

I traded my first CW9 (for what, I don't remember), I gave the second one away as a gift and picked up my latest one when Summit Gun Broker had them on sale for $269. I plan on keeping this one.

I've never had a problem with any of my Kahr's. I love the smooth trigger, I shoot them well and I carry it often. I've lusted after a black K9 for many years and I'll probably pick one up sooner or later.

My CM9 never jammed (I read/followed the recommended slide-cycle break-in).

****BUT.......the damn polymer slide rails left shavings from the slide cycling every time I used it. Lost confidence in it after that.

It's too bad, I REALLY wanted to like it at the time, when it was at the front of the pack in the size:capacity ratio game. With the advent of the P365 etc., I think Kahrs are an interesting footnote in the evolution of the Micro 9.....

I have a P9 I bought used, so I have no idea of what the break in was like. It has been flawlessly reliable. I will probably buy a steel framed version at some point in the future if I can find one for sale at a decent price.

I don't understand why they've never made an Aluminum framed gun.

I've got a pair of PM9s and a P380 and have had no problems with them. My EDC was a PM9 until my P365 took that job. I still carry them on occasion, especially the P380.

I have a PM9 that I bought new in 2005. It took about 200 rds before it broke in after that it has been flawless. The trigger on mine is 7lbs and it feels like a good double action revolver. I have no complaints at all with my Kahr.

I really like the triggers on the Kahrs. Very long but very smooth. Revolver like is a good description. I shoot them well.

If I can't conceal a full size gun I carry a Kahr CM45 and have for years.
I think the long smooth trigger pull is perfect for a concealed weapon.

A few posts here mention some issues with the P380 and Kahr's instructions for the break-in period regarding reliability. I've read this before and have wondered why this is. The P380 is a really nice looking pistol but I have never bought one based on that.

quote:

Originally posted by kaschi:
A few posts here mention some issues with the P380 and Kahr's instructions for the break-in period regarding reliability. I've read this before and have wondered why this is. The P380 is a really nice looking pistol but I have never bought one based on that.

Basically, Kahr states that all their pistols should be run for a couple hundred rounds for a break-in period.

For most people the pistol might fail a lot (which is aggravating) during that 200-round break-in process before it runs reliably and consistently, but afterwards it tends to runs perfectly. That being said, for some people, even after 200 rounds it won't and that's a lot of not-cheap ammo to go through to find out you have a lemon, which is even more aggravating!

As to the P380/CW380 (same gun with negligible differences), I personally find that the biggest obstacle to reliability for Kahr's 380 series are .380 ammo loose-tolerance construction differences when used in the P380/CW380. The extractor claw and other tolerances are very tight, with a very sharp shoulder, and it does NOT like thicker rimmed .380 brass ammo. This causes failures to feed whereas the round jams partially going into the chamber because the rim of the brass is gouged into by the sharp corner of the extractor and/or the slide doesn't go all the way home because the act of forcing the extractor onto the thicker brass rimmed ammo does not leave enough force in the recoil spring to get the slide all the way into battery. You rarely see any one complain about the P380/cw380 about ejection, or stove piping, or similar. It is mostly about jamming while feeding and/or the slide having to be whacked on the back to get it to go all the way into battery. AT least that's my thought on the matter concerning the P380/CW380 series.

I do have the CW380 and as long as the 380 ammo has thin rim brass, it runs like a champ. FYI: when I say "thin rim brass" it means the when I visibly compared other brands to for example; Fiocchi Extreme XTP 380 ammo (which I had bought a couple hundred rounds of because the Internet said the XTP bullet in .380 was one of the best gel block performing rounds) were jamming the hell out of my CW380 after 300+ rounds with cheap ball ammo. Side by side with other 380 brass showed the Fiocchi brass with a bigger bottom bevel and resultant thicker overall rim. The extractor's leading sharp corner of my cw380 would dig into the rim of the thicker brass instead of allowing the brass rim to slide under the claw of the extractor, this gouging led to the rounds stopping feeding going into the chamber if the claw dug in too deeply, or if brass managed to finally slip past the sharp extractor corner (all the brass showed shiny gouge marks on the rims regardless, and associated brass shavings in pistol), the slide would still stop 1/4 inch from going home and need a whack on the rear of the slide to go completely into battery. While it was nice to find out why my gun was having issues, rather than figure out a way to make it work with thicker rim ammo, it was more efficient to simply find thinner rim defensive ammo it would work with. I don't need this pocket pistol to be as ammo insensitive as say my Glock. It has a particular lightweight pocket carry role, not a range gun role, and if it only shot one particular good defensive ammo reliably, that would be fine (shoots many brands fine, but making the point).

I also use the Magguts +1 spring/follower in the magazines and settled on Ruger/Polycase ARX .380 defensive ammo because this ammo appears to do very well in Iternet Gel tests, has thin rims and thusly zero feeding (or any other) problems in my cw380, and is easily available locally.

quote:

Originally posted by TheMan:
Mind sharing what you’ve found to be reliable in your CW380?

I have a CW380 now and have had great success with the following:

Range/FMJ:

Prvi Partizan/PPU FMJ
Aguila FMJ

Carry-Self Defense/JHP:

Hornady Critical Defense JHP

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by TheMan:
Mind sharing what you’ve found to be reliable in your CW380?

I have a CW380 now and have had great success with the following:

Range/FMJ:

Prvi Partizan/PPU FMJ
Aguila FMJ

Carry-Self Defense/JHP:

Hornady Critical Defense JHP

Thanks! I'll get some of the Aguila for the range. I run the Underwood .380 +P 90g Xtreme Penetrator for Carry/SD, and it has a very thin rim and has never failed me. I like the 1200fps/288 ft lbs specs on it. I do run Hornady CD in my 9mms.

I have never owned one. I pretty much only buy Sig Sauers and H&Ks

I’ve never owned a polymer Kahr but I thoroughly enjoy my K9 & T9. In fact, I recently took advantage of a Galco sale and got a nice holster that works for both of them. I still carry the K9. I had an MK9 but sold it long ago. There was nothing wrong with it but it just didn’t work well for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
The steel K9 is an interesting piece of unique engineering with build quality, as long as u don't get a lemon.

Have you heard of a "lemon" K9? Offhand, I haven't. All the problems seem to be with the micro-sized polymer guns...

My K9 has been great and reliable with everything I've put through it, probably 2-3k rounds.

Sure. I know about a full stainless K9 where the "plating" in the chmaber all came out in little flakes, and caked up inside the firing pin channel. Kahr denied any of their barrels had plating defects, even though it was all over the internet. They said they didn't plate the barrels themselves, they sent them out, but still denied they knew about any plating problems. They eventually replaced the barrel, but the replacement barrel wasn't a new barrel, and the apparent re-plating job was not uniform. But the gun always went bang, before, during, and after the barrel plating defects. This gun was originally a NYC Police Dept trade in IIRC, with a long pull trigger, which I replaced with a Kahr short pull trigger before the barrel plating issue cropped up. Even with this problem I consider the K9 an excellent carry piece.

I like Kahr pistols a lot. I carried a MK9 for years, incredible trigger and very low recoil. I think 8 plus years ago they had the market cornered on small autos. Now with Glock and all the others there are so many other options available.

I haven't really noticed Kahr pistols getting disparaged all that much, but I'll offer my opinions on why some people may have issues with them. First, they are striker fired pistols that have a long revolver-like trigger pull and long reset. That turns some people off. Second, on the polymer Kahrs, a lot of people assume the steel slide is riding on only polymer rails. In fact, the polymer Kahr pistols have small steel rails inserted in the lower dust cover area of the frame and at the rear of the frame for the slide to ride on. The polymer "guide" rails don't really bear the load from what I can tell. I have a pretty old PM9 with several thousand rounds (lost count) that is going strong, so it doesn't bother me either way. It works. Third, Kahr pushes their break-in period. I can't remember how many rounds they say it takes to break one in, but it was somewhere between 200 to 500 rounds. I think that bothers some people. The only Kahr I had that had any issues during the "break-in" period was my most expensive one, a T9, that had some intermittent feeding issues. The issues did work themselves out, but it was irritating considering the price of the gun. Finally, I think Kahr's slides are hard for a lot of people to rack properly. They also recommend using the slide stop lever to release the slide instead of slingshotting it. I think some people have issues with this.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts on why some people may "disrespect" Kahrs. I personally think they're decent guns, and I still have a PM9 and P380 that have been very reliable, although I don't carry them much anymore.

Over the years, I've owned (and still own) 3 Kahrs. The first I bought used, a P380. The seller dumped it as it wouldn't run reliably for him after 200 break in rounds. I ran another 150 rounds to break it in, flawless since. This has been used for situations I need deep concealment, but am considering a Seecamp to take it's place in that situation. The Seecamp 380 has a stout recoil, much more than the P380, but the Seecamp 32 may just work.

The second, a PM9, was my primary carry for several years until replaced by a P938 (which has since been replaced by a P365). This, too, was purchased used, but has been flawless.

The third, a used K9, has been flawless for me, also.

The triggers on all 3 are great, but I prefer the DAK trigger on my SIG's, so take my preference with a grain of salt.

quote:

Why do Kahr pistol get disrespected so often?

quote:

Originally posted by got2hav1:
Kahr's suggested break in procedure [/url]

^^

I have a fair few guns, and in no other owners manual is there an implication that the guns aren't good-to-go right out of the box.

I bought my first PM9, and it was horrible - jams, failures to feeds, failures to eject. It is the only gun I bought that I no longer have. However, I didn't do the break-in procedure on that one.

But I liked the idea, and when the gun actually fed and ejected rounds - a sporadic occurrence - it was a nice shooter. So, years later I reconsidered, did my in-depth research and found out about the break-in issue.

I got another one, brought it home and -never having shot it - kept it empty at my desk and cycled it whenever I had down-time. Broken-in, it was flawless, from the very first trip to the range. Reliable enough to become my concealed-carry pistol, even.

I've worked at a number of manufacturing companies. There is no need to make customers do your final production step. My advice to Kahr would be to either 1) up the design so break-in is no longer necessary, or 2) do the break-in at the factory - at the end of the line, put the guns in fixtures and have robots cycle the actions - boxing them up only after they're broken in.