CW9?
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
"Up" or "down," it has a place. Depends on your goals. If you want rock-solid performance and don't mind the heavier weight, the K9 is great. The "P" series changes the ergonomics a bit, and they're lighter. The PM9 is quite a bit smaller. I've loved the shape of the K9's grip for years, have had a PM9, and have a CW9. I think the PM9 is the package to beat, in terms of overall features for a concealable, pocket-sized 9mm.
Joined
·
20,644 Posts
The CW series uses conventional rifling instead of polygonal, front sight isn't dovetailed, there's a little less machining on the slide, and the lettering isn't as nicely done. For the intended purpose of this gun, I consider the savings worth it. If I had the extra money, sure, I'd spring for the P9, but I'm quite happy with the CW9.
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
First I wanted the MK9, then decided the PM9 would be ideal, but when the CW9 suddenly appeared on the shelf I decided to "settle". I have absolutely no regrets. The size, for me, is a bit of an issue as I was replacing a KelTec P3AT that I often "boot carried". I have decided to just work around the boot carry issue and enjoy the Kahr CW9. I'm still amazed at the trigger and ease of follow-up shots. The only thing I really have issue with is the plastic, pinned front sight. It would be nice to have the option of installing night sights. Other than that, the standard rifling, plain roll stamping rather than engraving, and single magazine in the box just weren't that big of a deal breaker to me.
surv
surv
Joined
·
286 Posts
I have a lot of toys, but I keep coming back to the CW9. it is very thin, very light, and goes bang every time. IWB it is like you have nothing at all, and I throw a seecamp into my pocket for BU. I know it is not a lot of firepower compared to other options, but I can forget completely about printing with that thing at a 15 degree cant. And in Florida heat, it makes a difference to carry a light weapon.
Joined
·
454 Posts
I have gone thru quite a few carry guns lately looking for the one that felt right... XD9 SubCompact...loved the way it shoots..just too thick, Glock 39 shot great...just too thick for me.., PPS never could warm up to it...no complaints...shot good..just too spaceage looking for my tastes...CW40 too much recoil...kept thinking that if it was a 9mm it would be perfect...got a CW9 at my local dealer and couldn't be happier...I have shot some of the tightest groups with this pistol... once you get used to the trigger it is very easy to hit your target with it..mine had a defective mag when I got it (wouldn't drop free..functioned fine otherwise) and Kahr happily replaced it...mine has never hiccuped on me...No FTF's or FTE's.. best deal for the money in my opinion...I had the CW and a MK9 both on the counter at the same time and I couldn't justify the higher price for the MK...Robbie
Joined
·
1,849 Posts
.
There is no compromise on quality here at all, the CW series just does not have as many features like polygonal rifling, front sight is pinned not dovetailed, and less machining on the slide and it has a MIM slide stop. The quality is exactly the same as with other Kahr handguns just a few less featuers, hince the lower price. I love my CW Kahr just like I love my PM9.
Joined
·
5,769 Posts
I have a CW9 and really like it... I bought mine as a experiment, I wasn't sure if I'd like the Kahr's so I didn't want to spend alot of money. It has become one of my favorites.... I'm not sure about Polygonal rifling, except you can't shoot lead rounds thru it, as you can with standard rifling... if you reload.
Joined
·
7,421 Posts
I approached my first Kahr exactly the same way. Had no worries about the polymer side of it, I have owned a Glock 23 for years, but The pistol just felt tight as Hell and wasn't sure about the function. After my first range session, I would recommend this pistol to any experienced shooter. I say that only because, due to the tight tolerances associated with the design, it can be a little finicky during the break-in. As a first pistol for SD, some might find it a little difficult to operate during the break-in period. Best $400 and change I have spent on a pistol ever.:hand10:
Note: I've heard some say, "I don't give into the break-in for a pistol, they should work outa the box" I would say, They do! It was shot and tested at the factory. Allot of mechanical/machined items you might purchase requires some break-in time. New automobiles ask for a 500 to 10000 mile break-in, seems reasonable enough. :bier:
Joined
·
1,079 Posts
If you aren't too worried about night sights, the CW9 is a good value. If you are planning on getting night sights, I'd go with a P9 or PM9 instead. The CW series have a pinned in front sight that will make putting in a night sight a job for a gunsmith; they will have to cut a dovetail. It's like buying a stripped down version of a car that normally has power windows, sunroof, etc.
Joined
·
895 Posts
when i bought my Kahr CW9 i was undecided between the Glock 19/26,Kel Tec PF9 and the Kahr CW9/PM9..the CW9/PM9 just felt better in the hand and were lighter/thinner then the Glocks..the gun shop was out of the Kel Tecs so i went with the Kahr CW9..The price differance between the two Kahrs was around $300.00..since i had no experience with Kahrs before i went with less expensive CW9..i did have one issue with the gun that Kahr promptly resolved..only time will tell how good the gun turns out to be..
Joined
·
1,678 Posts
In practical terms, the polygonal barrel offers a better bullet to barrel seal, therefore allowing less propellant gas blow by. This means higher pressures pushing the bullet... this translates to higher bullet velocity, and more velocity equals more power/ penetration for the any given round.
The manufacturers claim the barrel life is longer.
I think the polygonal barrel is easier to clean too.
My CW9 experience was not great. After about 1000 rounds and several attempts to correct problems, it was put into the "never carry" pile due to light strikes.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Join the discussion
