Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Kahr CM9 vs. Ruger LC9

I'm tinkering with the idea of looking into one of the following pistols as they are small and seem to have decent reviews. I don't like the DA only setup on the Ruger as I hear it fires with the trigger further back. The Kahr seems to have more mixed reviews due to being the cheaper version of the PM9 and seems to rust.

What would you recommend for an inexpensive concealable setup that is _small_. I'd like to stick with a single-stack mag as the Glock arena starts getting thick in width.

Don't own a Ruger LC9 so couldn't give an opinion one way or the other. But here is my review of my Kahr CM9 from last year.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...ds/Kahr/Search/true/Kahr_CM9#Post7180533

Been shooting and carrying a CW9 more than the CM9 since I like the little bit longer grip, but so far no issues at all with the CM9.

My wife has both, and prefers the LC9. I prefer the Kahr, Go figure!! memtb

I only have shot the LC9. Bought two of them to keep stashed in different rooms of the house.
Ran about 200 rounds of factory ammo through both and not a bobble from either. Highly accurate as well. Recoil is a little stiff due to its light weight.
But the two I bought are likely pistols I will never sell.

I've shot the LC9 of a buddy, owned the CM9 and have a CW9. I prefer the trigger on and width of the Kahr. The CM9 went away only due to grip length like Jim said above.

I dont need an uber small gun for the pockets of the pants I wear and about any Kahr simply disappears in a belt holster so do me the longer grip wins.

From everything I've seen Kahrs are baby Glocks in an even smaller scale almost to a "T"

Probably not much of a testimony. When my daughter was ready for a handgun, through some friends, she tried the LC9 and CM9. She couldn't decide on either one. Later she handled a CW9 at a gun store and she took to it right away.

She shot very well with it at the range, When it was my turn to put some rounds thru it, I did pretty good, but not as good as her.

I bought one too.

I prefer the double stack availability of the Glock G26 at that size. Plus the ability to put a Glock 19 or 22 mag into it as a reload option.

I do appreciate the slim feel of the khar and the ruger. I like the lines on the ruger over the cw. The PM 9 that khar makes has the nicest lines of them all but comes at a price.

Cool thread

I have had both, I sold the Kahr and kept the LC9.. I just like the LC9 better. Seams to be well built, I have about 500 rounds thru it with several types of ammo no malfunctions of any kind.

i have a bunch of kahrs including the one you are asking about.. its a fantastic gun. Built tight, and i am very happy with the performance.

I've fired both, but carry a Kahr PM9 (CW9 is essentially the same gun).

I compared the same two guns when looking for a small 9mm. I shot both the Ruger and the Kahr prior to deciding and liked the Kahr better. The Ruger felt a little too "square" to me, and I don't like magazine disconnects. But, the Ruger functioned and shot just fine--I just liked the Kahr better.

I ended up getting a PM9 (not the CM9), which is the same dimensions as the CM9. I have small hands and have no trouble gripping/shooting the Kahr. Felt recoil is less than what I expect from a pocket 9mm. I bought the PM9 instead of the CM9 only because I got a bit of a discount through Kahr's Instructor Program. I'd not hesitate to buy/carry the CM9. In fact, here's a chart, explaining the differences:



The "cheaper" parts on the CM9 aren't going to affect functionality. The biggest difference, as I see it, is the polygonal rifling--which many people don't like, anyway--and certainly wouldn't pay extra for.

You ask for recommendations. I say get the one you like. I don't see enough differences between the Ruger and the Kahrs to say that you're "less safe" with one versus the other.

Let us know what you get!

"The biggest difference, as I see it, is the polygonal rifling--which many people don't like, anyway--and certainly wouldn't pay extra for."

The only reason I would get the PM9 over the CM9 is the dovetailed front, makes changing the front sight out a lot easier, but for the price difference I might just get mine milled for the dovetailed sight if I decide to get night sights. Held but never shot the Ruger, I've got the CM9 & the CW45, like both for carry guns, for me the CM9 is pocketable... prefer the trigger over my Glocks and the slimness.

Jerry

Jerry,

Kahr will sell you trijicon night sights that fit the cm/cw series for $80. I have had them on 2 guns (still have 1) for several thousand rounds without issue.

devnull, I responded to your post several days ago, and really didn't give you much. Just that different people like different things. Upon rereading your post I thought I'd inject something off topic. I noted that "slim" was one of your criteria!! That said, I retired my CM9(I still like it),for a Springfield XDS 45ACP(9mm is also available). Very similar in width, marginally larger overall, and IMO a better trigger. They come with a fiber optic front(red or green interchangeable). The day I brought it home, I ran 100(230 grn.) hardball through it. While only shooting at 7 yrds. the first 60 rnds. could be easily covered with an open hand. Over the next 40rnds. I had an occasional "flyer" several inches out of group. I guess that while recoil wasn't bad, it did have a cumulative effect. The gun performed flawlessly, no fail to feeds, no fail to ejects! While I shot the CM9 well, for me the XDS 45 was better. I also feel a little better with a 45 over the 9MM. While a little off topic, I hope this may have helped. memtb

Kahr all the way, my mk9 is ultra accurate and ultra reliable. The PM and CM series also do their jobs and they do it quite well.

KAHR all the way because an extra uneeded safety on a gun this size is another thing to have to learn and train yourself to manipulate in a high adreline Crisis. Smoother (albeit longer) trigger as well.

We went down this road when looking for a compact 9 for my wife. We were VERY interested in the Ruger LC-9, hoping it was mostly an oversized LCP in 9mm. Upon looking it over first hand we discovered the safety and ultimately went with the Kel Tec PF-9 (which we have been exceedingly happy with, BTW) Might want to give that one a look, also. Uberlight, great shooter and the best trigger of the three by a wide margin.

Hmm...your experience with the Kel Tec PF9 trigger was vastly different than mine. I owned one PF9 and shot another. Both triggers were longer than my leg and heavy. I found the Kahr triggers (on the CW9, the CM9 and the PM9) much smoother.

VERY interesting. Possibly a pistol to pistol or maybe a manufacturing era difference? I know of several pistols that have undergone minor design changes without any fanfare or model # designation changes. Example, if I had waited one more year to but my RIA tac 10, I would have a slotted picatinny rail on the frame of my gun. Perhaps the trigger springs or levers on these guns has changed, or just a particular gun to gun difference.

Sherri had a couple of Kahr pistols when we were going through various carry guns and it was the trigger difference that sold her on her Kel Tec.

Triggers aside, for a newer shooter like my wife and many others, the frame mounted safety on the Ruger was a deal killer.

I sure like the Kahr I was carrying a CW40 and picked up a CW9 as soon as I did I sold my Ruger LC9
The Kahr feels much more solid and functions perfect
the grip on the Kahr is solid in my hand the Ruger is beveled and twists when I shoot it.Its hard to explain but it does twist
the trigger on the Kahr is long but consistant
I dont think there is anything (except the beveled grip) wrong with the Ruger I just really like the Kahr a lot
even with a Bubba body shape it fits perfect in a Don Hume iwb
Hank

I liked the Kahr, but the safety on the Ruger is why I like it. I carry it a lot just stuck in my pocket and I feel better with a safety on a pistol carried so close to my money maker. If I am carrying in a waistband Holster, I just leave the safety off.