Would you buy an alloy frame Kahr K-9?

Apparently Kahr has already experimented with aluminum frames.

Word was, that aluminum failed to stand up like they wanted so they went straight to polymer.

I'm a maybe. I love my steel one, don't mind the weight. However, a titanium frame would interest me. It shouldn't have any issues with longevity like alloy might.

+1 on a titanium Kahr K-9. The grip of the P-9 is just a little too thin for my hands.

If I recall correctly, Kahr was experimenting with either an aluminum or Titanium frame when they chucked it in favor of the polymer. This came about at a Shot Show where they actually had an experimental alloy framed Kahr to display, and some other company introduced a small polymer framed pistol. They followed along after watching the positive reaction to the other companys offering.

Chances are if they were trying titanium, the cost factor may have alos prompted them in favor of polymer.

Unless you work for Kahr and are doing some market research, what difference can it make? We would only know what we would like, not what Kahr would do.

I always enjoy a conversation where we redesign guns to our liking. However, it is a moot point. The opinions of the possibly 30 people that may reply will hardly make a dent in whatever market research Kahr engaged in before opting to go plastique.

Now, if you could actually influence Kahr, or perhaps find a company willing to make aftermarket frames................

I would probably buy one, but California has deemed pistols without loaded-chamber indicators and magazine-disconnect “safeties” to be “unsafe,” so I will already have to pass on the new Kahr .45 ACP. That said, I don’t think Kahr steel pistols are too heavy or their polymer pistols are junk.

~G. Fink

I would probably buy one, but only because I tend to "collect" Kahrs. It certainly wouldn't be a purchase based on need for a carry gun, because I am more than happy with my P9's and CW9's. They don't qualify as "junk" in my book.

I don't see the need.
My stainless MK9 Elite 98 does just fine, thank you very much!!

I rather prefer polymer, myself.

I like alloy frames, just prefer metal to plastic I guess. That said, I do have a polymer framed Kahr on order, so I suppose it's a moot point.

I actually agree with you albanian, some gun companies DO listen.

The problem that I saw is that Kahr made a concious decision to not go with an aluminum or titanium frame, based on the reaction of thousands of customers at the Shot Show, who were flocking to see a competitor's new poly framed wonder.

That being the case, I just don't think our hopefully 30 or 40 respondents will have much influence this time.

I think Kahrs are tremendously cool. Given my experience with them, they also have an extremely spotty track record. I had to return my K9 twice, and it was ultimately replaced by Kahr. I have a retired LE friend who bought a P9 as a carry gun at about the same time I bought my K9. He couldn't be happier, and his has fired thousands of rounds. I have heard pros and cons for both P and K versions, here and elsewhere.

My feeling is that the best K9's were probably the ones made before the .40 versions were introduced. Those carbon steel blued jobs seem to be better made and fitted, and ever so slightly more compact. If Kahr would fire the guy that built my K9, and also fire the guy that tried to fix it (twice!), and give a bonus to the fellow who assembled my replacement K9, we might see a better product. But so long as they are content to keep the work force they currently employ, we will continue to see a hit or miss quality in every Kahr made, whether polymer, steel, or aluminum.

Otony

I can only speak from the standpoint of personal aesthetics, but the steel frame is just right for me. Personally, I don't understand the obsession with light carry guns. A good belt and holster makes it possible to forget I'm wearing a K9. Strangely, the same belt and holster makes a fully-loaded steel-framed Government model 1911 seem even lighter; I suspect that's because the longer slide and grip support the gun against the body, whereas the K9 basically has the belt for support.

Like I said, though, it's personal aesthetics. I'm happy trading ease of carry for ease of shooting.

I don't have alot of experience w/ them, but I do know I like the steel framed Kahrs. I guess I would need real world trigger time w/ one to really decide one way or the other.

Was the E9 a steel or alloy frame? It felt lighter. I know it was the economy version without the fancy sights or etching.

I would be far more interested in an MK9 with alloy frame. But it still won't do what my 26 can and isn't much smaller.

I sat down with my engineer, Justin Moon, and his engineer a few years ago and discussed a titanium slide and alloy frame. This was the same year Taurus introduced the titanium Millenium. Things were going well until this giant light bulb went off over the head of the Kahr engineer. He started punching numbers into a calculator and realized that we could save 3 oz off the weight of the gun, but it would nearly double the cost. Although there might be some that would say they would buy it, the feeling was that not enough would put their money where their mouth is.

I know I would be and I wish they had made one instead of that plastic junk they came out with.

Click to expand...

"Junk"?

How so?
-

Let's Face Facts Folks,

So people are going to dislike plastic pistols no matter what.

Geoff
Who likes all steal, but owns three Plastic pistols, one aluminum alloy and the rest steel.

The "engineer" at Kahr was probably not punching the numbers in correctly for the cost of an aluminum frame. A K9-sized billet of 7075 alloy costs about 12 bucks in decent quantities. Steel would cost about half that amount, but would take over twice as long to machine. My guess is that Kahr's marketing person decided that if the consumer wanted to lighten up, he could go to plastic. Besides, a plastic frame costs between 5 and 10 bucks - finished. Any metal frame costs many times more.

I'm guessing it's the titanium slide that pushed up the cost estimate, not the alloy frame. Titanium both costs more, and is (much) harder to work with.
-

by Otony:
Senior Member

"If I recall correctly, Kahr was experimenting with either an aluminum or Titanium frame when they chucked it in favor of the polymer.....
Chances are if they were trying titanium, the cost factor may have also prompted them in favor of polymer."
__________________________________

Yup, they went with the polymer, but priced it like titanium.

Still have a hard time fathoming how I could buy a Sig for the price of a PLASTIC Kahr. I can see the value in the steel framed Kahrs, but not in the less expensive to produce plastic ones that cost MORE.

NS

When they were all steel only, I figured they'd come out with an alloy framed model, but was totally happy with the synthetic frame when it came out, especially with the 17 oz weight of it. No complaints after many thousands of rounds without a failure.

As I recall, the PM9 was offered at $839 and has since dropped to about $550. Since the mold for the grip is about 100 grand, Kahr needed to pay for that mold by marking up the price for at least the first year. Once the mold is fully paid for (with 3-year tax write off), Kahr is now laughing all the way to the bank with the plastic grips coming in at under $10 apiece.

Maybe I would, but I love the BOTH plastic and steel models...

Anyone who considers Kahr Plastic models 'junk' needs to probabiy shoot one, perhaps?