Kahr PM 9 vs. Kahr MK9

Status
Not open for further replies.
stinger 327

stinger 327

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
3,204
Between these two pistols which one is better made and more accurate?
The PM9 is preferred over the MK-9 for carry and conceal because it's polymer and lighter than MK-9?
I notice that on the PM 9 the rod is aluminium and is polymer just like a Glock.
On the MK-9 which is the heavier stainless version has a plastic rod (why plastic?) and everything else on the pistol is stainless metal. This MK-9 Elite Series cost more than the PM9.
They are actually both expensive small 9mm automatics.
 
I don't think the MK9 is a higher quality gun than the PM9, it is slightly smaller but a whole lot heavier:

Kahr MK9
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.0 in
Length: 5.3 in
Height: 4.0 in
Slide Width: .90 in
Width at slide stop: 1.0 in
Weight: Pistol 22.1 oz, Magazine 1.9 oz
Capacity: 6+1

Kahr PM9 / CM9
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.1 in
Length: 5.42 in
Height: 4.0 in
Slide Width: .90 in
Width at slide stop: 1.0 in
Weight: Pistol 14 oz, Magazine 1.9 oz
Capacity: 6+1

I don't know what the actual dimensions of the MK9 are since I haven't measured one. My measurements have the Kahr CM9 at 5.625” long - OAL measured from the right side, in a box with the top of the gun flush with the top of the box and the gun pushed all the way to the right, like the IDPA measures.

The CM9 is 4.125" tall measuring from the top of the sights to the bottom of the mag well.

Those dimensions are a little larger than what Kahr has listed on their site.
 
So the MK-9 will have less recoil when you shoot it but the PM9 will be much easier to carry because it's lighter but you will experience more recoil.
So for carry n conceal which gun would you pick and why?:confused:
 
Plan2Live said:
I would say those of us who carry metal guns (all brands) would disagree.
Click to expand...
I guess I find the MK-9 more appealing to my eye as it is all stainless steel. Beauty in the eye of the beholder but it also does cost more. I was thinking that the rail on the PM9 would not last as long since it is polymer as the rail is steel on the MK9 but for longetivity of the rail may not even be an issue on either gun.
 
I carried Kahr's for a long time and I think it's pretty safe to say the MK9 is the better made gun. Leaving the steel vs polymer issue aside, in my experience, the polymer used on Kahr's is not very durable and the magazines seem to have a fair amount of problems. I was also able to sling shot my steel Kahr's with no problem while the poly Kahr's would usually mis-feed the second shot. If I ever buy another Kahr, it will be steel framed.
 
I have the PM9 and it is my carry gun about half the time. I have a younger friend who has the MK9 that I have shot on more than one occasion and believe it to be much better made than my PM9. That said, I would rather have the PM9 as a CCW. If I were to buy again it would be the CM9 though.
 
skt239 said:
I carried Kahr's for a long time and I think it's pretty safe to say the MK9 is the better made gun. Leaving the steel vs polymer issue aside, in my experience, the polymer used on Kahr's is not very durable and the magazines seem to have a fair amount of problems. I was also able to sling shot my steel Kahr's with no problem while the poly Kahr's would usually mis-feed the second shot. If I ever buy another Kahr, it will be steel framed.
Click to expand...
I had a PM9 before and found it to be very accurate on the range. I liked the weight and it would be better for a carry conceal gun but the other day I compared the pM9 to a MK9 and I loved the look of the MK9 but for carrying it's alot heavier. I would probably just have it like a toy but since I will be back on market I don't want to end up buying both a MK9 and a PM9.
I do remember something strange about the magazines on the PM9. It didn't jam or fail me but something didn't seem right about the bullets the way they lined up in the magazine. I had heard that the bullets would fall out of the magazines but I do not know this to be true or experienced that. When I fired the PM 9 I was using the Corbon Power Ball rounds.

As far as the Polymer vs. steel rail issue wouldn't the steel rail not wear out as fast as the polymer rail?
 
Last edited:
snooperman said:
I have the PM9 and it is my carry gun about half the time. I have a younger friend who has the MK9 that I have shot on more than one occasion and believe it to be much better made than my PM9. That said, I would rather have the PM9 as a CCW. If I were to buy again it would be the CM9 though.
Click to expand...
Why a CM 9?
First of all isn't that CM 9 the lower model of the PM 9 except the PM 9 has the match barrel in it with nicer markings?
Or am I mixing it up with the CW-9 being the lower cost model of the PM-9?
 
I have the MK 40 and the PM9. Over the course of several years I've carried a number of different ways. I learned I just couldn't carry the MK in my pocket. Dockers, suit pants, whatever the type of pants... it just didn't work because it was way too heavy. To me, that's a pretty significant handicap. I prefer IWB carry, but it's nice to have the option for pocket carry on occasion when attire calls for it. MK doesn't really allow for that while the PM does. And the PM is of course suited for waist carry as well as pocket.

One other point. We all appreciate ruggedness in pistols. But in reality most of us don't exceed 20 percent of their lifetime round-count; and I think I'm being generous in that estimate. Seems there's little to lose and a lot to gain by going with the PM.
 
Dr_2_B said:
I have the MK 40 and the PM9. Over the course of several years I've carried a number of different ways. I learned I just couldn't carry the MK in my pocket. Dockers, suit pants, whatever the type of pants... it just didn't work because it was way too heavy. To me, that's a pretty significant handicap. I prefer IWB carry, but it's nice to have the option for pocket carry on occasion when attire calls for it. MK doesn't really allow for that while the PM does. And the PM is of course suited for waist carry as well as pocket.

One other point. We all appreciate ruggedness in pistols. But in reality most of us don't exceed 20 percent of their lifetime round-count; and I think I'm being generous in that estimate. Seems there's little to lose and a lot to gain by going with the PM.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have a good point here. For pocket carry I would prefer the LCR in .38+P or .357. But the PM9 is a much more accurate gun even though these two guns are different from each other. The PM9 has that wallet holster that you can fire from its case.
As far as ruggedness are you referring to the polymer vs. the steel rails differences between MK9 and PM9?
 
CM9 And CW9 are both "value" models. CM and MK are the same general size. The CW is the size of the P and K models. Kahr has some odd model numbers and the mags don't inspire confidence.

The top round sits tilted up high, and feeding the first round is a problem on my CW9 at times. When the slide catches the top round it tips down and hits the feed ramp pretty head on. Sometimes it feeds and sometimes it doesn't make it. It's more of a problem with the 8 round mag.

The tilt of the first round can actually drop the rim of the top round into the groove of the round below, and that is a guaranteed nosedive malf. I've had to slide the top round slightly forward to get it to feed.

My Kahr is a great shooter, but the mag issues bug me.
 
As far as ruggedness are you referring to the polymer vs. the steel rails differences between MK9 and PM9?
Click to expand...

Actually, I was being more generic than that, but yes that's a fair example I believe. Looking back at your original post I see you were speaking more of accuracy and I suppose it would be good if I had an answer on that but unfortunately I don't. Most of my shooting is not bulls-eye type but is just minute of bad-guy.
 
My experience isn't exactly PM9 vs. MK9, but having had a K40, and now a TP45, I can weigh in on Kahr's steel vs. polymer guns in comparison.

As others have mentioned, I love the light weight of the polymer Kahrs. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that lighter weight makes a gun more comfortable to carry.

That said, I preferred the all steel K40 to the polymer. I found that the extra weight helped it point more naturally, and for a small carry gun, it felt and carried more like a service gun, which i really liked. It just felt much bigger than it is.

As for the aspect of "well made," that's really in the eye and feel of the beholder. To some people, "well made" means that it uses a more expensive material and is more labor intensive to produce. If that's the case, steel is the clear winner over polymer.
As far as smoothness of operation, I have found no discernible difference.

I hope this helps.
 
gruney said:
CM9 And CW9 are both "value" models. CM and MK are the same general size. The CW is the size of the P and K models. Kahr has some odd model numbers and the mags don't inspire confidence.

The top round sits tilted up high, and feeding the first round is a problem on my CW9 at times. When the slide catches the top round it tips down and hits the feed ramp pretty head on. Sometimes it feeds and sometimes it doesn't make it. It's more of a problem with the 8 round mag.

The tilt of the first round can actually drop the rim of the top round into the groove of the round below, and that is a guaranteed nosedive malf. I've had to slide the top round slightly forward to get it to feed.

My Kahr is a great shooter, but the mag issues bug me.
Click to expand...
As I previously mentioned I never had any probelms with the PM9 magazine but it was strange. I may have had a little lack of confidence because the position or placement of the first bullet but when I shot it it was accurate and it did not jam.
Is the CW the lower cost counterpart for the PM9?
Does the MK9 have a counerpart or lower cost model? I would have thought it would be the PM9 since t hey are so close in size. It could just be the grip size is smaller on the MK-9.
 
Last edited:
Dr_2_B said:
Actually, I was being more generic than that, but yes that's a fair example I believe. Looking back at your original post I see you were speaking more of accuracy and I suppose it would be good if I had an answer on that but unfortunately I don't. Most of my shooting is not bulls-eye type but is just minute of bad-guy.
Click to expand...
well these guns are also toys to me as I enjoy shooting on the range but they will do double duty for personal protection. It's frustrating when you can't get a grouping or a bullseye or if you have a gun that jams and you don't know if it will shoot next time or not.
My thinking is that the MK-9 will be less recoil and it's a beautiful piece.
Hell when I am in doubt I usually get both of them.
 
C0untZer0 said:
There is a thread on how much weight is too much for pocket carry:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=749907&highlight=weight

I can carry a loaded CM9 in my pocket, I know the MK9 is too heavy for that.
Click to expand...
If you want something for carry n conceal that is light and very compact there are the North American Arms Mini revolvers in .22 Mag and .22 LR. These are very well made but are for point blank range.
Taurus has come out with a .380 pistol called the curve which has a side clip on it like a lock liner knife. For that matter Kahr also has a .380 that is very smaller in size than the PM9 and the MK-9 but I am hesistant to jump onto the latest craze of the .380 caliber. That ammo costs alot and the choices are limited like .32 ACP which didn't take off. If the .380 bandwagon gets running and does take off they will probably make more offerings in different loads but calibers like .25 ACP,32 ACP and .380 (9mm short Kurtz) just don't have the ammo selection and are expensive..
 
I just did a fast count at the gunbot site and stopped counting at 60 different types of 380 ammo and most are less expensive than 40, 45, 38 special,and 32 cal ammo.
 
kokapelli said:
I just did a fast count at the gunbot site and stopped counting at 60 different types of 380 ammo and most are less expensive than 40, 45, 38 special,and 32 cal ammo.
Click to expand...
But a .380? I would feel better with a 9mm and even t hat is marginal.
 
Your right but I can't handle 9mm in subcompact pistols without suffering discomfort in my arm and shoulder joints so 380 works best for me and I have also come to the conclusion that 380 is a pretty good caliber in most cases for self defense.
 
The polymer Kahrs do not seem to be as reliable as the all-metal ones - I had a P9 and it had numerous problems, and if you search various forums, you'll see an appreciable percentage of folks have also had problems with their polymer Kahrs.
 
I find both of them to be accurate, but the nod goes to the steel framed Kahr's, as the trigger is better and the weight really makes them easier to shoot. Not that the polymer frames aren't easy to shoot. The lighter weight of the polymer framed guns give them the advantage over the steel frames. If they only made an aluminum alloy frame....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Kahr PM9 vs. MK9
Replies
9
Views
5K
sorny
S
P
  • Locked
Kahr 45's: Owners' comments, experience?
Replies
4
Views
704
FHBrumb
F
C
  • Locked
Kahr PM Series?
2
Replies
31
Views
11K
ta4
T
T
  • Locked
Aluminum Kahr
Replies
4
Views
1K
firestar
F
M
  • Locked
Pic: CZ RAMI vs. Kahr PM9/MK9?
Replies
10
Views
1K
marklbucla
M
Back
Top