Looking for wisdom

Kahr might have their stuff together on the 9mm carry, but on others they are not up to standard. Their .30 carbine is abysmal, and they refuse to have one returned (friend of mine). Based on that alone, I would avoid Kahr.

I have two M&P Shield 9s, one with crimson trace and one without. Both are top shelf, in my opinion. They will eat any ammo I feed them, and shoot it accurately. VERY MUCH unlike the Glock 42 I owned, briefly.

I'm in shock the cultists Greek chorus hasn't recommended a CZ!

Why? Does CZ make Glocks now?

My Kahrs are nice carry guns, but the trigger that's half way to a J-frame trigger, just doesn't shoot as well as the other striker fired guns. It works ok enough and is perfectly smooth, but I'd rather not get stuck in a gunfight with one. It's just not rapid enough practicing with multiple targets.

CZ doesn't make Glocks. And, using a CZ, it is clear how unnecessary a Glock can be. But, this is a conversation CZ guys stayed out of because nobody was asking about CZ. We're smart like that. The Glockova's Witnesses naturally come knocking when ever a door cracks.

In any case, the S&W Shield (including the M&P direction they have gone), has made S&W autos much more attractive. Colt never could make a decent double action auto and S&W's seemed as much fun as dry white toast. But their new stuff really strikes my fancy. Were I to move away from the CZ pattern, I'd easily gravitate over to the Shield.

And, I haven't heard the negative customer service from S&W like I have from Kahr.

Never had a Kahr c series.

I have a Shield no thumb safety and for me it has the perfect
blend of features to be my EDC for the last 6 months and
the foreseeable future. Also dead nuts reliable.

I had a Springfield XD9 subcompact, great gun butt
too thick and heavy.

Jimmy

I spent some time (3 hours) at the range on Friday and ran some ammo through a Kahr CW9 and a Ruger LC9s. Both pistols ran flawlessly! But, the trigger on the LC9s is really wonderful for a striker fired pistol. Short travel, very smooth and repeatable break point and short reset.

If I were you, I would rent, borrow, etc.. the two you mentioned and a Ruger LC9s and run a hundred rounds or so through each one and decide based on reliability and the handling of your preference.

If you have large hands like I do, shooting small pistols brings on some issues relating to bullet placement I have never had to deal with before. Low left impact point is causing me to adjust my normal grip after using full sized pistols most of my life ... I will learn to adjust.

I am really leaning hard in the direction of the LC9s and going into it I really didn't think I would like it.

Bill

The Glockova's Witnesses naturally come knocking when ever a door cracks.

Click to expand...

Lol.

As for the G43 itself, too little too late for most of us. It is considerably larger and heavier than much of the competition, as well as being toward the higher end of the micro 9 price spectrum.

Cz doesn't sell a single stack. Nothing for us to recommend.
No reason for them to build one when many small double stacks aren't really that fat.

I can carry my SCCY in my pocket though. [emoji14]


Of the two I would probably pick the CW9 though.

If you really want my 0¢ opinion though I would say don't count out a PPS or a BP9CC before purchasing either.

Of the two, shield is much better imho.

In a completely unrelated note i plan to check out the G43 as I am fairly use to glocks and their reputation is undeniable.