Are the steel Kahrs better than the Polymer ones?

[orangeninja]

the heading says it all.

 

[Morgan]

If by better you mean heavier, then yes.

My PM9 has been perfect (barring aluminum cased ammo), as has my MK40.

The polymer frame makes it light enough for backup or pocket carry, where the MK hangs a little heavy.

 

[wally]

Better to shoot because they are heavier.

Not better to carry because they are heavier.

Can't have it both ways (unless you are John Kerry

--wally.

 

[Night Guy]

In the three weeks and ~500 rounds or so that I've had my PM9 it's been flawless. Aside from being a little painful to shoot +P rounds for more than a few mags, I can't complain. Worth every penny.

 

[arinvolvo]

I seem to remember some frame warping problems with earlier Polymer Kahrs....but i have not heard it recently.

I think that I would personally go with a metal framed version for longevity...and just suck it up in regards to the extra weight.

 

[cratz2]

My P9 Covert that I bought used from a forum member has been 100% from the first shot. Most of the problems I've heard about have been concerning the smallest PM9 with the shorter slide.

 

[HankB]

As a former unwitting Beta-Tester for Kahr, I have to say the early polymer KAHRs were terrible - my P9 was a regular POS, with a LONG list of problems.

However, recent postings from folks who've bought polymer Kahrs lately - say, within the last year or so - indicate Kahr has taken care of most of the problems; a few are having trouble, but some folks are getting 100% reliability.

On the other hand, postings lamenting the problems with steel Kahrs seem to be virtually absent, so I'd say yes, Kahr steel still seems to be better than Kahr polymer . . . but the difference is less than it was two years ago.

 

[mini14jac]

I don't think it was an issue of frame warping, so much as it was the fact that some early Kahrs had polymer frames that looked visually warped.
If I recall, those functioned ok.

There weren't any issues that I know of, where someone shot a gun for a while, then it warped.
The pics that I saw would have been visible on inspection.

I had a MK9 that I loved.
500+ rounds, no problems.
It was pleasant to shoot, but I never carried it.
Too heavy.

Traded for a PM9 that has been flawless through 950+ rounds.
It is a little livelier to shoot, but not painful at all.
Both of my daughters love it.
Just as accurate and reliable as the steel gun, but now I frequently have it with me.

I think a lot of "gun failures" can be traced to bad ammo.
When I quit trying to make my handguns shoot Wolf, a lot of problem guns became reliable.
I mainly shoot Win. Whitebox now.
(Still don't have a problem with Wolf in a Bushmaster or Mini 14, just realized that most handguns choke on it.)

So, I guess the short answer to your problem is "No".
Longer answer, "Both are good guns, suitable for different uses."

 

[Texas Bob]

The only big difference would be if you shoot hundreds of rounds per session on a weekly basis,then I would go with the steel frame. My "first generation" P9 had frame failure and was "destroyed" by kahr and replaced with a third generation frame. The "off-set" feed ramp causes torque to the side that caused problems in the early P frames. Later generation frames have a polymer bulge the trigger transfer bar passes through. This seems to have solved the problem. I'm happy with my P9 and my PM9. For idpa I'd compete with a K9 and ccw a P9, but I'm getting old.

 

[cratz2]

HankB, care to elaborate on what all the problems were on your test gun(s)?

 

[PostalGlock'n]

I sold my K40 Covert to purchase a Poly-frame Kahr. After handling the P-series, I just couldn't get comfortable with it. I went with a K40 and have carried it for over 4 years now.

I just like the way the steel frame feels better than the polymer.

Here's my baby