I am really considering getting an slimer cc weapon I carry an g26 and its two bulky for some modes of dress. I was eying the cw9 for $386.00 on buds I also noticed the pf-9 is about $100 cheaper. Which one is smaller easy to maintain etc.
CW9 vs PF-9
- Thread starter trigun87
- Start date
- Status
the Kahr is both thinner and a better quality pistol than the Kel-Tec. i don't think either is hard to maintain
wnycollector
Member
I own the PF-9 and love it. I have also shot a Kahr PM-9. It was a comfortable, and easy to shoot but the price was WAY to high ($650) when I compared it to the Kel-tec ($280). If you can get a CW-9 for only $100 more than a PF-9...that is a pretty good deal. The only problem I see with the CW-9 is that it is just a little to big to pocket carry in the smaller pockets of jeans...cargo pants should be fine!
I've owned both, the PF-9 is a good gun for the money, light and easy to conceal. However, the quality and "shootability" of the CW9 is well worth the additional money, it is slightly larger and weighs a couple of ounces more but is still very easy to conceal and comfortable to carry. If you can afford it the CW9, IMO, is the way to go.
Also, if you live somewhere cold, the PF-9 has a very small trigger guard, impossible to shoot with gloves on, the CW9 trigger guard has much more room.
Also, if you live somewhere cold, the PF-9 has a very small trigger guard, impossible to shoot with gloves on, the CW9 trigger guard has much more room.
MCgunner
Member
I guess that depends on you. Me, I don't care how pretty the gun is, machine marks, that sort of thing. Pretty don't do the shootin'. The bad guy won't be impressed by pretty. Kel Tecs are just as reliable and probably more accurate or at least AS accurate, have a better company backing their products from all accounts I've read, have a lifetime warranty, and won't set you back half what the Kahr does. The PF9 is plenty light and thin enough for pocket carry. You care about showing the gun to your friends and it's worth 300 bucks to you to have a pretty gun, get the Kahr. You wanna defend yourself, budget or no, the Kel Tec works just fine and will save you a lot of money.
I owned two PF-9's and one CW9. My statement has nothing to do with looks. The Kahr was a better quality gun, better built, better material, more reliable, more accurate, easier to shoot.
I have nothing against Kel-tec's, I've owned several over the years and will never part with my P3AT or my PLR-16 (which accompanies me on duty every shift). The PF-9 is a fine gun, if that is what you want. But, based on my experience with the guns in question, the Kahr is the better gun and worth the additional money.
Only better looking finishing...
Give me an example from the functionality/durability point of view...
Again, just more appealing finishing..it doesn't necessarily mean better quality and durability, don't confuse the two.
As far as I know, many Kahr have initial reliability problems.
Getting people to pony up significant more dollars with better finishing (the thing you can touch) is the oldest trick of the trade...German car manufacturers are master at that (even when the overall realiability of their cars is sub-par)
My P-11 is not a safe queen nor a BBQ gun...it stays in my pocket and it will go bang when need arise.....the bad guy doesn't care if it's pretty...
Last edited:
Choose which ever one you like better. I have yet to see how a gun looks, or how much you pay for it, makes one bit of difference on the terminal end of things. The bad guy isn't going to drop like a rock when that 9mm bullet hits him from the CW9, but run away when that bullet from the cheap PF-9 hits him. It makes no difference as long as it goes bang and the bullets hits its target.
i just saw a PF-9 on Bud's site for $289, i got my CW9 for $379...that's only a difference of about $100, much less that half the cost
the Kahr has one of the best DA triggers available, plus a lower bore line and off-set feed ramp
there is a manufacturer recommended break-in proceedure to insure reliablity...they are very tightly fitted when new and very well sprung for function
would you care to mention which MIM parts there are the would effect function? i think most of the savings are in less machining on the slide and the non-polygonal rifled barrel
2ndAmendmentDemocrat
Member
Well, I just got a PF-9 today and I'm hoping it works out. It seems to be the AK-47 of CC handguns. I used to have a Kahr P9 and was sad to have to sell it. The damn thing just kept dropping mags on me. The mag catch is very small, and you don't have to push too hard or deeply to drop the mag. I think the main problem is that I'm a lefty and the mag release faces out for me, so I popped the mag out a couple of times when sitting. However, both my Dad and my best friend are righties and have dropped the mag when shooting. I think it would be almost impossible to drop pf-9 mags with the new metal mag catch. Other than that, the p-9 was incredibly reliable and accurate. Your call
the whole slide stop isn't MIM, it's a common misconception, it's just the lever...the pin is forged
the mag release is MIM, but i looked at the internal when i got it and everything inside looked pretty solid.
if conventional rifled barrels were more expensive to make, don't you think the AK...or most other military rifles... would have polygonal rifling? polygonal rifled barrels take require the ability to form a barrel around a "rod" with the rifling impressed into it rather than running a cutter through a blank barrel. the polygonal barrel is more expensive (total cost of machinery to produce) but more uniform for mass production (discounts custom barrel makers)
i guess we just come from a different time, i don't trust any handgun until i've personally put 200 rounds through it...i think it's a left over from growing up with the 1911... and it was the proceedure when we were issued new duty weapons on our department.
most high end manufacturer advise the same thing...i guess it's just a different comfort level
MCgunner
Member
It's hard to be more reliable than 100 percent. I've had a P11 now for 14 years and never had one jam, many thousands of rounds through that thing.
wally
Member
Check out this old thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=316342
From when I just got the PF-9, I'd had the CW9 for a while.
The CW9 gets a box (50) a week through it as a cheap practice analog for my carry PM40. I don't shoot the PF-9 much as its just not as comfortable to shoot as the CW9.
I figure I've more than paid for the CW9 with the savings of 9mm vs .40S&W practice ammo and saved a lot of wear and tear on my main carry gun.
--wally.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=316342
From when I just got the PF-9, I'd had the CW9 for a while.
The CW9 gets a box (50) a week through it as a cheap practice analog for my carry PM40. I don't shoot the PF-9 much as its just not as comfortable to shoot as the CW9.
I figure I've more than paid for the CW9 with the savings of 9mm vs .40S&W practice ammo and saved a lot of wear and tear on my main carry gun.
--wally.
because their design allows KABOOMS ?
i long ago gave up trying the explain the workings and reasoning of Massachusetts
Defense Minister
Member
I considered the Kahr CW9 when I went shopping for a sub-compact, but went with the PF-9 based on price, and my positive, first-hand experience with a Kel-Tec P-11. I paid $269 at my local gun shop. I have 270 rounds through it so far, including 70 Double Tap +p 124 gr. Speer Gold Dots that I carry as my defensive load. No problems so far, but the DTs are quite a handful.
The PF-9 is looser than the Kahr, which if you think about pocket carry, is a very desirable trait. Keeps the gun reliable when all that pocket lint gets in your gun. Pocket lint ALWAYS gets into guns. Unless you are honestly and seriously willing to strip and clean your pocket piece every week without exceptions. Plus, as with any browning-style locking system slide-to-frame fit is completely irrelevant for accuracy.
I've had a PF-9 for 3 years now, and it has not had any hick-ups or malfunctions. It had 1-2 FTE due to limp-wristing when I first got it, but I cannot blame the gun for operator error.
The PF-9's trigger clocks in at 6# or so, and is long, but very smooth. I cannot complain of that.
Recoil is stout. But, what do you expect from a 12 oz gun?
Put a Houge hand-all JR grip on it, and it becomes reasonable to shoot. Its not a gun you take to the range to shoot all day, but it is a gun that you can comfortably carry and shoot enough to maintain proficiency.
I've had a PF-9 for 3 years now, and it has not had any hick-ups or malfunctions. It had 1-2 FTE due to limp-wristing when I first got it, but I cannot blame the gun for operator error.
The PF-9's trigger clocks in at 6# or so, and is long, but very smooth. I cannot complain of that.
Recoil is stout. But, what do you expect from a 12 oz gun?
Put a Houge hand-all JR grip on it, and it becomes reasonable to shoot. Its not a gun you take to the range to shoot all day, but it is a gun that you can comfortably carry and shoot enough to maintain proficiency.
SSN Vet
Member
and that's why the bore axis is lower and the gun more controlable (shorter moment arm, less muzzle flip, faster follow up shots)
this is especially valuable on small light guns...
I'd want to feel the trigger in both guns and then buy whichever one is smoother and lighter, as becoming an accurate shooter with short DAO auto-loaders is not all that easy to do.
Last edited:
No, that is why the weapon is THINNER. To meet the width they wanted they had to offset the feed ramp. It doesn't make the barrel any lower unless they raised it to clear the bar which obviously would have changed the whole outlook of the weapon. There are plenty of guns with low bore axis that don't use an offset feed ramp.
are your sure it's to make it thinner? how would having an in-line feed ramp make the gun thicker?
the 2nd part of your post seems to support my assertion, by off setting the feed ramp, they did not have to rise it to clear the trigger bar and that allows the bore axis to be lower than if they had not offset the ramp.
how other guns achieve a low bore axis doesn't negate the fact that it is a successful/reliable design feature of the Kahr that enhances both quality and durability.
if we accept that the offset ramp makes the gun thinner, that would be a quality improvement in and of itself
Yes I'm sure. A full feed ramp would be optimum but they discovered the offset ramp would feed reliably and allow room for the trigger bar. It does not improve the quality of the weapon or make it more reliable or more weapons would use that feature. Granted, without that feature they would have needed to raise the barrel or make the frame thicker but the offset ramp was solely for space requirements. Lets not make it more than it is.
OK we're getting there
if the goal is to produce a weapon in the smallest package and you design a feature which allows that without giving up practical reliability...as opposed to optimal reliability...how does that not improve the quality of the weapon?
the design does not it does not make it less reliable. it is simply a better (smaller) packaging idea. it isn't used by other manufacturers, because it's patented...much as others could not use the through bored cylinder in revolver cylinders until the patent ran out.
an example from another field would be stereo equipment produced by B&O. besides excellent audio quality, it is sleek and compact. it blends well in modern decor. yes it's design was for space requirements, but that is what makes it a superior product...high quality in a smaller package. but then maybe it's because i have a passion of Lotus road cars too
to not use the offset feedramp would result in a larger weapon, which would be contrary to the original goal
gb6491
Member
In just now reading this thread, I have a question about the statement quoted above: Is this in regards to the slide stop on the CW series of guns from Kahr?
Regards,
Greg
MachIVshooter
Member
I bought a very early PF-9 (Jan 2006) and carry it almost every day. I don't exactly know the round count, between 400 and 600 I expect. Mine goes in a jacket pocket or IWB. I keep it 100% dry and blow the lint/dust out of it every few weeks. Any time I go to the range, I fire 2 or 3 mags through it. It runs flawlessly, even if I hadn't cleaned the crap out of it beforehand.
The only malfunctions I ever had were my first time out in -2* weather, and the cosmoline I hadn't cleaned from the fring pin was excessively viscous from the cold and causing light strikes. The other was running handloaded +P+ 147 gr., and they were recoiling so fiercly that brass was being stripped from the primer by the firing pin and got lodged in the hole. With normal FMJ or HP and even regular +P, the little PF-9 has been 100% after that first day.
The only malfunctions I ever had were my first time out in -2* weather, and the cosmoline I hadn't cleaned from the fring pin was excessively viscous from the cold and causing light strikes. The other was running handloaded +P+ 147 gr., and they were recoiling so fiercly that brass was being stripped from the primer by the firing pin and got lodged in the hole. With normal FMJ or HP and even regular +P, the little PF-9 has been 100% after that first day.
- Status
