Faced with dilemma (M&P Shield 9mm vs. Kahr PM9)
- Thread starter AWCherry
- Start date
- Status
Lj1941
Member
Go for the Shield and don't look back. That is an excellent deal and you will love the S & W.
Thanks for all the replies! It seems like a pretty divided crowd, which is a good thing, since it seems like I can't go wrong with either. I'm now leaning more towards the Shield, the price is really tipping the battle in its favor. Since I'm waiting on both of them to come in, I've got a little more time to think. Thanks to everyone again, your comment and insights are very much appreciated.
wow6599
Member
This reminds me of folks that wouldn't normally buy a 1911, but since Ruger makes one, now they will. The folks that think S&W, Ruger, Colt, Winchester, etc. are the only quality firearms manufactures.....or the "Moonie" association.
Hold, pocket and shoot each one; it's the only way to know which one you like better - and that's what counts.
Me? I'll keep my PM9 over the Shield due to it's trigger (yes, I've shot the Shield many times) and smaller size.
Hold, pocket and shoot each one; it's the only way to know which one you like better - and that's what counts.
Me? I'll keep my PM9 over the Shield due to it's trigger (yes, I've shot the Shield many times) and smaller size.
Yeah, the stated Kahr break-in is a joke. A gun should be good to go out of the box and get better not require 200 rounds to break it in. In my case, Kahr ended up spending the ammo as they fired over 250 rounds during its two trips back to Kahr according to the paperwork. Since the gun came back the second time it's been fine.
LightningMan
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1,029
FWIW, I have a Kahr PM9, P40, & a P380 which none of them have had to be "broken in" just lucky I guess. I have heard that if you do need a break-in period, you don't nessarily need to shoot them to break them in, as you can work the slide a few hundred times instead. Its because the recoil spring is so tight when new. With all that said, I still would like to buy a Shield, but I'm in no hurry as I have & carry 99% of the time, a M&P.40 compact, which IMO would be last pistol I'd sell if I needed to. LM
Armedleprechaun
Member
Shield all day long!!
I think that it might come down to what type of trigger that you prefer. I'm an old revolver guy so the Kahr trigger is very easy for me to shoot well.
I understand that the Shield trigger is much better than the rest of the M&P series. But for me to shoot my M&P .357 Sig well, I had to put the Ajax trigger and trigger kit in. Now it has a 1911 feeling trigger and I really like shooting it.
I understand that the Shield trigger is much better than the rest of the M&P series. But for me to shoot my M&P .357 Sig well, I had to put the Ajax trigger and trigger kit in. Now it has a 1911 feeling trigger and I really like shooting it.
I have a kahr cw9 and cm9. I was originally looking for a Sheild but ended up with kahr. Quite glad it worked out this way. Not because the Sheild is junk, I am sure it's great just can't find one anywhere. But the kahr is smaller (cm) by a lot. I can carry it IWB or pocket and its great. The cw is the same size as the Sheild. Both ny kahrs have been perfect. I just work the slide a hundred times and its broke in. Never had an Ftf on either of them. The kahr is also thinner.
Roadking Rider
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 466
I own a PM9 and had a Shield on order. Between the time I ordered the Shield and the time it came in I had the chance to shoot one. It was a nice pistol but it wasn't anything I wanted to trade my PM9 or G26 for. First off it was bigger then my PM9. It's about the same sizes as my Glock 26 but thinner.
The trigger was ok on the Shield but I'm kind of liking of the long and butter smooth trigger pull on the PM9. Between the PM9 which has been my EDC for a couple years and the Glock 26 which is a sometimes carry and carries 11 rounds I really didn't have a need for the Shield so I told the GS to give it to the next guy on the list. Good gun I guess? We'll have to see what the long term reviews tell us about just how good. I wish them well.
The trigger was ok on the Shield but I'm kind of liking of the long and butter smooth trigger pull on the PM9. Between the PM9 which has been my EDC for a couple years and the Glock 26 which is a sometimes carry and carries 11 rounds I really didn't have a need for the Shield so I told the GS to give it to the next guy on the list. Good gun I guess? We'll have to see what the long term reviews tell us about just how good. I wish them well.
This is my experience as well. Personally, I own a CM9, and it is a fantastic little pistol. It has been 100% reliable with every type of ammo I've tried. It never needed a break-in period - it has worked flawlessly from the first shot.
Also, I have no problem racking the slide to chamber a round. I've never needed to lock the slide back first.
Madcap_Magician
Member
I think the Shield is more comparable to the CW9/P9 than it is to the CM9/PM9.
And that's not a bad thing.
And that's not a bad thing.
wow6599
Member
For all of you "complaining" about the break-in period of Kahr, am I to assume you don't shoot a few hundred rds through your carry guns before trusting your life to them?
Just wondering.......
Just wondering.......
Roadking Rider
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 466
Agree I always have to laugh when I hear people complaining about a break in period. Exactly what is required loading the pistol aiming it at a target and squeezing the trigger a couple hundred times. I mean it not like your not going to do that anyway. So what's the difference what you call it. Buying any pistol off the counter and using to defend your or loved ones life without a break in period could prove to be very costly, and not very smart.
What's the difference? If the manufacturer declares a "break-in period", I have to fire 200 rounds WITH malfunctions before I can actually test the gun. I like 3-400 malfunction-free rounds before carrying. Thus, with a Kahr, I have to fire 5-600 rounds before I trust it. Or, if there's a malfunction on round 298, I have to send it in and start over. Given current ammo costs, that's not a cheap proposition.
It's possible to make a firearm that's reliable out of the box. S&W does it, Glock does it, Ruger does it, etc. My Shield has eaten everything I have fed it, and I do trust it completely.
Madcap_Magician
Member
wow6599 said:
I like Kahr guns. But I will still gripe about the break-in period for the same reason I gripe about sharp edges on Colt 1911s. Because they're the only company for which this is apparently a problem. I buy a S&W, a Springfield Armory, a Glock, a Sig, a Beretta, a what have you, and I can be reasonably sure that it will go BANG when I pull the trigger and not go BANG if I don't. Right out of the box. On the Colts, no other company at any price range regularly sharpens the edges of their guns. Even the Armscor guns for half the price don't have edges as sharp.
Why is it so hard to make a gun that works fine out of the box? I understand the occasional lemon makes it through everyone's QC process, but "Just deal with the malfunctions until it comes right" does not seem to be acceptable to me these days.
With Kahr's steel guns this does not seem to be an issue, but the P9 I owned needed 250 rounds of at least one malfunction per magazine before it 'came right' and worked reliably.
And then the problem is... if it malfunctioned a lot in the beginning, how can you really trust that it won't start malfunctioning again? I understand this can be said of guns that have run flawlessly as well, but it would always be more worrisome to me with a gun that started out troublesome.
I think the difference is that Kahr is one of the few firearms manufacturers that is actually honest about the break-in period. While my new CM9 worked flawlessly out-of-the box, it is not unreasonable to expect that most any mechanical device (be it a car or a gun or a tool, or whatever) needs a break-in period before it operates to maximum efficiency.
It's funny that Kahr takes so much heat for actually stating that in the manual.
I would point out that with the 6 or 7 Kahrs I've owned, none actually needed the break in period to be reliable. My routine was when I first got it I broke it down, cleaned and lubed it, and hand racked the slide (not slow, fairly fast) about 500 times to loosen up the tight RSA and then fire away...never a problem with any of them. That also happens to be my 1911 break in too, it works.
Madcap_Magician
Member
Fishbed77 said:
I give them respect for stating the need for break-in in the manual. But why is it their guns need a break-in period at all? Every other comparable new gun I've had has worked 100% out of the box.
As both SDGklock23 and I noted, our Kahrs did not need any break-in period to be reliable.
My guess is that the recommendation in the manual is there as a bit of a CYA measure for Kahr. Unlike many manufacturers, Kahr produces pistols that are designed solely for self-defense (i.e., none of their products are "range toys" or target guns). They know what people will be using their products for, and it makes sense to them to convey this common-sense information in the manual, since ALL defensive guns should be properly vetted with a break-in period before they are carried.
MICHAEL T
Member
KAHR wins I wouldn't trade mine for a S&W Shield . Get the Kahr
Toss up for me; handled both this week. I'll probably get a NIB Shield from a friend who bought it last week, then had some remorse because he likes his CM9 better. I admit the Kahr trigger is great, but I like the Shield. Either is a belt gun for me anyway; I carry an LCP in the pocket, and occasionally, a j frame Centennial, but the Centennial has a tendency to hang out of the top of the pocket of the pants I wear most, and that is with almost ANY pocket holster.
mdauben
Member
Yeah, I really like Kahr pistols, but I'd be all over a deal like that!
Roadking Rider
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 466
My PM9 Shot flawlessly for shot #1. Now about 2000 rounds later it still shoots flawlessly. I choose to break all my pistols in slowly where I'll shoot 50 rounds through it. Then field strip it down, clean and lube, and do it all over again till I'm comfortable that the gun is OK to carry. I really don't care how long it takes I'm not in a hurry. I like to get the feel of the pistol and how it shoots and what the insides of the gun look like and check for unusual wear marks before I'll carry it for SD.( all mine get carried at one time or another)The fact that Kahr recommends a 200 round break in period means nothing to me because I do it to all my pistols anyway with out there telling me I should. I don't care if my pistol is a full size to a pocket carry, poly or steel, hammer or striker fired they all get broken in the same way..
- Status
