I have a more peculiar method. If I think I actually need the gun, I then specify exactly what features it should have for that role. Guns are not one type fits all, much less one size fits most. They have specific features that support what it does in real life.
A holster gun doesn't need a melt job, should have a safety, a mag disconnect is not a ticket to death, and having a DA/SA trigger isn't going to mean you automatically miss with the second shot. A pocket pistol, on the other hand, needs a good desnagging, still needs a safe trigger if not a safety, should have a working last shot slide hold open with also charges the gun when the mag is inserted and chambers it reliably. Trigger more often than not DA only.
Some will disagree my point is that one gun made smaller or larger doesn't make it equally good for the other job.
From that a list of the two or three guns that have those features in that category of use are researched. Brand be damned. If you let tribal loyalties interfere with gun selection then you can and will eliminate a gun that could very well be much better at what YOU need. Then I read reviews - and I look for the ones posted by haters, those who troll around sniping threads about a model who then remark about all it's negative characteristics.
Like, some guy here does with the first gen LCP. And, ya know, he's right about that.
Anyway, what I'm reading is to understand the hater. Are they making a valid point, or is it a style issue, handling quirk, unsubstantiated gripe, whatever. It's like old gun reviews of the HK P7 - and there were some who were distressed over them. Politely put, weird horrible gun, especially the toggle cocker. What they wanted was a SA 1911 clone, so it has to be asked, why even consider the P7? I look for that kind of thinking.
I one of the guns I'm researching has the quality and functional issues of a first gen R51, as patiently explained in detail by a reputable and credible poster, I pay attention. No, the LCP wasn't all that, it's not even in that situation. But, if the gun is demonized because the owner refuses to understand the function of a control, why it's placed where it is, or simply can't test one and adequately state they were using quality ammo - sorry, it's fake news.
There is also the beta model introductions too many gun makers indulge in, letting QC suffer the brunt servicing pistols that should never have been released - because, apparently, marketing got around engineering and the bottom line needed profits. Unfortunately marketing always makes excuses sound good when engineering, I suspect, are the ones posting about how bad the gun actually is. And for good reason, they didn't get to refine it extensively enough to birth their baby with a wholesome smile and already potty trained.
SIG did that with the P938, they thought they could use the .380 extractor, it wasn't reliable enough, they designed a 9mm extractor and started installing it after SN 84,000. It got beta tested - fixed - and THEN I bought it.
Kahr? Plenty of older posts and haters hanging on to past insults, not like I don't have a list of former bosses who turned out to be stinkers, too. However - reading the posts, seeing the NEWER results, and understanding that there are people who write up "reviews" who have no understanding or knowledge of test protocols - like, using quality ammo and good magazines - I can dismiss them. It's not that their experience then didn't happen. It's that the production line NOW isn't doing that, any more than a recovering drunk who's been sober ten years is hanging on the edge of a month long bender at any second.
Even Paul of Tarsus was finally accepted as a friend, although it took seven years or so. And I've had workplace aggressors who came back after a period of time who had changed - or at least didn't push those buttons again. Good enough. Even Colt and S&W are no longer trolled for their AWB compliant sucking up.
Back to Kahr, their current line of production isn't what it was like then, as ANY gun maker has issues now and again. Should we dismiss Remington forever and then lament their passing? The Alabama guns aren't junk and things are looking up. Same with Kahr, people complain that a gun should fire and function with whatever junk they stuff in the magazine - so I am, and it functions, and malfunctions as expected. If I put in Monarch steel cased the lame powder charge won't lock back the action on the last shot, Hornady American Gunner will. Most of us who shoot cheap junk ammo likely have dozens of stories like that, but the inexperienced new gun owner with their shiny expectant attitudes and no experience think that it's a federal crime it can't be perfect at all times.
Well, sorry, fake news again. Give it some time, they are going to go thru the rose garden and learn better.
After reading up on the guns on my short list I then put them in order by other criteria - like cost, availability, etc. And go try to get some hands on, even if just dry firing on the show room floor. That's where you get an idea of the actual, hands on length of pull on the trigger, it's travel, and weight. Some guns work fine for some, some shooters can tolerate anything, and then there are the other 56 millions of us who like our triggers right the first time. And a lot of that is how we grip the gun, how long it is to reach forward to the trigger, how long it takes to pull it back and get it to release. On paper the numbers as measured might be close or even identical, in the hand one gun that rated less well might come out first choice.
Kinda like wives. No telling.
If you plan to keep them for a while, you get choosier.
