Kahr PM 9 vs. Kahr MK9

[19-3Ben]

If they only made an aluminum alloy frame....

Well, if we're getting into the realm of "if only they made..." I have sent them several emails requesting production of a K45. Why in the world they make steel framed models for 9mm and .40 but not for .45... well... it just makes me very sad.
IF Kahr made a T45Covert, I think that would be just about the most perfect carry gun in the world. 4" bbl and longer slide of the T/TP series, K series length grip frame, all steel construction, and in the .45. I don't think it could get better.

 

[stinger 327]

The polymer Kahrs do not seem to be as reliable as the all-metal ones - I had a P9 and it had numerous problems, and if you search various forums, you'll see an appreciable percentage of folks have also had problems with their polymer Kahrs.

But does this specifically include the polymer PM9? There is that lower cost model of the PM9 (CM9 or CW9?) it doesn't have that poly barrel or nice markings of the PM9 perhaps that is the one with all of the problems?

 

[stinger 327]

Your right but I can't handle 9mm in subcompact pistols without suffering discomfort in my arm and shoulder joints so 380 works best for me and I have also come to the conclusion that 380 is a pretty good caliber in most cases for self defense.

Have you tried the PM 9? If not try it and see for yourself. It's a very accurate gun and it doesn't blow up in your hand like an LCR .38. I have hand problems i.e. carpal Tunnel and RSI and I find the PM9 is fine to shoot.

 

[stinger 327]

QUOTE=Nuclear;9894468]I find both of them to be accurate, but the nod goes to the steel framed Kahr's, as the trigger is better and the weight really makes them easier to shoot. Not that the polymer frames aren't easy to shoot. The lighter weight of the polymer framed guns give them the advantage over the steel frames. If they only made an aluminum alloy frame....[/QUOTE]

If you could only have one, the MK-9 or the PM9??
I don't want to end up getting both of them. I have in some cases couldn't make up my mind because I like them both and ended up with both (other guns) not specific for any purpose or need but just because I like them and like to have them.
The last PM 9 I had I bought for $625. I sold it along with other guns nothing negative just sold them to get other things. Now I see that they are in the $700+ to 900+ range:banghead:

 

[orionengnr]

I own a PM9 and have since late 2004/early 2005.

The MK9 is 24 oz empty, which is the same as my alloy framed 3" 1911 in .45acp. If I'm going to carry a 24 oz gun, guess which one I'll carry?

The PM9 is 14.5 oz, which is lighter than an alloy j-frame...with two extra rounds, and a much quicker reload.

IMHO (and experience), the PM9 is about as good as it gets for a carry pistol.

 

[ttheel]

To me when it comes to pistols in this size range it all boils down to comfort of carry, that is as long as they function well. In my opinion, when you are considering weapons of this size, the purpose is for concealed carry maybe even pocket carry. The PM9 will work well in about any type of carry situation. Heck, if you are planning on a lot of pocket carry you may want to even consider some of the ultra light .380's available today. .380 ammo has come a long way. If you are dead set on 9mmthen I think the PM9 is an excellent choice.

 

[Girodin]

IMHO (and experience), the PM9 is about as good as it gets for a carry pistol.

Until you need to actually use it anyways. I own 4 kahr 9x19 guns as well as a kahr 380 and 45. The CM/PM 9s have a lot going for them. That said I don't think they are significantly easier to carry than a CW/P 9 size gun. I think most people who shoot any number of drills with the pm/cm 9 on a shot timer (and accounting for accuracy) would find that there is a noteable trade off to its small size and light weight.

I carry that size gun at times an it has a role when concealment is a priority however it gives up far to much in capability for me to consider it an ideal primary. The honest truth is that the times in which I couldn't carry a more capable gun are infrequent. However if someone is only ever going to carry a tiny gun he or she could do worse than a CM/PM 9.

As an aside I find that the best balance between concealability and capability is in a weapon the size of a G26 chambered in 9x19mm. If concealment is at slightly more of a priority guns like the PPS, shield, and the P9 strike an alright balance as well.

 

[orionengnr]

IMHO (and experience), the PM9 is about as good as it gets for a carry pistol.

Until you need to actually use it anyways.

Okay...pray tell...how many times have you used your CCW gun?

After 10 years a a CHL holder and every day carrier, I can state, unequivocally, that as of today, the PM9 is the perfect EDC for me.

A CW9 does not work as a pocket pistol. The PM9 does.

I shoot it regularly, and while I shoot a 1911 "a bit" better, I can carry the PM9 24/7.

As an aside I find that the best balance between concealability and capability is in a weapon the size of a G26 chambered in 9x19mm.

If you have a pocket that will fit a G26, your pants are a lot bigger than mine.
I cannot conceal a double stack anything IWB, let alone pocket carry. Yeah, I've tried...many times, and many variations. Ain't happening.

Not all of us weigh 300+ and wear overhauls everywhere we go.

My 5'9" 140 lb frame and my three back surgeries impose certain limitations.

Mine are not yours, yours are not the next guy's, etc...

Please understand that before you post again.

I have stretched the envelope, and I know how far I can go.
PM9 is the perfect compromise for me.

 

[kokapelli]

Have you tried the PM 9? If not try it and see for yourself. It's a very accurate gun and it doesn't blow up in your hand like an LCR .38. I have hand problems i.e. carpal Tunnel and RSI and I find the PM9 is fine to shoot.

Yes I have a PM@ and it is an excellent little pistol, but I can't shoot a lot of rounds through it anymore without getting some pretty sore joints.

 

[boricua9mm]

Sample of One...

After 10 years of using the G26 as my everyday pocket carry gun, slim-fit (aka "skinny jeans") fashions forced me to retire that pistol and move to something more trim. I picked up a used, blemished, CM9 from the local gun peddlers, and despite having all those strikes against it, the gun runs and runs and runs.

Prior to making a move on the CM9, I had the opportunity to get an MK9 for $350, but passed on it because it weighed as much as the G26 it would have replaced. I have found the CM9 to be reliable, accurate and surprisingly light in the recoil department. The reason for that is a very stout recoil spring, which isn't recommended for the weak-fisted among us due to difficulties in racking the slide. The trigger isn't the greatest, but I describe the overall experience as "a magazine fed revolver with a nice, light DA trigger." Since I own and shoot older S&W wheel guns with regularity, the trigger is not a sticking point for me. At any given range trip, I can shoot 150 rounds without being bothered by either the recoil or the trigger characteristics.

The grip does have a nice checkering (fore and aft) that leaves impressions on my palm, but the small, lightweight gun shoots and it shoots very well. It does not deliver the same performance at 25 yards as my G26 did, but it is leaps and bounds ahead of the old S&W Airweight J-frame that I foolishly carried for a couple of years. I learned the hard way that a lightweight, hard-to-handle .38 with a heavy trigger delivering 5 rounds of .38 SPL with a slow reload was not enough, but I have much more confidence in 7 rounds of bonded 9mm +P JHPs with a smooth, light trigger in a lighter recoiling polymer gun with a fast reload on tap. An individual's comfort level with a gun is a very personal decision, but in my case, mine was decided at the hands of an armed, drug-dealing POS.

For the longest time I was a Glock hater. The G26 proved itself to me as the king of the sub-compacts. I still believe this to be the case. The PM9 and CM9, however, fall into a different class of "micro" pistols. That they would prove to be reliable, accurate and dependable is pretty darn impressive. Even though I am a Glock convert, I am keeping my CM9 and will let the masses feast on the bigger, heavier G43.

I would never use either the MK9 or the PM9/CM9 as a belt carry gun. If you are going through the trouble to belt & holster up to carry IWB, then you might as well throw on a loose fitting button down shirt and carry a compact double stack.

Here's my CM9 with brushed flats and the Trijicon front sight offered by Kahr...

 

[Girodin]

Okay...pray tell...how many times have you used your CCW gun?

This is a straw man argument at best. Abilities of a pistol, mode of carry, etc, can be tested and quantified in ways short of using it in self defense.

FWIW thank God I have never had to fire a shot but I have had to "use" a it multiple terms in the sense that it was brought to bare and fortunately that was enough to resolve the situation. It very very very easily could have gone differently though. I have a job that puts in me in contact with bad places and bad people. I can tell you that in one of those (an incident with an unstable person with a large knife) I really really wished I had a more capable weapon when it was going down.

Again that is really neither here nor there though. I can tell you from shooting myriad drills that a PM9 is harder to get into action and make multiple quick accurate shots with than say a Glock 26. That shouldn't be a surprise.

The argument you seem to imply is that the PM9 is fine because you never use it. That's fine but it really doesn't refute my contention in anyway.

Your comments seem like those of what I call a talisman CWW person. That is he/she treats the gun like it is some kind of magic talisman that through it's very presence will keep them safe. That having the gun will some how allow them to effective protect themselves.

A CW9 does not work as a pocket pistol. The PM9 does.

Pocket carry is honestly a pretty poor mode of carrying a primary handgun. Although it offers some strengths in terms of an anticipated presentation and being able to surreptitiously being able to have a hand on the gun. However, it is down right horrible for reactive presentation. One thing I have learned over the years is you can strive to have great situational awareness but things happen you will never see coming. Pocket carry is perhaps the very worst way one could carry when it comes to drawing while trying to quickly move off the X. Doing so can be crucial in 0-10' encounters. I would strongly urge you to put pocket carry to the test in force on force drills or even just movement drills. Yep small guns are more easily pocket carried. Pocket carry is very often just a lazy approach to carrying a gun and one that has a great great many draw backs.

I'd urge you to then shoot the Hackathorn standards with your PM9 from your pocket holster and report your score to use. Shoot your 1911 from a good carry set up and I'd wager you can shoot that 1911 more than a little bit better when you really quantify it.

A G26 will not fit in many of the pockets I wear. I don't think it would ride particularly comfortably in the ones it would fit in. That said I wouldn't carry it there as my primary mode of carry even if it would.

I cannot conceal a double stack anything IWB, let alone pocket carry. Yeah, I've tried...many times, and many variations. Ain't happening.

I'd ask what belt? what gun? what position? what holster? A lot of people make that assertion but it turns out have not really tried the gambit of options. My brother is basically your frame exactly and carries a G19 daily with a T-shirt as a cover garment. I am about your size but, by your description, with about 20 lbs more muscle. There are some IWB modes of carry in some modes of dress that do not work at all. However, I pretty regularly carry an HK VP with a light attached AIWB with nothing more than a T-shirt. I wear pretty fitted clothing for the most part as well. A G26 absolutely disappears and I can forget its there. It works when I wear a tucked button down shirt as well. I actually don't think being 300 Lbs is necessarily conducive to more easily concealing a handgun. Rather having a good holster and a good mode of carry seems to be key.

PM9 is the perfect compromise for me.

It sounds like you are willing to compromise a lot in terms of both the capabilities of your weapon and the mode in which you carry it. That is of course your choice. And all that matters is what you feel comfortable with. That said, for some people, it is not a fully informed choice made out of a good understanding of the drawbacks and reasonable alternatives. To argue, however, that a PM9 will be ideal should you heaven forbid need to use it is just silly. It's not ideal (and here we are obviously limiting discussion to concealable handguns that are all compromises and less ideal than other weapons). At that moment it simply is not ideal. Now of course the argument is it is better than nothing, which is true but often skirts the question of is it worse than a reasonable alternative.

A little gun is a quantifiable compromise. Pocket carrying it is also a huge compromise. It may be one that never matters for you because you think you are very unlikely to ever need to use the gun. statistically you likely are right. Of course that logic can argue for not even bothering to carry a gun at all.

I would have you note that I never said you shouldn't carry a PM9 or that your choice is wrong. Rather that it is not an ideal CCW if you actually need it. I don't think there is much to argue against that. The argument you seemingly are making is. 1) One is unlikely to ever need to use his/her CCW anyways. And 2) it is a lot easier to pocket carry a really small gun.

I agree with both points. My response is 1) One never knows what might befall one and for the same reason I choose to arm myself in the first place I want a certain level of capability. 2) really easy to conceal and hide may well mean much harder to actually use and get into play. 3) A particular gun or mode of carry may be easiest but that does not mean there is not a practical alternative that may be less of of a compromise in terms of capabilities.

In sum, we all make our choices and do what works for us and what we are comfortable with. However, I'd simply encourage one to do some homework in terms of drawing on the move, force on force, and quantifying speed and accuracy (with a shot timer) so that choice is an informed one.

 

[stinger 327]

After 10 years of using the G26 as my everyday pocket carry gun, slim-fit (aka "skinny jeans") fashions forced me to retire that pistol and move to something more trim. I picked up a used, blemished, CM9 from the local gun peddlers, and despite having all those strikes against it, the gun runs and runs and runs.

Prior to making a move on the CM9, I had the opportunity to get an MK9 for $350, but passed on it because it weighed as much as the G26 it would have replaced. I have found the CM9 to be reliable, accurate and surprisingly light in the recoil department. The reason for that is a very stout recoil spring, which isn't recommended for the weak-fisted among us due to difficulties in racking the slide. The trigger isn't the greatest, but I describe the overall experience as "a magazine fed revolver with a nice, light DA trigger." Since I own and shoot older S&W wheel guns with regularity, the trigger is not a sticking point for me. At any given range trip, I can shoot 150 rounds without being bothered by either the recoil or the trigger characteristics.

The grip does have a nice checkering (fore and aft) that leaves impressions on my palm, but the small, lightweight gun shoots and it shoots very well. It does not deliver the same performance at 25 yards as my G26 did, but it is leaps and bounds ahead of the old S&W Airweight J-frame that I foolishly carried for a couple of years. I learned the hard way that a lightweight, hard-to-handle .38 with a heavy trigger delivering 5 rounds of .38 SPL with a slow reload was not enough, but I have much more confidence in 7 rounds of bonded 9mm +P JHPs with a smooth, light trigger in a lighter recoiling polymer gun with a fast reload on tap. An individual's comfort level with a gun is a very personal decision, but in my case, mine was decided at the hands of an armed, drug-dealing POS.

For the longest time I was a Glock hater. The G26 proved itself to me as the king of the sub-compacts. I still believe this to be the case. The PM9 and CM9, however, fall into a different class of "micro" pistols. That they would prove to be reliable, accurate and dependable is pretty darn impressive. Even though I am a Glock convert, I am keeping my CM9 and will let the masses feast on the bigger, heavier G43.

I would never use either the MK9 or the PM9/CM9 as a belt carry gun. If you are going through the trouble to belt & holster up to carry IWB, then you might as well throw on a loose fitting button down shirt and carry a compact double stack.

Here's my CM9 with brushed flats and the Trijicon front sight offered by Kahr...

View attachment 723409

MK9 for $350
Last week I saw a Kahr MK9 priced at $979

 

[JN01]

The Achilles heel of the polymer Kahrs is the fact that the screw retaining the slide stop spring screws into plastic. If it becomes loose and is over tightened (stripping the threads), the frame of the gun is ruined.

 

[stinger 327]

The Achilles heel of the polymer Kahrs is the fact that the screw retaining the slide stop spring screws into plastic. If it becomes loose and is over tightened (stripping the threads), the frame of the gun is ruined.

Is this a common problem with the PM 9?
MK 9 doesn't have this problem?

 

[JimC]

I bought an all black PM9 w/night sights in 2011 for a personal specific carry reason and it fits the bill well.
It has not been without its issues and has been back to Kahr twice to correct those issues. It has had several parts replaced, all at n/c from Kahr.
That being said, I still like my PM9 however I still don't trust it to be 100% as far as function. I keep it because I would take a big loss selling it and wouldn't feel right about passing it along to someone else.
One of the last times I used it for my LEOSA qualification, one of the range officers commented..."a Kahr that actually works!?!"
Early on, after my issues with the PM9, I had a chance to compare it to the Mk 9.
I rarely pocket carry so the weight is of no concern. I immediately began kicking myself in the you know where for not buying the Mk 9 instead of the PM9 in 2011. :banghead:
Sometime later I had an opportunity to fire a Mk 9. Night and day between the two. Less recoil, smoother action and 100% function with the Mk 9.
IIRC, the owner stated he had 3,000 + rounds thru the Mk 9 without a single issue.
My records show that my PM9 currently has 2,356 not so reliable rounds thru it.

 

[JimC]

The Achilles heel of the polymer Kahrs is the fact that the screw retaining the slide stop spring screws into plastic. If it becomes loose and is over tightened (stripping the threads), the frame of the gun is ruined.

True and one has to be aware of that fact and not be heavy handed if tightening it down should it work its way out.
IMO, not a good design feature.

 

[C0untZer0]

I don't have nearly that many rounds through my CM9, without looking at the shooting log I'd guess somewhere around 300 rounds through it, but I haven't had any failures and the gun cost about $320.00

I pocket carry my R9 all of the time and I can tell you that for me personally the MK9 would be too heavy to pocket carry.

Its not that it can't be done, its just that it get annoying - at least for me personally.

 

[JimC]

I don't have nearly that many rounds through my CM9, without looking at the shooting log I'd guess somewhere around 300 rounds through it

I fired 425 rounds thru my PM9 during its initial range session in 2011. I considered it "broken" in. "Broken" being the operative word here.

Two of my 5 mags failed in that time. Kahr had no explanation for this and acted dumb, never heard of this, but they gladly replaced the mags no questions asked. It was later found that they were well aware of the mag problems. Their mags are one of the weakest points of the weapon. and unfortunately the Mk 9 uses the same mags.

The small nut at the end of the recail assembly is another weak point. I had a brand new one with only 37 rds. on it fail!

The pistol itself was GTG. It was around 1,836 rounds that it failed and made the second trip back to Kahr for a rampectomy due to breaking followers.

So, with only 300 rds. down the pipe, I wouldn't get too comfortable with your CM9 but I wish you luck.

 

[stinger 327]

True and one has to be aware of that fact and not be heavy handed if tightening it down should it work its way out.
IMO, not a good design feature.

Is this considered as part of maintenace tighten up screws like on scopes on other firearms?

 

[stinger 327]

I fired 425 rounds thru my PM9 during its initial range session in 2011. I considered it "broken" in. "Broken" being the operative word here.

Two of my 5 mags failed in that time. Kahr had no explanation for this and acted dumb, never heard of this, but they gladly replaced the mags no questions asked. It was later found that they were well aware of the mag problems. Their mags are one of the weakest points of the weapon. and unfortunately the Mk 9 uses the same mags.

The small nut at the end of the recail assembly is another weak point. I had a brand new one with only 37 rds. on it fail!

The pistol itself was GTG. It was around 1,836 rounds that it failed and made the second trip back to Kahr for a rampectomy due to breaking followers.

So, with only 300 rds. down the pipe, I wouldn't get too comfortable with your CM9 but I wish you luck.

Good reason to stick with the Ruger revolvers like LCR .357?

 

[JN01]

Is this a common problem with the PM 9?
MK 9 doesn't have this problem?

I don't know how common it is. When properly tightened, the spring shouldn't rotate around the screw. I had a P380 that had a bit of play in that area, although the screw seemed to be tight. I was afraid to crank it down any more for fear of stripping the hole in the frame.

It isn't an issue with the MK9 because the screw fastens to the stainless frame.

Kahr could have a steel escutcheon molded into the polymer frames to alleviate that problem.

 

[stinger 327]

I don't know how common it is. When properly tightened, the spring shouldn't rotate around the screw. I had a P380 that had a bit of play in that area, although the screw seemed to be tight. I was afraid to crank it down any more for fear of stripping the hole in the frame.

It isn't an issue with the MK9 because the screw fastens to the stainless frame.

Kahr could have a steel escutcheon molded into the polymer frames to alleviate that problem.

Does anyone have a picture of this of what it looks like?

 

[Harrington-Richardson]

I have the MK9 Elite -- before Kahr offered the polymer version. It's flawless! I particularly like that it fits an stock Kahr extended mag, making it 7 + 1, and very smooth even trigger. The size of a .380 APC, and full 9mm. Much better balance, and less bulk than Glock 26.

 

[orionengnr]

I am not going to cherry-pick your post and address it point by point, as you attempted to do with mine. Okay, maybe I am...at least a bit.

Your comments seem like those of what I call a talisman CWW person. That is he/she treats the gun like it is some kind of magic talisman that through it's very presence will keep them safe. That having the gun will some how allow them to effective protect themselves.

You know nothing about me, and a statement like this is presumptuous, ignorant and insulting.

Pocket carry is honestly a pretty poor mode of carrying a primary handgun. ... Pocket carry is very often just a lazy approach to carrying a gun and one that has a great great many draw backs.

I acknowledged the fact that it is a compromise, and I am aware of the shortcomings. I can definitely shoot a 1911 better, and when my back was in better shape, I used to carry a 1911.

I'd ask what belt? what gun? what position? what holster? A lot of people make that assertion but it turns out have not really tried the gambit of options.

Let's see...most recently, a G23 and a G19. Several good 1 1/2" Rafter S gun belts, not quite every IWB holster known to man, but a short list would include Milt Sparks VMII, CrossBreed SuperTuck and High Noon. Several others, but those are the ones I imagine you are familiar with. I still have a VMII and a CrossBreed for a 1911, but since the Glocks went away, the holsters are gone too...

To argue, however, that a PM9 will be ideal should you heaven forbid need to use it is just silly.

Please do not mis-quote me. I never said the PM9 is ideal...just said it is the best compromise for me.

A little gun is a quantifiable compromise.

Noted, several times. I accept that, and practice with it regularly.

The argument you seemingly are making is. 1) One is unlikely to ever need to use his/her CCW anyways. And 2) it is a lot easier to pocket carry a really small gun.

Again...reading comprehension. You are assuming I was saying one thing, when I never said that.
The main advantage of the PM9 is that I have it with me any time I have pants on. I readily acknowledge that I shoot a 1911 better, but the 1911 is in the safe.

You mentioned my build, but you apparently overlooked an important phrase in this sentence, so I'll highlight it for you:

My 5'9" 140 lb frame and my three back surgeries impose certain limitations.

 

[Nuclear]

Stinger, I own and carry a P9. Their steel guns are quite heavy for their size. So, if I HAD to choose between the PM9 and the MK9 for daily, all day carry, I'd choose the polymer. But I also believe that the farther away from the initial design of the gun, the more problems you will have with it. The Kahr's were originally steel a size up from the M guns, in 9mm. So I would also make sure the gun in question was unquestionably reliable with the load I was carrying in it.