So I have been thinking about getting one of the ultra-compact 9mm's that have come out in recent years as a replacement for my J-frame for sometime now. There have been a few times where I've needed to "deep" conceal and have had to rely on my S&W 442 for this task. However, I have always felt undergunned with 5 shots of .38special. So I started looking at the ultra-compact 9mm's and settled on either a Kahr cm9 or Kel-tec pf9 as my top two choices. I decided on the cm9 over the pm9 because of cost.
I stopped into Plainfield Shooting Supply this Saturday to look at what they had. There I was able to compare the Kahr cm9, Keltec pf9, Berretta Nano, and Ruger LC9. Pretty much all of the ultra-compact 9mm's. The Kahr was the smallest of the bunch, not by much but it edged out the others just slightly in the height and length dimensions. It was slightly heavier then the pf9, but still not heavier than the J-frame it will be replacing (at least it didn't feel heavier, I don't have a scale). I went with the Kahr cm9 because of the way it felt in my hand vs. the Keltec, it just felt nicer to me; and it should for being about $120 more than the pf9.
As soon as I got the cm9 home I compared it to my 442.
As you can see the overall length of the cm9 is about an inch less than the j-frame.
The height is just under 1/2" less than the J-frame.
And of course because of the cylinder on the 442, the Kahr is slimmer.
As I said above it felt to me that both weighed almost the same when fully loaded, this is just by holding them in my hands though, no scale was used.
So, overall the Kahr is quite a bit more compact than the snubby, which will make it easier to conceal in my pocket or wherever I need to carry when "deep concealing."
Shootability: Sorry I didn't bring back my targets from the range to take pics.
On Sunday I headed over to Indy Trading Post to put about 200 rounds through the Kahr to break her in. This included 150 rounds of 115gr Brown Bear FMJs, and 50 rounds of USA Ammo 115gr FMJs. I also threw in about 36 rounds of 124gr +p Federal HSTs, which is my 9mm carry load. The Kahr shot everything perfectly. No malfunctions (that were gun related, more below), and it shot every round to POA. Keeping the shots center mass was easy from 7yd even during rapid fire. Although this gun is snappier than most 9mm due to it's size it is very controllable when you have a good grip.
One hang up I had was about 4 mags in I did not sling-shot the slide fast enough to chamber the first round immediately. However, the pressure from the spring chambered it about 1 second later. When using the slide release that never happened.
I would definitely say I shot the Kahr better than I shoot the J-frame. The sights are real sights (nice sights), and the trigger is much smoother and lighter than the 442's, making the Kahr inherently easier to shoot well.
After about 120 rounds or so I was starting to not want to shoot the gun anymore. It was a bit hot in the range and my hands were getting pretty sweaty. The gun started to slip in my grip some and the fairly aggressive texturing on the front and rear strap was digging into my hands. This is actually a good thing however, the texture is more aggressive than many pistols making the Kahr easier to hold onto when my hands were wet. It just felt uncomfortable after 20 magazines.
Along with the grips digging into my hands I noticed I had started to put more of my finger on the trigger than just the first pad, up to the first knuckle; and my groups started to go a little low left. I was doing this because as the gun started to slip more in my grip the bottom of the inside of the trigger guard would make contact with the edge of my fingernail. It started to get a little painful so I had pushed more of my finger onto the trigger to compensate. This didn't happen until 120 or so rounds in so I wouldn't mark this as a negative against the Kahr; just something to be aware of if you are planning on doing extended shooting with this little gun.
Still, this gun is much more comfortable to shoot than the 442, at least in my opinion. I don't think I have every put 200+ straight rounds through my J-frame at one time.
Final thoughts:
The cm9 is a great little gun, and has replaced my J-frame for the role of deep-conceal/pocket gun. It is smaller than a J-frame and shoots better for me. Obviously having 6+1 rounds of 9mm is better than 5 rounds of .38 special, so having more fire power is also a plus over the J-frame. Seeing that this gun is more comfortable to shoot for me I will be practicing with it more often than I did with my J-frame as well. I would say anyone looking for an ultra-compact gun that has more time behind an auto vs. a revolver would like this gun better than a snubby.
A couple of dings I have with this pistol are as follows. There are some wicked sharp edges on the cm9, especially right above the ejection port. It is like a sharp hook there, I will be smoothing that out so it doesn't get hung up on my pocket when drawing. The front sight is pinned into the slide, so if I ever want to change out the front sight I will have to have a gunsmith dovetail it for me. This is not the case if someone wants to spend the $200+ more on the pm9. The only other thing I have noticed is the cm9 is slightly slower for me to draw from my pocket than the J-frame. I suspect when I get my holster that is made to fit the Kahr this will change, it should also speed up with practice.
So unless my FIL wants to buy my J-frame, be on the lookout for a S&W 442 with several speed loaders and speed strips in the classifieds in the near future.
I stopped into Plainfield Shooting Supply this Saturday to look at what they had. There I was able to compare the Kahr cm9, Keltec pf9, Berretta Nano, and Ruger LC9. Pretty much all of the ultra-compact 9mm's. The Kahr was the smallest of the bunch, not by much but it edged out the others just slightly in the height and length dimensions. It was slightly heavier then the pf9, but still not heavier than the J-frame it will be replacing (at least it didn't feel heavier, I don't have a scale). I went with the Kahr cm9 because of the way it felt in my hand vs. the Keltec, it just felt nicer to me; and it should for being about $120 more than the pf9.
As soon as I got the cm9 home I compared it to my 442.
As you can see the overall length of the cm9 is about an inch less than the j-frame.
The height is just under 1/2" less than the J-frame.
And of course because of the cylinder on the 442, the Kahr is slimmer.
As I said above it felt to me that both weighed almost the same when fully loaded, this is just by holding them in my hands though, no scale was used.
So, overall the Kahr is quite a bit more compact than the snubby, which will make it easier to conceal in my pocket or wherever I need to carry when "deep concealing."
Shootability: Sorry I didn't bring back my targets from the range to take pics.
On Sunday I headed over to Indy Trading Post to put about 200 rounds through the Kahr to break her in. This included 150 rounds of 115gr Brown Bear FMJs, and 50 rounds of USA Ammo 115gr FMJs. I also threw in about 36 rounds of 124gr +p Federal HSTs, which is my 9mm carry load. The Kahr shot everything perfectly. No malfunctions (that were gun related, more below), and it shot every round to POA. Keeping the shots center mass was easy from 7yd even during rapid fire. Although this gun is snappier than most 9mm due to it's size it is very controllable when you have a good grip.
One hang up I had was about 4 mags in I did not sling-shot the slide fast enough to chamber the first round immediately. However, the pressure from the spring chambered it about 1 second later. When using the slide release that never happened.
I would definitely say I shot the Kahr better than I shoot the J-frame. The sights are real sights (nice sights), and the trigger is much smoother and lighter than the 442's, making the Kahr inherently easier to shoot well.
After about 120 rounds or so I was starting to not want to shoot the gun anymore. It was a bit hot in the range and my hands were getting pretty sweaty. The gun started to slip in my grip some and the fairly aggressive texturing on the front and rear strap was digging into my hands. This is actually a good thing however, the texture is more aggressive than many pistols making the Kahr easier to hold onto when my hands were wet. It just felt uncomfortable after 20 magazines.
Along with the grips digging into my hands I noticed I had started to put more of my finger on the trigger than just the first pad, up to the first knuckle; and my groups started to go a little low left. I was doing this because as the gun started to slip more in my grip the bottom of the inside of the trigger guard would make contact with the edge of my fingernail. It started to get a little painful so I had pushed more of my finger onto the trigger to compensate. This didn't happen until 120 or so rounds in so I wouldn't mark this as a negative against the Kahr; just something to be aware of if you are planning on doing extended shooting with this little gun.
Still, this gun is much more comfortable to shoot than the 442, at least in my opinion. I don't think I have every put 200+ straight rounds through my J-frame at one time.
Final thoughts:
The cm9 is a great little gun, and has replaced my J-frame for the role of deep-conceal/pocket gun. It is smaller than a J-frame and shoots better for me. Obviously having 6+1 rounds of 9mm is better than 5 rounds of .38 special, so having more fire power is also a plus over the J-frame. Seeing that this gun is more comfortable to shoot for me I will be practicing with it more often than I did with my J-frame as well. I would say anyone looking for an ultra-compact gun that has more time behind an auto vs. a revolver would like this gun better than a snubby.
A couple of dings I have with this pistol are as follows. There are some wicked sharp edges on the cm9, especially right above the ejection port. It is like a sharp hook there, I will be smoothing that out so it doesn't get hung up on my pocket when drawing. The front sight is pinned into the slide, so if I ever want to change out the front sight I will have to have a gunsmith dovetail it for me. This is not the case if someone wants to spend the $200+ more on the pm9. The only other thing I have noticed is the cm9 is slightly slower for me to draw from my pocket than the J-frame. I suspect when I get my holster that is made to fit the Kahr this will change, it should also speed up with practice.
So unless my FIL wants to buy my J-frame, be on the lookout for a S&W 442 with several speed loaders and speed strips in the classifieds in the near future.
*****************************
Original thread here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/handguns/233517-review_kahr_cm9_vs_j_frame.html
Original thread here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/handguns/233517-review_kahr_cm9_vs_j_frame.html
Last edited by a moderator:
