PM9 non-interchangable barrels/frames

[Atilla]

I now find myself with 2 PM9s. I liked the first one so much, when another came along I picked it up. My first PM9 has been fantastic except for a broken trigger bar Kahr fixed on their dime after repeated contacts to Kahr CS. Since then it has been flawless, accurate, and predictable.

This new (to me, supposedly under 300 rounds fired but looks like more, my other one is over 1,000 and seems newer) PM9 is just as accurate, but is hit and miss on last shot hold open (on all 6 mags I have, other PM9 is 100% with all), and is VERY hard to rack the slide to hold open position (compared to my other PM9 or even my 10mm G29 with 24# springs!!!).

So I began looking for differences and possible problems. The frame in the PM9 in question seems thinner plastic overall. I attempted to interchange parts between the 2 PM9s. Then I noticed the barrel on the problem PM9 has metal machined off on the left side of the chamber when viewed from the underside(side away from ejection port)....it is rounded there compared to the more square chamber on my other PM9. The channel in the frame for the locking lug under the barrel (behind the spring stop) is also thinner, as is that portion of the barrel. The barrel on my other PM9 won't fit in that channel no way no how, it's too thick.

All the other main components (springs, guide rod, slide assembly, takedown pin) interchange just fine. I also noticed 2 indents on the underside of the 'good' PM9 (gunsmith's marks?) and only one on the 'bad' PM9.

Does anyone on the forum here know if Kahr changed the production of PM9s along the way to the point of barrels/frames not being interchangeable? I contacted Kahr about a barrel recall on this gun but was told by Eoin it was a feed issue on certain ammo and that a fluff n buff was the cure. This is a totally different issue that requires either a new frame or maybe I'll just trade it in on a Glock or CZ.

[CJB]

There are two series of PM9's... basically the difference is .125 inches in the length of the barrel and slide.

The older one, which Jocko likes, is the blunt nose model, and the newer one, is the tapered nose model.

The frames are identical, as far as I know, with the difference being the barrel and slide.

The entire top end should fit from PM9 to PM9 with no problems.

I "think" you can get the shorter barrel in the longer slide and it will function, it "just barely" catches on the front support area of the slide. The longer barrel will not fit into the shorter slide, or even go into it and hang out the front. It cannot be made to pass the support area up front.

Somebody correct me - but thats my understanding of it.

Same holds true on the PM45 - which I have one of each of.

[jocko]

having not done any of whatur saying. I think this way.

the longer barrel will fit i the shorter slide, as kahr has for a long time sold longer barrels (ported) for the cw series). there wshould be no difference. Once the barrel gets beyond the front of the slide, it is amute point, IMO. U will need a longer recoil assembly if you put the short barrel in teh longer slide. I have never seen this done, relly either way. But I would think the shorter barrel in the longer slide might give issues.

One can switch the entire new style slide/barrel and recoil assembly onto the old PM9 frame with ease. The frames on the new and old are identical. I like CJB am also theorizing as I have not seen any of the above done, But I do recall checking with an insdie person at kahr and was told the new style longer barrel will work perfect in the old style slide.

I have seen this question ask many times here and IMO, I qguess I have to say " why would u even think about doing it"? Just sayin

[Atilla]

This has nothing to do with the longer/shorter barrel. The frame will not accept the newer barrel period. Something is not right with this PM9, this is my 3rd Kahr ( other PM9 and MK9 previously). Not sure it's worth attempting to fix. Ill call CS see what they say but my experience is they'll avoid things if possible.

If my second PM9 was running fine I wouldn't care if it was different. I tried to exchange parts to see what was different. It does go bang 116/116 so far but the slide won't lock open ( does not travel back enough to engage slide lock, manually or with +p ammo). Also feels very rough compared to other kahrs I've shot.

[jocko]

do both guns work Ok in their proper frames??? It does sound tme lkeyou have a very early version blunt ose PM9 and now the newer style beveled slide PM9 model. If this is true and they both work OK in their right frames etc, then What I posted was theory to, not fact, If they both work Ok the way your originally bought them, then IMO, just accept it as such and that the guns major parts wil just not interchange...

[Atilla]

No, they don't both work like they should. The one does, but like I stated in my original and last post, the one I just got does fire, but does not lock the slide back with any of my 6 mags and runs a lot rougher.

[CJB]

pictures

we need pictures

there are lots of pm9 barrel pictures here... we need to see yours

~~

AFA the longer barrel fitting.... the problem that I had was that the front was so nicely fit, on the short slide, that the muzzle end would not totally slip thru. If it did, then the barrel would work. Its a matter of angles, and the shortness of it all makes even the standard barrel something that must be rotated to clear the breech hood on barrel from the face of the breech on the slide. The longer slides probably don't have this issue as much, since the angle of acceptance of the barrel when assembling it, is ever so slightly more shallow.

[FLBri]

why does this have to be a problem? Just send it back to Kahr and ask them to make it right. They will ... always have for me.

[Atilla]

OK, here are some pics.



My 2 PM9s



Yeah, the one on the left is still dirty, that's the one I'm having issues with. Note the 2 centerpunch marks on the one slide and one mark on the left.



OK, now the big differences: note the block of metal shaved off the bottom of the barrel on the left barrel. The frame has a cutout for the right barrel but conversely that barrel will not fit in the left frame, as shown in pics below.



Frame with cutout for beefier barrel. Overall this frame seems thicker.



Frame without cutout which prevents other barrel from fitting. The thinner barrel will fit in the other frame, but I will not do that since it's unsupported.

Again, the issues I am having are slide hold open either manually or with any of my 6 mags that all work fine on the other PM9 ( the one with the thicker barrel/frame), and overall uneven slide movement. I feel confident to carry the 'good' PM9 but the other one either needs to go back to Kahr or be traded in on a Shield, Solo, or CZ or something I know will work. I'd really like to get it running as good as the other PM9 however, even if that means a trip to Kahr. I'd also like an explanation of the incompatibility.

[Atilla]

I also have looked up the serial numbers at GlockTalk http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1332374

The one with the thinner barrel/frame was manufactured in April 2003 ( #VA53xx )
The other one was in early 2010 (# IB51xx )

[FLBri]

Great visual explanation, Atilla.

I took my PM9 down and compared and it is exactly like your first one (the reliable one, as is mine). Both in the barrel and the fame. With a 2003 birth date, maybe you ended up with a prototype or earlier production model. It would seem so, but I don't know when the PM9 series started.

If you got it cheap enough I would send it in and see what they can do to make it run right. Otherwise take the hit, learn the lesson, sell it for what you can (maybe better to trade it in) and move on.

But I might be inclined to move on to another PM9 if you like it that much. Don't let one early "One-Off" model sour you on the Kahr line. I think the PM9/CM9 series are among the best carry options out there.

[Atilla]

Yeah I'll contact Eoin or CS in general and see what's up with this old thing.

[jocko]

they both look like the blunt nose in photo #1. Am I seeing things???

The two dimples and one dimple basically mean nadda. Many today are that way. Why I cannot answer.

Ur gframes are really different, no doubt about that. theyhave cvertainly made somechanges .

How about the photos that u showed here, u snd to Kahr in care of Jay and ask the sae questions ur asking here.

I have an early PM9 VA 45xx and the framelooks identical to yours and the slide has one dimple.

My later PM9 which is also blunt noxe but made about 6 years ago, has the cut out and the one dimple. The barrels like u say are different. Strange but I just never looked at them before, always thinkin the blunt nose PM9 were all identical nad interchangeable, and it is evident they are not. both of my PM9 are flawless also. Mine eqarlyoine was in the barrel recall but I did the polish work myself as that was all that kahr did back then on any barrels that were sent back.

Your photos are excellent, khar should seem um to give u some insight..

[FLBri]

Well Jocko ... since you have an older one like his malfunctioning one ... that should be encouraging that it can be made a reliable defense gun!

Atilla .. the other thing you might try is to CLEAN that thing and try it. That much crap in the workings can cause all kinds of issues.

[jocko]

no doubt if I liked the gun, I would let kahr get it backand do what i necessary to it.