GUN TESTS loves the CM9, but.....

[KyJim]

I don't have my CM9 yet and obviously can't compare models. But, it's not a bit unusual for manufacturers to have two (or more) tiers of the same basic gun --Sig (e.g., Elite Series), Smith and Wesson (Pro Series), etc. For some the Chevy model is all we want; for others it's the Caddy. I don't know that I would be trading a PM9 I already had. I don't believe in trading or selling good guns that I like.

[bigbob68]

I don't believe anything that "Gun Tests" posts about their findings. One year they say the Milinium Pro is a best buy, with a great tripper and that same year they dogged a Millinium Pro because of the horrible trigger. What gives? I even wrote to clomplain and cancelled my subscription. Sometimes they shoot ransom rest, other times it is sand bagging it and still other times it is off hand. How can you properly tell a guns accuracy? RANT OFF!

[Ol'coot]

With over 2500 flawless rounds through my PM9 I am still very happy with my purchase. IF I were in the market today no doubt I would consider the CM9 and pocket the difference. No regrets on my part and I would not hesitate a second to purchase another PM9. 2 years ago there was no CM9 option.

[Paul55]

I really wanted, but couldn't afford the PM9 when they came out. Then when Kahr announced the CM9, I was on a quest to find one. It took me about 6 weeks to get one through a local dealer (ordered back in March) and have been shooting it almost every week since.

Earlier in the year I had traded-away a CW9 and an LCP; both failing to "do it for me". Each had issues that I didn't trust in a CCW EDC role.

The CM9 (or the perfected PM9) is a perfect size and weight for summertime EDC.

[Tilos]

One good range trip with a cm will bring the cost up to the pm.
But I'd rather shoot the extra $ out the barrel than ON a barrel.
Tilos

[Longitude Zero]

Tilos I am with you. It has been proven over and over again the difference in the barrels of the PM and CM makes zero difference in accuracy in the range in which the weapons were meant to perform.

[MCBallpeen]

I see that some people here (as in other places) don't like Gun Tests magazine. It could be that the subscription rate are a little steep for some people, or that there are no flashy ads in their magazine or for what ever reason. The thing with them is this: They do not accept free manufactures samples, they do not accept ad dollars and usually they call a spade a spade.

Their #1 pocket 9mm right now is the Kel Tec PF9. Frankly I think that Kel Tecs should be handed out to prisoners who leave jail so that police will be able to shoot them for being armed without too much danger to themselves. But that's just my humble opinion. They actually got lucky and found a Kel Tec that WORKED and didn't need to go back to the factory five or six times to get something right. The first PF9 they had was a miserable failure and got an F grade. I'm inclined to average these out and give the PF9 a C grade. Sometimes you get on that works, and sometimes you don't.

Back in the early days Gun Tests gave Kahr bad ratings for having a super long trigger pull. Now, they know that this is the nature of the beast since there are plenty of DAO guns on the market that don't have as light or as smooth a trigger pull as the Kahr. Hence they give Kahr a more favorable rating.

Oops, for those of you that have a subscription:http://www.gun-tests.com/issues/23_6...ols5886-1.html

[Bawanna]

I agree. I don't have a subscription but occasionally read other peoples copies.
I like that they call them the way they see them with no obligation to sugar coat anything. The fact that they actually buy their test samples like anyone else means they can get a good one or sometimes a very bad one.

Like everything else you have to take their perspective and observations with a grain of salt and apply their reporting to your own needs and ideas.
What is appealing to one person might be a horrible thing to another.

Since they don't accept advertising the cost obviously has to be more to the subscriber. I don't always agree with what they have to say but I like reading their thoughts and observations.

[TheTman]

I'm glad to see that those of us on a tight budget have a new lower priced pocket 9 to choose. If money were no object I'd probably go with the PM9, as it is, I'd have to pick the CM9. I'm just happy that Kahr gave us budget minded people an option.
Right now I'm saving up my pennies for a unusual designed pocket 9 that isn't even on the market yet, but is in the final test stages. It is smaller than the PM9, about P380 sized, with a longer barrel than the PM9. It's going to go for around $900, so it should be well tested by the time I save that up. They are trying to release it mid-June. If it proves to be a flop, I may be looking into the CM9. The reason I'm holding off is the CM9's are still just a bit big for my pockets, while this other gun should fit pretty well. I'll just have to see how things play out.

[jocko]

I take gun tests with a fine grain of salt. the true gun test for me is my shooting expereience with it. We have somne people who cannot shoot a kahr, so there fore it is not the gun for them.I hated kel tec and any test they made on it was just for that one gun, some work, probably today most dowork but they are what they are, forthe price point a good gun but certainnly will never be in my home again PERIOD. I do think Gun tests tries to be fair and balanced. Ihad a good outdoor writer frined who did alot of outdoor writing n fishing stuff. hehad a home full of products that was sent to him to test and write about andhe told me every one of them toldhim to keep the product aftrer the test to, He had lorance fish finders, Tomm Mann stuff ouyt the ass. He NEVER wrote a bad comment either, as he told me that he he done so the industry wouldhave soon foundout about him and he would have never gotten a product to test out. quid quo pro""" I wold betin thegun industry it is about the same. U certainly don'tthink that Ruger is goig torun a full page add in a gun rag only to get their product hammered in the same rag. Might happen once but I doubt if it will happen twice..

[LuckyGunner]

I don't think the purchase of a Kahr has ever left me wishing I hadn't done it. I do like the fact that you can get the more refined or less refined version depending on your budget.

Other manufacturers do the same thing. XD & XDM, Sigma & M&P. It's just as common as not having a lower and upper tier.

[Blue150]

No need to apologize.You hate gun tests,I hate prostate exams.Live and let live,I say.

I'll see you hating the prostate exam and raise you a colonoscopy. They give you good drugs during the exam but the preparation is twelve hours overdosing on laxatives. To say it's miserable doesn't really do the experience justice.

Back on subject... I have been drooling over the PM9 since I first saw one but I can't justify spending the scratch. Besides, I love getting into an action, finding every little thing that rubs against something else and polishing it until the action is smooth as glass. Also, the dealer had five other Kahrs in the cabinet, CW's mostly, and the CM9 I bought was twice as smooth as any of them. Can't wait to shoot it.

[kerby9mm]

When I was looking for a small 9mm I was convinced I wanted a Kimber Solobased on what I read in a gun rag that tested it so I went to the LGS and they did not have one. I went home and read further online and found out that they stopped production due to problems. After looking online I decided that I would purchase the mk9 that the LGS had sitting in the case based on my desire for a small nonpoly (either steel or alloy) gun. I'm very happy with the mk9 so much that 5 months later I bought the mk40 that they also had. If I had trusted the gun test on the Solo and really looked for one I might not be so happy.

[muggsy]

PM9/CM9 What's in a name. A Kahr by any other name would shoot as sweet. Sleep, perchance to dream of my next Kahr. Be it nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to shoot back with a Kahr. Alas, poor Jocko, I knew him well.
(With apologies to Bill)