When a co-worker called to say he wanted to stop by and return a set of reloading dies he had borrowed, he mentioned he had bought a Kahr CW9 the previous day. I retracted my suggestion that he return the dies to me at work and instead told him he had to bring them to my house....along with his new CW9. <grin> He said he would be heading over in a few minutes. Having not handled the Kahr CW9, I wanted to see how it compared to my PM9 that I had acquired several years ago.
|3.1" length with polygonal rifling||Barrel||3.6" with conventional rifling|
|14.0 oz.||Weight||15.8 oz.|
|1 each: 6 rd flush & 7 rd extended grip
|Magazine||1 each: 7 rd
Both the PM9 and CW9 are trigger cocking double action only (DAO) pistols using a locked breech and Browning type recoil lug. The striker block uses a passive design and there is no magazine disconnect implemented in the pistol.
The frames are constructed from black polymer, the same as so many other currently manufactured semi-auto pistols. While both slides shown in the above photos are matte stainless steel, the PM9's slide can also be had with in a high polish engraved stainless steel finish or a matte blackened stainless steel finish.
Sitting side by side, one can easily see the difference in the grip length....and as you can see, it is all in the end of the grip and not in the remaining portion of the frame or the slide.
The PM9's barrel is manufactured with polygonal rifling. Why polygonal rifling? Well, I've no doubt that there have been many, many debates on this topic and it is likely there will be many more to come. But those that support the polygonal rifling method claim some of the following as good reasons.
Less bullet deformation, resulting in reduced drag on the bullet when traveling through the barrel which helps to increase muzzle velocity.
Providing a better gas seal around the projectile as polygonal bores tend to have a slightly smaller bore area, which translates into more efficient use of the combustion gases trapped behind the bullet, slightly greater (consistency in) muzzle velocities and slightly increased accuracy.
Not compromising the barrel's thickness in the area of each groove as with traditional rifling.
By buddy suggested I break out my electronic trigger pull gauge to see how the two triggers stacked up against each other. My PM9 came in with an average of 5 pounds, 8.5 oz. The CW9 was exactly 1 pound heavier, at 6 pounds, 8.5 oz. Now in all fairness, my buddy's CW9 has yet to have any rounds through it while mine is thoroughly broken in and has had hundreds of rounds shot through it. Both of us could detect the difference between the two triggers. It should be noted that both felt equally smooth. Just the 1 pound higher pull weight was the only discernible difference.
The next time we are at the range together, I'll have to see if I can get some trigger time on the CW9. I'm interested in seeing how my carry loads perform in the CW9, both from a recoil aspect and over the chronograph. The longer frame and barrel should make it easier to shoot. If the bullet velocity is virtually the same, perhaps the shorter polygonal rifled PM9 barrel really does increase the velocity.
4x4 Off-Road Homestead Firearms RC Flying