warpedcamshaft
07-14-12, 00:38
Recently, I have gotten my hands on a Kahr CW9. Few firearms get me excited enough to want to write a review detailing my thoughts. However, I figured I would take a crack at it for my own amusement and to inform those interested in the CW9 and weapons of similar size and price. I was extremely surprised and impressed with this unit and have not seen many detailed reviews regarding this particular weapon.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0106.jpg
This particular unit is fairly new, and was purchased recently (2012). I have had the opportunity to fire over 1000 rounds through this unit in a short period of time, and am extremely impressed by the value, accuracy, and reliability of the Kahr CW9 at this point in my experience. I also found it aesthetically pleasing and very comfortable to carry. Please understand, my review is based on a sample size of one weapon and I understand the limitations of a small sample size.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/SideCw91.jpg
Note: (Glock 19 appears in some photos for comparison purposes)
Reliability/Durability: 1000+ rounds downrange with this unit. I will list some types of ammunition fired below. The weapon has experienced no stoppages or malfunctions of any type. There have been several shooters who have put in time on this gun, both experienced and novice, with no stoppages or malfunctions. I realize that this is not an astronomical amount of ammunition, but I feel it is an adequate test for a review of a weapon that will serve as a backup or hot weather/deep cover concealment weapon. I have shot revolvers of similar price out of time and completely locked them up with fewer rounds. I am extremely convinced that this particular CW9 is reliable at this point in the game.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/Cw9Brass1.jpg
I have fired several types of hollow points (115, 124, and 147 grain) and many FMJ’s (115, 124, and 147) through this weapon. A bulk of my shooting was with 115 and 124 grain FMJ’s. Everything seems to feed and function well including reloads. My primary carry load at this juncture with this weapon will be 147 grain Golden Sabers because the 25 yard accuracy and point of impact works well for me.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0140.jpg
I can only speculate on durability, as 1000 rounds is not nearly enough to determine this. Others will need to chime in on this. My impression is that the weapon is very durable considering the price and size. If it catastrophically falls apart, I will post again and update the info.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0120.jpg
Due to the price point and size of this weapon, I consider comparison to the LC9 and PF9 to be acceptable. I understand the PF9 costs much less than the CW9, but the sizes are somewhat similar and I have decided to lump it in because it was available. The LC9 is a much more refined and durable firearm than the PF9 in my opinion and experience.
Trigger: I was pleasantly surprised by the trigger of the CW9. I enjoyed the physical appearance and feel of the trigger itself, with its stainless metallic look and smooth face. The actual trigger stroke is a long, mid weight, double action pull typical of these smaller single stack 9mm’s with a minor amount of stacking mid pull. The take up is very short and light, and the trigger is surprisingly easy to fire rapidly. Comparing this weapon directly to weapons like the Ruger LC9 and Kel-Tec PF9, I find the trigger much easier to manipulate at a rapid pace.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0135.jpg
During the course of my testing I fired many 5 and 1 drills (5 rounds A-zone IPSC or CSAT target followed by a round to the head at 7 yards, high ready position) from Paul Howe’s CSAT pistol standards in under 2.5 seconds (CSAT standard is under 3 seconds). The trigger is smooth and fast enough to rapidly stroke for fast shots. This drill can be difficult with sub compact single stack 9mm’s, but the CW9 is very easy to shoot considering the diminutive size of the weapon.
I have large hands and have to kick my trigger finger out slightly for optimal placement when firing two handed. However, when firing one handed, I place my finger deeper in the trigger to allow a stronger and more in-line grip with my big digits.
Ergonomics/Size: One aspect of the CW9 that I found exceptionally amiable was the grip profile and the ability to get my hand higher and closer to the boreline in comparison with the LC9 and PF9. I was also able to get a decent amount of my pinkie finger on the grip of the CW9. I was unable to place my pinkie on the grip of the LC9 or PF9 without the grip extensions, despite the fact that all three weapons are similar in height (4.5 inches for Kahr and Ruger, 4.3 inches for Kel-Tec). The weapon feels lower in the hand and more comfortable and controllable than the LC9 or PF9 in my hands. Both the PF9 and LC9 have a frame that prevents me from getting my hand as high on the firearm as I would like. My wife did exceptionally well with the CW9, and found the grip to be comfortable and almost perfect for her hands. I think this is a great weapon for my wife ergonomically. She noted how “snappy” the PF9 felt compared to the smoother recoil of the CW9.
The overall size of the CW9 is very comparable to the LC9. Both weapons are 4.5 inches tall, however the LC9 is a bit taller if you add the grip extension. The CW9 is 5.9 inches long, and the LC9 is 6 inches. The LC9 has a 3.12 inch barrel, while the CW9 has a 3.5 inch barrel. From my viewpoint, I’m getting a shorter weapon with a longer barrel and I feel that is a good thing. The LC9 and CW9 are listed as .90 inches wide.
The texturing on the grip is acceptable for a small carry gun. The sides are fairly smooth, but the texture on the front and back is fairly aggressive. I had some issues with slippage when firing one handed in high heat and humidity while bleeding (details later), but was still able to fire the weapon effectively. Perhaps the grip sides could be textured slightly more aggressively, although this may make carrying the weapon less comfortable with some holsters. Which brings me to my next point.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0109.jpg
I have carried the weapon concealed for a while and have found it to be comfortable against the skin, causing me no irritation on long hot days. Overall, it is a very comfortable weapon to carry and fire. I was able to fire a few hundred rounds in a fairly short range session with no discomfort. Two egregious ergonomic errors: 1: The top edges of the cocking serrations and corners near the ejection port are sharp enough to make you bleed, I was cut and bled while training with this weapon, which was quite enjoyable. 2: the slide stop edges (facing towards rear of slide) are sharp and I radiused them slightly with a file for comfort.
I think the controls work well. Mag release was never in the way of my grip and the slide stop was easy to use with either the support hand thumb or the strong hand thumb..
One other quick point: the slide stop is around 1.110 inches wide and requires a bit of care while re-holstering with certain holsters, as it can hang up. This width does not affect my comfort personally during concealed carry.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0118.jpg
Sights: The sights on this weapon work adequately well. The rear sight is metallic and has a white dash directly under the notch. The front sight is polymer and has a plain white dot. This configuration works well for me at 15 yard and closer, but I find it a bit distracting at 25 yards and out. I would prefer a bit narrower front sight when at 25 and further. Personally, I will be swapping out the polymer front for either a trijicon night sight or a dawson precision sight. I was also able to rack the slide off of my reinforced belt via the rear sight. Be very careful of the sharp angles around the ejection port while performing this action, as the sharp edges want to bite into flesh and fabric. I found the sights superior to the PF9 and LC9 in most cases. The front sight is pinned in, and the rear sight sits in a dovetail. I required no sight adjustment with the CW9 from the factory.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0116.jpg
Precision: This is where the CW9 really surprised me. I was able to put hits on steel plates at 65 yards with a bit of concentration. At average defensive ranges, the CW9 was obviously more than adequately precise. However, firing the CW9 at 25 yards is where I began to be extremely impressed. Firing 5 round groups offhand at 25 yards I was able to get repeatable sub 5 inch groups on B8’s (25 yard repair center) with some loads getting down to 4.3 inch groups. I have no doubt that the weapon would produce even tighter groups if I had fired from a ransom rest or a bench and bags. I consider this excellent precision for a weapon of this size and width. A narrower front sight would make this easier for me and my eyes.
4.3 Inch 25 yard B8:
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/B8tgt.jpg
4.9 inch 25 yard IDPA Head Zone:
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0139.jpg
Firing the LC9 at 25 yards was a bit more challenging than the CW9. I could hold reasonable groups (IDPA -0 zone), but the firing was slow paced to get the hits. The PF9 was not nearly as precise as the LC9 at 25 yards. I feel fairly confident that I was doing my part and was getting more C-zone hits than I would expect. The PF9 I was firing had an alarming amount of slide shake. It shook like an epileptic chihuahua crapping glass in Antarctica.
Magazine: This is one area where I was not as pleased with the CW9. The magazines appear well made and reliable, however the angle of the top round is very steep and rounds tend to slip off if moved around much due to the feed lip design. Get a good magazine pouch, and you will not have problems. My other gripe is in regards to the polymer base plate. The polymer base plate has a lip around the edge and protrudes farther than necessary. I took a knife and a file to a couple of them and cut the lip down. Kahr makes a metallic plate that would rectify this issue to some extent. I used the 7 and 8 round magazines for testing.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0145.jpg
Shootability: I am going to add a few points to illustrate the “shoot-ability” of this weapon. I was easily able to accomplish several drills that are much more difficult with the other weapons listed. For the concealment drills I list below, I used a t-shirt and a polo shirt both worn loose. I employ the “Hackathorn Rip” while wearing this type of garment. 7 yard headshots from concealment were consistently repeatable in the 1:75-1:80 range. Strong hand only drills (One hand Hack rip) at 7 yards to an IPSC a-zone were repeatable in the 1:90 - 2:25 range. These drills with the LC9 and PF9 were usually at least .15 to .25 seconds slower. They are simply more difficult guns to grip for me, and the CW9 allows me an extremely consistent grip for the size. One final drill I will list is the 6 round Bill Drill into a reduced A-zone at 6 yards from concealment. This drill comes from Kyle Defoor’s pistol standards and is a great indicator of controllability and concealed carry draw speed. With the CW9 I was able to run the drill several times in under 4 seconds (standard is 4.5). The PF9 and LC9 were much more difficult to fire as quickly or as accurately for me and the other shooters who attempted.
Final Thoughts: I am almost certain that I will be keeping this weapon long term unless I begin experiencing issues. I can easily conceal this weapon in almost any type of clothing and it is extremely comfortable on long days with just a t-shirt. The Kahr CW9 is getting some stout competition these days, but still remains a strong contender. Kahr has been in the business of making small guns for quite some time, and overall I am very impressed with the CW9.
A few things I like:
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0142.jpg
Glock 19 for size comparison.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0115.jpg
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0111.jpg
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0106.jpg
This particular unit is fairly new, and was purchased recently (2012). I have had the opportunity to fire over 1000 rounds through this unit in a short period of time, and am extremely impressed by the value, accuracy, and reliability of the Kahr CW9 at this point in my experience. I also found it aesthetically pleasing and very comfortable to carry. Please understand, my review is based on a sample size of one weapon and I understand the limitations of a small sample size.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/SideCw91.jpg
Note: (Glock 19 appears in some photos for comparison purposes)
Reliability/Durability: 1000+ rounds downrange with this unit. I will list some types of ammunition fired below. The weapon has experienced no stoppages or malfunctions of any type. There have been several shooters who have put in time on this gun, both experienced and novice, with no stoppages or malfunctions. I realize that this is not an astronomical amount of ammunition, but I feel it is an adequate test for a review of a weapon that will serve as a backup or hot weather/deep cover concealment weapon. I have shot revolvers of similar price out of time and completely locked them up with fewer rounds. I am extremely convinced that this particular CW9 is reliable at this point in the game.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/Cw9Brass1.jpg
I have fired several types of hollow points (115, 124, and 147 grain) and many FMJ’s (115, 124, and 147) through this weapon. A bulk of my shooting was with 115 and 124 grain FMJ’s. Everything seems to feed and function well including reloads. My primary carry load at this juncture with this weapon will be 147 grain Golden Sabers because the 25 yard accuracy and point of impact works well for me.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0140.jpg
I can only speculate on durability, as 1000 rounds is not nearly enough to determine this. Others will need to chime in on this. My impression is that the weapon is very durable considering the price and size. If it catastrophically falls apart, I will post again and update the info.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0120.jpg
Due to the price point and size of this weapon, I consider comparison to the LC9 and PF9 to be acceptable. I understand the PF9 costs much less than the CW9, but the sizes are somewhat similar and I have decided to lump it in because it was available. The LC9 is a much more refined and durable firearm than the PF9 in my opinion and experience.
Trigger: I was pleasantly surprised by the trigger of the CW9. I enjoyed the physical appearance and feel of the trigger itself, with its stainless metallic look and smooth face. The actual trigger stroke is a long, mid weight, double action pull typical of these smaller single stack 9mm’s with a minor amount of stacking mid pull. The take up is very short and light, and the trigger is surprisingly easy to fire rapidly. Comparing this weapon directly to weapons like the Ruger LC9 and Kel-Tec PF9, I find the trigger much easier to manipulate at a rapid pace.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0135.jpg
During the course of my testing I fired many 5 and 1 drills (5 rounds A-zone IPSC or CSAT target followed by a round to the head at 7 yards, high ready position) from Paul Howe’s CSAT pistol standards in under 2.5 seconds (CSAT standard is under 3 seconds). The trigger is smooth and fast enough to rapidly stroke for fast shots. This drill can be difficult with sub compact single stack 9mm’s, but the CW9 is very easy to shoot considering the diminutive size of the weapon.
I have large hands and have to kick my trigger finger out slightly for optimal placement when firing two handed. However, when firing one handed, I place my finger deeper in the trigger to allow a stronger and more in-line grip with my big digits.
Ergonomics/Size: One aspect of the CW9 that I found exceptionally amiable was the grip profile and the ability to get my hand higher and closer to the boreline in comparison with the LC9 and PF9. I was also able to get a decent amount of my pinkie finger on the grip of the CW9. I was unable to place my pinkie on the grip of the LC9 or PF9 without the grip extensions, despite the fact that all three weapons are similar in height (4.5 inches for Kahr and Ruger, 4.3 inches for Kel-Tec). The weapon feels lower in the hand and more comfortable and controllable than the LC9 or PF9 in my hands. Both the PF9 and LC9 have a frame that prevents me from getting my hand as high on the firearm as I would like. My wife did exceptionally well with the CW9, and found the grip to be comfortable and almost perfect for her hands. I think this is a great weapon for my wife ergonomically. She noted how “snappy” the PF9 felt compared to the smoother recoil of the CW9.
The overall size of the CW9 is very comparable to the LC9. Both weapons are 4.5 inches tall, however the LC9 is a bit taller if you add the grip extension. The CW9 is 5.9 inches long, and the LC9 is 6 inches. The LC9 has a 3.12 inch barrel, while the CW9 has a 3.5 inch barrel. From my viewpoint, I’m getting a shorter weapon with a longer barrel and I feel that is a good thing. The LC9 and CW9 are listed as .90 inches wide.
The texturing on the grip is acceptable for a small carry gun. The sides are fairly smooth, but the texture on the front and back is fairly aggressive. I had some issues with slippage when firing one handed in high heat and humidity while bleeding (details later), but was still able to fire the weapon effectively. Perhaps the grip sides could be textured slightly more aggressively, although this may make carrying the weapon less comfortable with some holsters. Which brings me to my next point.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0109.jpg
I have carried the weapon concealed for a while and have found it to be comfortable against the skin, causing me no irritation on long hot days. Overall, it is a very comfortable weapon to carry and fire. I was able to fire a few hundred rounds in a fairly short range session with no discomfort. Two egregious ergonomic errors: 1: The top edges of the cocking serrations and corners near the ejection port are sharp enough to make you bleed, I was cut and bled while training with this weapon, which was quite enjoyable. 2: the slide stop edges (facing towards rear of slide) are sharp and I radiused them slightly with a file for comfort.
I think the controls work well. Mag release was never in the way of my grip and the slide stop was easy to use with either the support hand thumb or the strong hand thumb..
One other quick point: the slide stop is around 1.110 inches wide and requires a bit of care while re-holstering with certain holsters, as it can hang up. This width does not affect my comfort personally during concealed carry.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0118.jpg
Sights: The sights on this weapon work adequately well. The rear sight is metallic and has a white dash directly under the notch. The front sight is polymer and has a plain white dot. This configuration works well for me at 15 yard and closer, but I find it a bit distracting at 25 yards and out. I would prefer a bit narrower front sight when at 25 and further. Personally, I will be swapping out the polymer front for either a trijicon night sight or a dawson precision sight. I was also able to rack the slide off of my reinforced belt via the rear sight. Be very careful of the sharp angles around the ejection port while performing this action, as the sharp edges want to bite into flesh and fabric. I found the sights superior to the PF9 and LC9 in most cases. The front sight is pinned in, and the rear sight sits in a dovetail. I required no sight adjustment with the CW9 from the factory.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0116.jpg
Precision: This is where the CW9 really surprised me. I was able to put hits on steel plates at 65 yards with a bit of concentration. At average defensive ranges, the CW9 was obviously more than adequately precise. However, firing the CW9 at 25 yards is where I began to be extremely impressed. Firing 5 round groups offhand at 25 yards I was able to get repeatable sub 5 inch groups on B8’s (25 yard repair center) with some loads getting down to 4.3 inch groups. I have no doubt that the weapon would produce even tighter groups if I had fired from a ransom rest or a bench and bags. I consider this excellent precision for a weapon of this size and width. A narrower front sight would make this easier for me and my eyes.
4.3 Inch 25 yard B8:
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/B8tgt.jpg
4.9 inch 25 yard IDPA Head Zone:
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0139.jpg
Firing the LC9 at 25 yards was a bit more challenging than the CW9. I could hold reasonable groups (IDPA -0 zone), but the firing was slow paced to get the hits. The PF9 was not nearly as precise as the LC9 at 25 yards. I feel fairly confident that I was doing my part and was getting more C-zone hits than I would expect. The PF9 I was firing had an alarming amount of slide shake. It shook like an epileptic chihuahua crapping glass in Antarctica.
Magazine: This is one area where I was not as pleased with the CW9. The magazines appear well made and reliable, however the angle of the top round is very steep and rounds tend to slip off if moved around much due to the feed lip design. Get a good magazine pouch, and you will not have problems. My other gripe is in regards to the polymer base plate. The polymer base plate has a lip around the edge and protrudes farther than necessary. I took a knife and a file to a couple of them and cut the lip down. Kahr makes a metallic plate that would rectify this issue to some extent. I used the 7 and 8 round magazines for testing.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0145.jpg
Shootability: I am going to add a few points to illustrate the “shoot-ability” of this weapon. I was easily able to accomplish several drills that are much more difficult with the other weapons listed. For the concealment drills I list below, I used a t-shirt and a polo shirt both worn loose. I employ the “Hackathorn Rip” while wearing this type of garment. 7 yard headshots from concealment were consistently repeatable in the 1:75-1:80 range. Strong hand only drills (One hand Hack rip) at 7 yards to an IPSC a-zone were repeatable in the 1:90 - 2:25 range. These drills with the LC9 and PF9 were usually at least .15 to .25 seconds slower. They are simply more difficult guns to grip for me, and the CW9 allows me an extremely consistent grip for the size. One final drill I will list is the 6 round Bill Drill into a reduced A-zone at 6 yards from concealment. This drill comes from Kyle Defoor’s pistol standards and is a great indicator of controllability and concealed carry draw speed. With the CW9 I was able to run the drill several times in under 4 seconds (standard is 4.5). The PF9 and LC9 were much more difficult to fire as quickly or as accurately for me and the other shooters who attempted.
Final Thoughts: I am almost certain that I will be keeping this weapon long term unless I begin experiencing issues. I can easily conceal this weapon in almost any type of clothing and it is extremely comfortable on long days with just a t-shirt. The Kahr CW9 is getting some stout competition these days, but still remains a strong contender. Kahr has been in the business of making small guns for quite some time, and overall I am very impressed with the CW9.
A few things I like:
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0142.jpg
Glock 19 for size comparison.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0115.jpg
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w473/warpedcamshaft/DSC_0111.jpg