I just bought my new carry gun. Unfortunately I have no pictures or range report yet. Just got it yesterday.
Originally, for my carry gun, I had been thinking of something along the lines of a Glock 23. A SIG 229 would also have been something I'd have picked, if I'd had the money. Later, I discovered the Springfield XD, and thought the XD Compact in .45 would have been a fine carry gun....compact, reasonable capacity of a good self-defense ammo, and with extended magazines would double as a full-sized gun.
Then the XDm came out, and I started to think I wanted an XDm Compact, probably in .40 cal. Like the other guns, it was a compact version of a full-sized service handgun, with a double-column magazine.
However, I began to realize that once the novelty of carrying a gun wore off, I'd probably find a gun that size and thickness...inconvenient. Bulky, and hard to conceal, uncomfortable to wear all the time. I'm not a big guy, might be hard to conceal a double stack gun. So I started to look at smaller guns, ones that I might eventually start to carry when I didn't need or want the larger gun.
Eventually, I decided to start with the smaller gun, and maybe work my way upwards, once I had more experience with concealed carry.
I already have my dad's J-frame Smith, and decided that if I had to, that would work, but wanted something a bit better. I prefer an autoloader, with the higher capacity and faster reload times.
I picked a few that I thought would be good. They were the Springfield XDs, Ruger LC9, and Kel-tec PF-9. All would be in 9mm -- although I have a preference for larger calibers, I figured 9mm would probably be the way to go in a small platform. I did some research on those pistols, comparing specs, trigger pull, and price. As an afterthought, I added in two guns from Kahr, the CW9 and CM9.
I quickly nixed the CM9, since it is the only one of that group with a capacity of less than 7. It also seemed like it would be difficult to hold while shooting. I reluctantly crossed off the XDs, which had been my favorite, for a couple reasons, notably size (it's about the biggest) and price (by far the most expensive).
The Ruger had some disadvantages....trigger pull, and the manual safety, and the large chamber-loaded indicator. Not enough to cross it off, but enough that I wasn't happy with it. I was leaning towards the Kel-tec...when I took a hard look at the Kahr CW9. Almost the same dimensions as the Kel-tec...slightly heavier, a bit taller, a little longer but with a much longer barrel (longest barrel of the group). And the Kahr trigger was only 5.5 pounds, barely more than the Kel-tec, equal or better than the XDs, and described as very smooth. The Kahr was a little more money than the very cheap Kel-tec, but the same or better than the Ruger, and much less expensive than the XDs.
So, I took a look at the CW9 in Cabela's, dry fired the trigger a few times. Liked the trigger, liked the feel. The price was right ($400), so I bought it.
First impressions....I like the look, the black frame and stainless slide. Even with the magazine out, my pinkie finger can get some purchase on the grip, and with the mag in, it fits perfectly in my hand, which none of the others did. And the trigger.....I could hardly believe it was double-action...felt more like some single action triggers. Much better than any of the other double-action autos I've owned or fired. Disassembly is about like the S&W 3rd generation 4516 I used to have. However, putting the guide rod and recoil spring back in is harder than with the full sized autos I am familiar with.
In short, I like the gun, and look forward to shooting it. I'm sure I will shoot it better than my J-frame revolver -- it has much better, more visible and substantial sights, a better trigger, and the action should absorb some recoil.
Sorry for the wordy post...just wanted to explain my thinking, over the time that I've been considering this.
Originally, for my carry gun, I had been thinking of something along the lines of a Glock 23. A SIG 229 would also have been something I'd have picked, if I'd had the money. Later, I discovered the Springfield XD, and thought the XD Compact in .45 would have been a fine carry gun....compact, reasonable capacity of a good self-defense ammo, and with extended magazines would double as a full-sized gun.
Then the XDm came out, and I started to think I wanted an XDm Compact, probably in .40 cal. Like the other guns, it was a compact version of a full-sized service handgun, with a double-column magazine.
However, I began to realize that once the novelty of carrying a gun wore off, I'd probably find a gun that size and thickness...inconvenient. Bulky, and hard to conceal, uncomfortable to wear all the time. I'm not a big guy, might be hard to conceal a double stack gun. So I started to look at smaller guns, ones that I might eventually start to carry when I didn't need or want the larger gun.
Eventually, I decided to start with the smaller gun, and maybe work my way upwards, once I had more experience with concealed carry.
I already have my dad's J-frame Smith, and decided that if I had to, that would work, but wanted something a bit better. I prefer an autoloader, with the higher capacity and faster reload times.
I picked a few that I thought would be good. They were the Springfield XDs, Ruger LC9, and Kel-tec PF-9. All would be in 9mm -- although I have a preference for larger calibers, I figured 9mm would probably be the way to go in a small platform. I did some research on those pistols, comparing specs, trigger pull, and price. As an afterthought, I added in two guns from Kahr, the CW9 and CM9.
I quickly nixed the CM9, since it is the only one of that group with a capacity of less than 7. It also seemed like it would be difficult to hold while shooting. I reluctantly crossed off the XDs, which had been my favorite, for a couple reasons, notably size (it's about the biggest) and price (by far the most expensive).
The Ruger had some disadvantages....trigger pull, and the manual safety, and the large chamber-loaded indicator. Not enough to cross it off, but enough that I wasn't happy with it. I was leaning towards the Kel-tec...when I took a hard look at the Kahr CW9. Almost the same dimensions as the Kel-tec...slightly heavier, a bit taller, a little longer but with a much longer barrel (longest barrel of the group). And the Kahr trigger was only 5.5 pounds, barely more than the Kel-tec, equal or better than the XDs, and described as very smooth. The Kahr was a little more money than the very cheap Kel-tec, but the same or better than the Ruger, and much less expensive than the XDs.
So, I took a look at the CW9 in Cabela's, dry fired the trigger a few times. Liked the trigger, liked the feel. The price was right ($400), so I bought it.
First impressions....I like the look, the black frame and stainless slide. Even with the magazine out, my pinkie finger can get some purchase on the grip, and with the mag in, it fits perfectly in my hand, which none of the others did. And the trigger.....I could hardly believe it was double-action...felt more like some single action triggers. Much better than any of the other double-action autos I've owned or fired. Disassembly is about like the S&W 3rd generation 4516 I used to have. However, putting the guide rod and recoil spring back in is harder than with the full sized autos I am familiar with.
In short, I like the gun, and look forward to shooting it. I'm sure I will shoot it better than my J-frame revolver -- it has much better, more visible and substantial sights, a better trigger, and the action should absorb some recoil.
Sorry for the wordy post...just wanted to explain my thinking, over the time that I've been considering this.