If going with the CW9’s stock front sight is fine then go for it. Trijicon supposedly had night sights coming out but I don’t think it was actually made.

Why I prefer my G43 over my CW9 for carry? Size.

I want a small package and the CW has longer grip and fatter slide.

I think that the CW is better made than the Glock at a lower price point.

I can’t remember but I think that I bought my NIB CW9 for either $250 or 300 out the door with an extra extended magazine.

The biggest negative thing about the CW for me is that the grip circumference is a tad too small for me. The gun squirms in my hand too much during one handed shooting.

The G43’s circumference is okay but fore-aft dimensions feel a bit long for total comfort but better than the CW for one hand shooting.

The P365’s is perfect. As soon as I feel that it’s reliable enough to trust my life to, my two G43s will be relegated to stand-by status.

 

Why I prefer my G43 over my CW9 for carry? Size.

I want a small package and the CW has longer grip and fatter slide.

Interesting. The specs say the 43 is 1.06" vs. the CW9 at 0.90", but those appear to be frame widths with controls. I think you are right about the side widths. Just eyeballing the two, the slides appear to be extremely close in width.

 

I have a 10-year old P9 that has been perfect through 2500+ rounds with not one bobble of any kind regardless of what ammo I feed it. It was my hot weather carry until a couple of years ago when I bought and now carry a G43. That P9 is the only auto-loader that my wife like to shoot because it has that super smooth double action only trigger pull that her favored and well broken in revolvers have.

I needed a micro gun for a specific carry scenario and bought a CW380. It had a few bobbles in the first couple of hundred rounds with flat nosed WWB ammo but has been perfect with any other round nosed ammo and my favored Gold Dot hollow points.

These are the only two Kahr handguns I own and I like them. I have looked at and considered a couple of their metal frames guns but have not bought one, yet. As far as looks and feel-good-in-the-hand goes I think the Kahr design just beats most of the competition.

One of the clerks at my favorite local gun shop is retired military, retired LEO and prolific shooter. He's had a CT380 since just after it was introduced. He loves it and, being one of those who carry even at home, the CT380 is with him all the time at his home, yard or garage. Knowing him, I consider that high praise for that model.

 

I TRIED to get a CT380 but when I was looking EVERYONE was sold out of them...and while I was willing to wait a "bit" not a single gunstore local or online could say when they would get them back in..so I waited about a month..nothing...so i got a different one..but id have that NOW if it had been available..

I totally forgot about them when looking at small CC guns they made it back on my list!

 

My cw9 is flawlessly reliable, and super easy to conceal.

 

I don't have the CT380, but I do have the fancy-smancy Khamalafhornia model P380 that cost as much as a small bizz jet!

As for appearance - BEAUTIFUL! Pure and simple

As for size - there is NOTHING in .380 auto smaller - NOTHING! .75" thick X 3.9" tall X 4.9" long X 9.97 ounces sans magazine and a tad over 10 ounces mag in place. Kel-tec might make one a bit lighter, but not dimensionally smaller.
As for method of operation - pretty darn ingenious! It uses a partially cocked striker (like glock) that is further retracted by a small cam inside the frame that is rotated by action of the trigger via a "drawbar" (glock uses a pushbar).

The system is very simple with very few parts. The CA model has a magazine disconnect plus chamber loaded indicator. I "fixed" the chamber loaded indicator by tapping out the pin and grinding away a bit of the tang that extends down the breech-face and is pushed up by the cartridge being present. The result is it now stick up just enough to see and know it's chambered, but not interfere with the sights. Speaking of sights i should say here the P380 is top drawer all the way and comes with very nicely made, all steel slights any Glock would love to have!

I "fixed" the magazine disconnect by tapping out the tiny pin through the polymer grip which released a long, tension coil spring that served to pull the drawbar down when the mag was removed. Now the drawbar stays "up" due to tension applied by a small bent-wire spring that pushes the drawbar up to re-engage with the striker release cam!

However, when I first got it, it totally sucked in terms of reliable function. I eventually determined the problem to be the extractor spring was too long. With the small spacer rod in place, plus spring, and rear plate on, the spring was compressed nearly to a solid column. I snipped about a coil and a half and instantly the extractor had enough movement to let feeding cartridges rise up under the extractor and the gun went from safe-queen, to carry-king immediately!

All internals are polished to a MIRROR finish - feed ramp, chamber. Trigger pull feels like nothing...just a smooth pull to a slight stack prior to let-off...but WAY, WAY smoother than any Glock or any other pistol which uses a partially retracted striker system.

Back to the extractor...on the Kahr P380, the extractor is VERY well-designed. It's much larger than expected for a tiny pistol, and it has an arm that extends downward to "capture" the rim of the cartridge being fed up from the magazine. The lower extension captures the rim early in the feed cycle - very positive.
Granted the P380 has the lovely dovetailed sights and accented slide with attractive satin finish and Laser etching and whatever other kind of top-end markings.

With the initial problems corrected it's a wonderful, near-weightless carry option. It can be carried around the neck on a lanyard if desired! Carried in a front pocket, back pocket, shirt pocket, scrub-top pocket, or tucked into a folded paper "envelope" holster placed between belt and waist band! Trust me, a couple of thicknesses of folded paper weigh nothing and are far more concealable than any super-duper, micro-kydex, kevlar-slim-line, feather-weight under-tuck, bottom-feeder, shirt-out carry holster!

Anyway, unless Glock and Sig change HOW they build guns, they will NEVER build one smaller than the P380, and by association the CW380. Kahr uses a patented off-set trigger design that allows the trigger to be located almost parallel to the barrel locking cam.

 

I guess my question is simply are the Kahrs reliable

There are some who say they are, and some who say they aren't.

My PM9 is not reliable enough for a carry gun.

In my opinion, the Kahr design is more finicky, while the Glock design is more robust.

What Kahr had going for them is the early exploration of thin and small 9mm. Glock took that market over with the 43, and of course now the 43x and 48. Again, just my opinion, but getting the thin gun in a Glock design is a very big deal

 

I have a CW9 and CM9. I bought them long before the G43 came out. The size is great, they are we quality firearms. The trigger has a mile long pull. If Kahr put in a more Glock like trigger they could have owned the market. I just don't shoot them well.

 

The CT380 has a very stout recoil spring. It shouldn't be a problem for most shooters, but I could see someone with diminished grip strength struggling to retract the slide.

All of the Kahr poly-framed pistols suffer from a lack of grip texture. The good news is that even with Agrip or some bicycle inner tube added they're still very slim.

 

Interesting. The specs say the 43 is 1.06" vs. the CW9 at 0.90", but those appear to be frame widths with controls. I think you are right about the side widths. Just eyeballing the two, the slides appear to be extremely close in width.

And longer grip as well.

 

Glock 43 vs CM9

PM9 vs G43 - interesting.

 

G43 v CW9.

 

This is getting way off the subject... And Im making it worse ;-)
This is a pic of my 43 with a +2 mag (which I adore) and my new to me S&W 3913LS
A blast from the Aluminum era

 

I'd have to say, the CW9 was one of my favorite carry pistols. Super thin and light made a huge difference and I enjoyed carrying that one IWB even more than my current P365.

The trigger and reset were a lot longer than I could ever really become comfortable with but it was light enough that it wasn't a huge issue and I'd probably be fine with it more now than back then.

 

So what are your thoughts on the CT380 (aside from caliber) and the CW9 as a carry gun/SD gun?

A CT380 is going to be a lottery, by about the same margin as CW380. Some of their guns are just problematic and there's next to nothing you can do to fix them. But if you get a good one, it will serve you well.

I currently have a P45 (basically CW45) with 3 factory magazines. One of the 3 is not reliable. There's no discernable difference between them. It just does not work as well, for no reason.

Still, I'm thinking about getting a CT380 one day. It's like their G42X that Glock refuses to make for us, although only by 1 round larger.

 

You can now get night sights from Kahr and they are Trijicon. With the night sights they make a great gun but can be a little snappy when firing.

 

I just bought a Kahr CM-9, slightly used. Still checking it out but I do like it. I just want to make sure it is reliable with certain ammo. I plan more shooting this week.

I got it for easy carry, short distances.

 

I don't like either one. I don't like the CT380 because it's a 380. The only 380 I'd consider carrying is the Glock 42 because it's accurate, reliable and can reliably feed the Underwood Plus+P 90 grain xtp's.

And I don't like the CW9 because it's bigger than the G43 but the only problem I have with the G43 is that it's bigger than the G42. the Kahr PM9, on the other hand is closer to the size of a G42 but chambered in a much more effective caliber.

The CM9 is the "economy" version of the PM9 mostly because the PM9 has a polygonal barrel and comes with 2 magazines. The other difference is that the PM9 is a available with a black slide and until recently the CM9 was only available in 2-tone. I hate 2-tone and would have gladly paid more for the PM9 but now that's moot point.*

I've shot a G43 and a PM9 and I like the Glock trigger better but I could live with the Kahr trigger. I'm just not sure about reliability. I know someone who has one and it's reliable but different people have posted on this forum saying that they had problems.
But supposedly once their broken in, they work just fine.

I would probably chose the Glock 43. My main problem with the G43 was that I always thought it was too big for a 6 round capacity gun. And it always bugged me that Glock wouldn't make factory OEM extended mags for it that at the very least could be carried as a spare if you didn't want to increase the size of the gun even more.

But now I think I could live with a G43 even though it's too big for pocket carry and I could also live with 6+1 rounds and a 6 round spare especially considering that for years I've carried a 5 round J-frame with a 5 round speedloader or speed strip.

* https://www.kahr.com/kahr-introduces-exclusive-black-armor-9mm-and-45-acp-handguns/

 

The Kahr has the perfect trigger for a tiny gun, good sights and unlike most other really small pistols, they handle and shoot much better than anything that small typically does. They are well made.
The knocks are very stiff spring and they require patience and lots of shooting ro settle them in. Mine required an extractor tweak also.