Mr. 72, great point about this Kahr "myth" and great link too. You're absolutely right and my statement about Kahr being an all polymer frame was mistaken. Since I don't have my Kahr in front of me to look at anymore, I had it in my mind that it was all polymer. But looking at photos at the link it came back to me about the metal rails further down in the frame.mr.72 wrote:This is a myth:austinrealtor wrote: If you look closely there is a distinct difference between the design of a Glock and a Kahr in that Glock implants those little metal slide rails into their polymer frames whereas the Kahr PM guns run the slide directly onto formed polymer rails.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=765313" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Certainly my gun has stainless frame rail inserts.
I haven't inspected the LCP.
I seem to recall some kind of consistent issue that Kahr PM40s have that other Kahr pistols do not, but I can't recall and it's real fuzzy. Maybe your gun was one of these. BTW I love the trigger on my Kahr. It blows away my Smith & Wesson and is worlds better than the Taurus I had or my LCP. No contest. I prefer it over the funny-feeling Glock triggers too. But triggers are pretty personalized.
But this doesn't change my overall point - Glock is simply a better, more stable, and more reliable design. And while shaving off the polymer portions of the Kahr frame rail might not hurt function (not entirely sure I believe that, but I'll go along with it because I can't prove otherwise), what if those polymer rails were to swell? Surely that affects slide function - which was my point all along. I remember putting my malfunctioning Kahr frame up against a brand-new unused PM40 frame at Sportsman's Warehouse (I sure miss that store) in discussing with one of the salesmen our mutual distaste for Kahr and we both noticed that the frame on mine seemed to be swollen by comparison.
Anyway, I think we've beat this issue to death - especially in a thread that is supposed to be about Kel Tecs.
