More Kahr dilemma... mine anyway

[mr.72]

So I sent my CW9 back to Kahr for the second time, and the third RMA (one I fixed on my own with parts they sent me), on Sept. 10.

It's been 18 days. Called them today to check on it and they say they are "waiting for a new barrel". Who are they waiting on?

Last time I sent it in, they replaced the barrel as well as the magazine follower. I guess they are convinced that the light strikes are caused by the barrel. I can't really see how. I think they still are just doing the standard repair without diagnosis. I bet they tell me they have replaced the barrel and the magazine follower (again) and "test fired", what, 5 rounds?

They promised to call me back with more detail on what else was done with the gun. I have requested an entirely new gun. I don't think there is any way they are going to give me a whole new gun, but I am going to hold firm and at the very least demand a whole new slide (the serial number is on the frame).

I THINK the problem is more likely with the striker protrusion or the striker spring.

The saga continues.

[LostInAustin]

Get them to replace the gun!?

[mr.72]

Alright, just got off the phone with them.

So... the reputation of Kahr CS is that they don't answer the phone. But they answered and I talked to them the first time. And the reputation of Kahr CS is that they don't call you back. Well they called me back within an hour. As far as responsiveness of the customer service goes, Kahr is scoring a solid A+ IMHO.

They say they have a barrel and will be finishing it up and putting it on the FedEx truck TODAY. They replaced the slide and barrel this time. That should be a good start. Guess I will have to break it in again! Time to go shooting.

[KFP]

I hope the third time is the charm for you!

[mr.72]

I hope the third time is the charm for you!

Me too! I really like that gun, when it is working!

It's on the way back. Should get it tomorrow.

[srothstein]

Just as a point of thought, I think that the light strikes could be caused by the barrel. If I understand things correctly (and I am not gunsmith or maker, so I could be wrong), the round headspaces based on the way the chamber is cut, so if it were cut a little deep, the round would space too far from the slide and get a light strike.

It could also be the way the barrel fits into the slide, if it is one of the designs where the barrel moves and is not tied to the frame. The cuts on the barrel could not match up with the slide properly. I could see trying to replace just the barrel the first time, and giving you both this time to make sure it works.

And I could be all wet on this. I was just thinking of how it could be. I can't see the company lying to you while it is trying so hard to work with you at the same time.

[.45mac.40]

mr.72
Just a thought ... have them keep it ... make a trade up for tha' CW40 !!
I've not one problem with mine ('except tha' Texas sweat) and trust it with my life !
FYI ... don't see many of tha' Kahrs at the Austin gun show, lately.
Noticed one PM9, he had a price of $718.00 ( ? ) or was it $758.00 ?? Ouch !!!
Best of luck with the repairs !
Good shooting at tha' range !
Mac .40 >>>>>>> #::::#

[WildBill]

Just as a point of thought, I think that the light strikes could be caused by the barrel. If I understand things correctly (and I am not gunsmith or maker, so I could be wrong), the round headspaces based on the way the chamber is cut, so if it were cut a little deep, the round would space too far from the slide and get a light strike ...

This is exactly what I was thinking. If the barrel is machined to one end of the tolerance and the slide to the other end, when assembled together, they may not perform as designed.

[mr.72]

Just as a point of thought, I think that the light strikes could be caused by the barrel. If I understand things correctly (and I am not gunsmith or maker, so I could be wrong), the round headspaces based on the way the chamber is cut, so if it were cut a little deep, the round would space too far from the slide and get a light strike ...

This is exactly what I was thinking. If the barrel is machined to one end of the tolerance and the slide to the other end, when assembled together, they may not perform as designed.

The headspace thing was my thought when they replaced the barrel the first time. But that time, the gun had pretty suddenly gone from under 5% light strikes to over 60% light strikes, so I got the impression that probably something had broken and it was not a headspace or tolerance problem. When they returned it, it came back having the under 5% light strikes problem again. So something had broken, and they fixed that bigger problem with the barrel and magazine follower. I still can't add up just how that happened.

But now a new barrel and slide makes a lot of sense. It's most of the gun after all. I still suspect the problem was the striker/spring/channel all along, and it will at least give me some peace of mind to know that they have replaced everything (besides the trigger mechanics) that are involved in firing the round.

And yes, Steve, I agree, I never suggested they are lying to me :) I think they are just trying to do whatever they normally do that fixes stuff, and in this case, since I was pretty irritated about this, they are going the extra mile to replace the whole slide. But it would have cost them less to replace the whole gun the first time, rather than 4 shipping charges between MA and TX, not to mention two new barrels and a new slide, plus time at the gun smith.

At the last company I where I worked, when I was in hardware, we used to make an electronic product that was a sort of low-margin commodity type product. We had a universal rule. All returns, we just replace and throw away the broken or defective one. Never try and fix it. If it fails manufacturing line test, toss it, don't try to fix it. The cost of the replacement in terms of wholesale material cost was always far less than the cost of labor to identify the problem, especially considering that diagnosis it would require the attention of one of our most skilled technicians. I think Kahr could learn something from this type of experience. My little informal survey says that most "lemon" Kahr pistols require three trips back to Kahr to be fully fixed. Let's say that's 1% of guns. The shipping is about $50 each way. So 1% of guns require Kahr to pay $300 in shipping alone to fix them, often including $100 or more in wholesale parts and probably at least that much in labor. Also included in that is customer frustration and damage to the brand's reputation. On the other hand, they could just always replace the defective pistol rather than trying to repair it, with only one trip's worth of shipping, and have a 99% chance of winding up with a happy customer. This would cost less and result in much better brand reputation. Not only that, but by replacing the entire gun on the "lemon" guns, they would be able to keep the "lemon" guns intact for analysis by QC to figure out what went wrong, while not "under the gun", so to speak, to get the gun repaired and back to a customer. Maybe I need to send them a resume. Of course, maybe I don't want to move to MA.

[WildBill]

At the last company I where I worked, when I was in hardware, we used to make an electronic product that was a sort of low-margin commodity type product. We had a universal rule. All returns, we just replace and throw away the broken or defective one. Never try and fix it. If it fails manufacturing line test, toss it, don't try to fix it. The cost of the replacement in terms of wholesale material cost was always far less than the cost of labor to identify the problem, especially considering that diagnosis it would require the attention of one of our most skilled technicians. I think Kahr could learn something from this type of experience. My little informal survey says that most "lemon" Kahr pistols require three trips back to Kahr to be fully fixed. Let's say that's 1% of guns. The shipping is about $50 each way. So 1% of guns require Kahr to pay $300 in shipping alone to fix them, often including $100 or more in wholesale parts and probably at least that much in labor. Also included in that is customer frustration and damage to the brand's reputation. On the other hand, they could just always replace the defective pistol rather than trying to repair it, with only one trip's worth of shipping, and have a 99% chance of winding up with a happy customer. This would cost less and result in much better brand reputation. Not only that, but by replacing the entire gun on the "lemon" guns, they would be able to keep the "lemon" guns intact for analysis by QC to figure out what went wrong, while not "under the gun", so to speak, to get the gun repaired and back to a customer. Maybe I need to send them a resume. Of course, maybe I don't want to move to MA.

This topic could be it's own thread. Most managers would rather see larger rework costs rather than scrap on their financial statements. Even though they are both waste, rework is more palatable than scrap.

Management can point to their customer service budget and convince themselves that they are doing a good job by monitoring the time it takes to answer customer complaints and turnaround time for shipping repaired guns. Brand loyalty and company reputation don't show up as a line item on balance sheets.

[Keith B]

At the last company I where I worked, when I was in hardware, we used to make an electronic product that was a sort of low-margin commodity type product. We had a universal rule. All returns, we just replace and throw away the broken or defective one. Never try and fix it. If it fails manufacturing line test, toss it, don't try to fix it. The cost of the replacement in terms of wholesale material cost was always far less than the cost of labor to identify the problem, especially considering that diagnosis it would require the attention of one of our most skilled technicians. I think Kahr could learn something from this type of experience. My little informal survey says that most "lemon" Kahr pistols require three trips back to Kahr to be fully fixed. Let's say that's 1% of guns. The shipping is about $50 each way. So 1% of guns require Kahr to pay $300 in shipping alone to fix them, often including $100 or more in wholesale parts and probably at least that much in labor. Also included in that is customer frustration and damage to the brand's reputation. On the other hand, they could just always replace the defective pistol rather than trying to repair it, with only one trip's worth of shipping, and have a 99% chance of winding up with a happy customer. This would cost less and result in much better brand reputation. Not only that, but by replacing the entire gun on the "lemon" guns, they would be able to keep the "lemon" guns intact for analysis by QC to figure out what went wrong, while not "under the gun", so to speak, to get the gun repaired and back to a customer. Maybe I need to send them a resume. Of course, maybe I don't want to move to MA.

This topic could be it's own thread. Most managers would rather see larger rework costs rather than scrap on their financial statements. Even though they are both waste, rework is more palatable than scrap.

Management can point to their customer service budget and convince themselves that they are doing a good job by monitoring the time it takes to answer customer complaints and turnaround time for shipping repaired guns. Brand loyalty and company reputation don't show up as a line item on balance sheets.

One issue is if they replace your firearm with a new one, without extensive break-in and testing, you could be receiving another defective unit. You have already said all of the other components (trigger mechanism, mag retention/release, frame) seem to be fine. Eventually they should have the bad parts replaced and a good working firearm for you.

Also, if they take back your gun, they either have to recondition it and sell it as such, or scrap it. They can't use the components to replace other users parts. Swapping out the individual parts is cheaper for them in the ling run.

To offset the shipping costs and time you have had to incur, I would see if they would throw in an extra magazine or two and maybe a hat!

[WildBill]

One issue is if they replace your firearm with a new one, without extensive break-in and testing, you could be receiving another defective unit. You have already said all of the other components (trigger mechanism, mag retention / release, frame) seem to be fine. Eventually they should have the bad parts replaced and a good working firearm for you.

Also, if they take back your gun, they either have to recondition it and sell it as such, or scrap it. They can't use the components to replace other users parts. Swapping out the individual parts is cheaper for them in the long run.

Unless they spend the time to diagnose and correct the root cause of the failures, then it is still a crap shoot. It may be cheaper for the manufacturer, but as a consumer, you shouldn't have to be responsible for the extensive break-in and testing of their product.

[HankB]

Oh, does this thread bring back memories . . . memories of my own experience with a Kahr P9, quite similar to the CW9.

What a horrid little piece of . . . rubbish . . . that pistol was. Chatter marks in barrel, failure of slide to lock back, failure of slide to go into battery, failure of trigger to engage/actuate striker, trigger pin walking out . . .

Sounds like a number of polymer Kahrs are STILL problematic.

Kahr DID pay shipping both ways, but when it went back the third time, I asked for and received a replacement pistol. They shipped the replacement to a dealer, (didn't think that was necessary, but they insisted). When it arrived, I simply traded it to the dealer for a Glock 26.

Though not as neat a package, the Glock works.

And isn't that what really counts?

One issue is if they replace your firearm with a new one, without extensive break-in and testing, you could be receiving another defective unit.

Which is exactly WHY I got a Glock. (Look through the gun forums, and you'll find you are NOT alone with a troublesome polymer Kahr.)

[mr.72]

Actually, I would be willing to bet that Kahr does not have any more problems, as a percentage, with their polymer guns than they do with the steel counterparts.

And likewise I believe they probably do not have any more problems, as a percentage, with their CW-series guns than they do with their "premium" guns.

Just a hunch I have. But I figure the number of guns that actually have a problem is maybe 1%. I have no idea what the real number is, but I bet the number is probably consistent across the entire product line. It would seem that Kahr probably has made and sold a whole lot more polymer-frame pistols than steel, and among those polymer frame guns I suspect the vast majority are CW-series. So you find a lot more reports of problems with CW-series and other polymer Kahrs simply because there are a lot more of them out there than there are of their steel frame guns. Just a guess on my part.

If I am correct or even close on this assessment, then there is a 99% or better chance that a replacement gun will solve all of the problems that anyone is having with a bad gun. But there is far less than a 99% chance that the repair is going to fix it right. So I still stand by my assertion that numerically speaking, it is cheaper in the long run to replace every defective gun with a whole new one and not do any rework of defective product, and would have a positive effect on the Kahr reputation that cannot be bought at any price.

Imagine the difference. Right now, there are a bunch of Kahr "haters" out there who have had a problem with a Kahr pistol and had this two or three times back to the factory dance with a gun, and most of these folks lost faith in Kahr and sold the pistol eventually. These people tend to go on forums like this and openly bash Kahr and this does immense damage to the brand reputation. On the other hand, if Kahr had always, 100% of the time, replaced every returned gun with a brand spankin' new one, then they likely would have retained all of these customers, instilling an opinion not only that Kahr makes high-quality products, but when there is a problem, they go far beyond what is expected and replace the whole gun every time. So these "haters" would wind up likely being Kahr loyalists. And the only thing Kahr would have to do in order to turn this boat around is to simply change this one policy. They don't really even have to figure out what is causing the 1% or so failure rate in order to improve their brand image. But capitalizing on the pool of returned guns with problems would enable them to study the problem and probably reduce that failure rate in the future. It's the ultimate win-win and I am quite certain that, if given the data on QA cost center at Kahr, repairs/warranty costs, and failure rate, that I could make a persuasive numbers argument that replacement of defective merchandise is always cheaper than repair.

The only way that this would not be possible is if Kahr has a ridiculously low profit margin. If their COGS in a pistol is more than about 70% or 80% of wholesale then maybe it might be cheaper to repair returned guns if you can be absolutely certain that one repair will do the trick.

[YabuUS]

It's an old rule in business that a happy customer will tell his friends about the product. An unhappy customer will tell everybody in town.