Does anyone have one or have shot one?

Looking for one for my wife.
Thoughts or concerns?

Thanks.

In my experience, over the last 18 years or so, you cannot go wrong with the Kahr pistols. They are terrific pistols. The CT series has polygonal barrels so heed any manufacturers warning in regards to cast lead bullets. The CT series also has the dovetailed front and rear sights which makes it very easy to add aftermarket sights  like the Dawson Precision tritium etc. I have a CM 9(small frame) and a CW 45(mid size frame) and really like them both. The 9mm is small enough to be used as a pocket pistol, while the .45 goes in my Briefcase/computer bag or GHB depending on  what I'm doing that day.
I would suggest that you try the mid sized framed 9mm as opposed to the .380, if she will learn to handle the recoil. If not then use a good self defense specific ammo and practice. The size of the two guns are almost identical. Do get a couple hundred rounds of the cheapest ammo you can find and break the gun in as Kahr suggests. Enjoy the guns.
Right now you can get the CM series guns (9,40,45) for +/- $315 nib, otd at the LGS in the FW market area. IM me if you have any questions.

Due to really liking the Kahr P380, I thought the CT380 would be a pleasure to shoot. That unfortunately turned out not to entirely be the case, primarily due to the incredibly hard to manipulate slide. I had purchased it as a cheap backup to my P380 that I use for backup, as well as a training pistol for people looking for something with less recoil and I had hoped easier-to-manipulate slide. It DID shoot quite well, and was favored by some female shooters I was training, and was highly reliable, so the only time the slide would have to be manipulated would most likely be in initial loading and for unloading and maintenance.

The slide is MUCH more difficult to retract the slide for loading than the smaller P380, which is counterintuitive to me considering the slide is heavier and thus could use a lighter spring to provide the same recoil resistance as the P380. I have read of this concern in several reviews of the pistol as well, so it appeared to not just be my individual sample. Interestingly, I asked Kahr about it and they stated that they had not had complaints on it. I did get a new set of recoil springs, but they provided no relief. I also tried cutting coils incrementally to see if I could find a sweet spot (balancing out preload and spring rate) where the slide could be manually manipulated easier but would still function properly, but I was unable to find that spot. The point where I finally had a noticeable (but still not satisfactory) slide manipulation force reduction, the recoil springs no longer had sufficient preload so that the slide would be forced back during the trigger stroke while the striker was being cocked.

But - once loaded (I do have a strong grip - the person I bought it from sold it to me with the caveat that he could not cycle the slide himself and he wanted to make sure that I could before he would sell it to me), it did shoot very nicely. The grip, being longer than the P380, provided a bit more purchase for my hand and so made it a bit more comfortable for me to shoot. The slide, also being longer, provided a longer sight radius, and so at least theoretically would provide a bit more precision aiming.

In addition, I'd like to note a few things I believe not noted correctly in the previous post:

   -The rifling is NOT polygonal as the P-series (and T-series, as the poster may be thinking) pistols are. So no concern with shooting unplated or unjacketed projectiles.
   -The front sight is NOT dovetailed. It is a plastic sight inserted through a slot similar to a Glock. I did contact Kahr about aftermarket sights, and asked them if the CW380 night sights would fit as they appeared the same to me, and they responded that sights for the CW380 also work for the CT380.

Some follow-on info. I did some chronographing and ballistic gel testing of the CT380 and the P380. For the same loads I found very little difference in velocity (~20fps) between the polygonal-rifled P380 and the conventional rifling of the CT380, despite the CT380 having a 0.5" longer barrel. In addition, despite the longer sight radius I have consistenly shot the P380 more accurately. Not to say the CT380 has been bad - it's been quite good - but for some reason the P380 works for me (like 0.25" 6-round offhand groups at 20ft good). I've repeated that with several samples of the P380 - they have all been incredibly accurate and near-perfectly regulated.

Now, in comparing the frames of the P380 and the CT380, they appear identical other than the obvious longer grip and dustcover of the CT380. The internals appeared the same, and, most importantly, the trigger pulls felt and measured identical. So with the "C" series pistol you're only losing some machining costs (and a couple magazines, and getting some MIM, and plastic sights). But you have the same Kahr trigger that is in the more expensive P-series.

While training some new shooters recently, I had some gravitate to .380 pistols as they were very impacted by shooting even full-sized 9mm and L-frame revolvers using light .38 loads. The lighter recoil for a similar-sized gun is a very valid reason to choose a .380 over a 9mm (the shooter must be comfortable with whatever they choose to carry, or they won't carry it). Another factor that usually comes into play is the easier-to-manipulate slide. Comparing a SIG P238 to a P938, you're looking at 8 pounds to retract a P238 slide, whereas the P938 requires 17+ pounds (I THINK I'm recalling correct spring ratings here - I was comparing a few .380 and 9mm pistols from the same manufacturers and recall those numbers from one of them). As one shooter really liked to shoot the CT380, but had difficulty retracting the slide, we looked at several other options. Getting something larger like a SIG P290 in .380 results in an easy to manipulate slide and keeps the low recoil of the .380.

I based my comments on the CT series pistol features based on a cursory glance at the Kahr website, as my experience is with other models in the Kahr lineup. Perhaps I misread the Kahr info. mea culpa.

I have a CT380 and so far I like it a lot. The recoil is mild and it appears to be pretty accurate. Having said that, I have only fired 87 rounds (58 WW white box and 29 Magtech FMJ). So far there have been no malfunctions.

I have a CT380. It is accurate, reliable, has a great trigger, very thin and easy to conceal.

2 negative points:

Hardest to rack slide of any .380 I've ever had.

Handles all conventional hollow points that I've tried, but due to its very steep feed ramp it can't handle radically blunt bullets like the Lehigh Defense Xtreme Penetrator.

I've had a CT 380 KAHR for about a years now. Mine runs every ammo I load it with, It's tiny and easy to conceal. I recently installed the MG +1 kit, so now it's 8+1.

Here it is with my NAA .22 WASP micro revolver.

I have zero complaints with my CT380.


However, My wife simply cannot reliably rack or release the slide. Even with about 500rds thru it now, releasing the slide by either the release or pulling back and letting go are still not an easy task. loading the pistol from a closed slide is nearly impossible for her.

My wife has no issue manipulating her Bodyguard 380 or any other 9mm,40,or 45acp pistol we own.

Fatalwishes got a 9x19mm for FW_wife.  She hates the LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG trigger pull.  I don't mind it, but I usually carry the 23.  Switched FW_wife to the CZ-75, she shoots it well.

I handled one at the gun shop today. Fantastic size - just enough grip to get all 3 fingers on, very thin, and a full 3" barrel for decent velocity for the .380. Would love a 4" version as a sort of modern Colt 1903.

However it was the heaviest slide I have ever racked. Like, really heavy - well over 20lbs, possibly over 30lbs, on a narrow, short little slide. I could manage, but I would absolutely have your wife give it a try before buying one.

But if she can rack it, it should be a great, slim carry gun.