Posted: 5/20/2010 8:04:10 PM EDT
|
In the running right now are a Glock 36 and a Kahr CW45. I own a G19 and know what Glocks are all about, Kahrs I have no experience with at all, but have read up on them. The CW45 seems like a really easy to conceal CCW gun and I like that the grip is actually long enough so that the magazine isn't part of the grip surface. Anyway, between these two, what do you think the pros/cons are? |
|
Quoted: IBTP I'm not really interested in poll data. I'm interested in comments, not just clicks on a poll... So, no one has any experience with a CW45? Looking at it's stats, it seems like a hell of a competitor to the G36. It's thinner, shorter, same capacity... Anyone?
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
IBTP I'm not really interested in poll data. I'm interested in comments, not just clicks on a poll... So, no one has any experience with a CW45? Looking at it's stats, it seems like a hell of a competitor to the G36. It's thinner, shorter, same capacity... Anyone? Well, I have no personal experience with the Kahrs, but out of those two I would pick the Glock purely on reliability. |
|
Quoted:
The Smith 4506 is very nice. I'd put it up against a high end 1911 anydayof the week. The 4566 and 4516 are the more CCW frendly versions: http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/SkagSig40/100_0279.jpg A custom high end Performance Center 4566: http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/SkagSig40/100_1383.jpg As long as you carry a brick on the other side to balance out the weight........ 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: I like my Glock 36. I've shot a couple Kahrs and didn't care for them, ymmv Can I ask what you didn't like? I am very familiar with the G19 if you can use that to compare it... I have a G19 that I carry daily. Love that gun. I have shot two different Kahrs at the range and both had problems feeding. Neither one felt right in my hand either. I'll stick with my glocks. |
|
I shot my Dad's G36 and it's a nice small package, but I felt the thinner grip actually increased felt recoil for me. I noticed increased pressure in the web of my hand where it meets under the tang of the gun. When compared to my G30SF, which did not have the same snap at the web of my hand, the G36 felt a little more "snappy" to me.
The good news is my Dad was able to correct this issue by sticking a hogue slip on grip on the gun and with the slight palm swells in the hogue slipons it was enough grip width to disperse more of the recoil and he couldn't be happier now. |
|
I went to our local gun show last weekend looking for a new carry gun and 45 ACP was on the consideration list.I kept going back to the Kimber Ultra Carrys.They feel great in the hand but were pricey.
I thought i could probably get the stainless carry II if i shpped around.But stopping by a local gun shop on the way home i saw a Crimson Ultra Carry II in stock..better price then gun show and had to have it. It shoots great and is very accutate and kicks less then a Ruger LCP .380 I love it.Got a super tuck on order now. I also picked up three Kim Tac Pro Mags for it. Also got some Winchester Bonded 230 gr JHP. Here's mine and a pic of a stainless...I think the Kimber 45 will work great for me. 
Spare mag pouch i found also... 
|
|
I really don't have any interest in 1911's in relation to CCW. I do want to get a 1911 someday because it is historically significant, but right now it's between the Glock and the Kahr. Has the G36 gotten over the "issues" that users experienced a few years back?
|
|
I have a somewhat newer 36 and have had no issues with it as far as functionality is concerned. I did, however, get a bit of a stinging from the serrated trigger. There is no smooth trigger available for the 36 so I took one off one of my spare 23 trigger assemblies and installed it on the 36. Much better.
I do not have a Kahr in 45 to compare, but I do have a K40, all steel. Judging by the recoil on the 36, and given the smaller dimensions of the Kahr, I would imagine the recoil impulse would be a bit more stout in the Kahr 45. |
| I haven't shot the 36, but did own a 30 for a while and it shot ok. I shot about 50 rounds through the CW45 and found that my trigger finger just didn't feel comfortable when shooting-seemed to rub the inside of the trigger guard. Other than that, it shot fine. |
|
My choice for a 1911 CCW would be a Dan Wesson CCO. It has a lightweight frame, stainless steel slide with black coating.
For a wintertime/jacket gun, the Dan Wesson Commander Bobtail. I own both. I did own a G36 until the CCO arrived. Decided i didn't need two lightweight single-stack .45ACP CC handguns. If I need a smaller gun for CC, I'd get a 9mm Kahr K9094. Had one once, loved it, but at the time, needed $$$, so I practically gave it away. Kahr wasn't as well known 10 years ago as it is now. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
SIG P220  Nah, too large for me to CCW (in all dimensions). G36 of CW45? i really love this argument. lay that glock on top of the full size gun. the dimensions are not that significant. with a proper holster and dress concealed carry is easy with either. if yu can conceal a 3.5" bbl and 4.5" is a moot point. same for the grip, and extra 1/2-3/4" won't make a difference. My daily carry is a p220 combat. about the only legit argument is weight. some people notice it, others don't. |
|
Quoted:
I've got a S&W 4553 TSW that I absolutely love. Between the choices you gave I'd take the Glock. I've had a couple of Kahrs and haven't liked either of them. http://members.cox.net/3rdpig/4553tsw01.jpg Is that DA & SA? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SIG P220 Nah, too large for me to CCW (in all dimensions). G36 of CW45? i really love this argument. lay that glock on top of the full size gun. the dimensions are not that significant. with a proper holster and dress concealed carry is easy with either. if yu can conceal a 3.5" bbl and 4.5" is a moot point. same for the grip, and extra 1/2-3/4" won't make a difference. My daily carry is a p220 combat. about the only legit argument is weight. some people notice it, others don't. Well, the argument I made is absolutely legitimate. If all body types and clothing styles could conceal full-size handguns, most people would opt for the largest heaviest gun possible. But that isn't the case. Also, having owned a Sig in the past, I cannot see any benefits over those of Glocks. Oh, and they are overpriced IMO. So, as to my original question of G36 vs. Kahr...
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SIG P220 Nah, too large for me to CCW (in all dimensions). G36 of CW45? i really love this argument. lay that glock on top of the full size gun. the dimensions are not that significant. with a proper holster and dress concealed carry is easy with either. if yu can conceal a 3.5" bbl and 4.5" is a moot point. same for the grip, and extra 1/2-3/4" won't make a difference. My daily carry is a p220 combat. about the only legit argument is weight. some people notice it, others don't. Well, the argument I made is absolutely legitimate. If all body types and clothing styles could conceal full-size handguns, most people would opt for the largest heaviest gun possible. But that isn't the case. Also, having owned a Sig in the past, I cannot see any benefits over those of Glocks. Oh, and they are overpriced IMO. So, as to my original question of G36 vs. Kahr... if you can conceal a g36 you can conceal a full size pistol just as easily. make is irrelevant. most people have issues because they opt for cheap holsters and belts with poor designs and or refuse to modify their dress. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SIG P220 Nah, too large for me to CCW (in all dimensions). G36 of CW45? i really love this argument. lay that glock on top of the full size gun. the dimensions are not that significant. with a proper holster and dress concealed carry is easy with either. if yu can conceal a 3.5" bbl and 4.5" is a moot point. same for the grip, and extra 1/2-3/4" won't make a difference. My daily carry is a p220 combat. about the only legit argument is weight. some people notice it, others don't. Well, the argument I made is absolutely legitimate. If all body types and clothing styles could conceal full-size handguns, most people would opt for the largest heaviest gun possible. But that isn't the case. Also, having owned a Sig in the past, I cannot see any benefits over those of Glocks. Oh, and they are overpriced IMO. So, as to my original question of G36 vs. Kahr... if you can conceal a g36 you can conceal a full size pistol just as easily. make is irrelevant. most people have issues because they opt for cheap holsters and belts with poor designs and or refuse to modify their dress. If you can conceal a small gun, you can conceal a large one? That doesn't make logical sense. The converse makes sense, and I can't conceal a large gun unless it's winter. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SIG P220 Nah, too large for me to CCW (in all dimensions). G36 of CW45? i really love this argument. lay that glock on top of the full size gun. the dimensions are not that significant. with a proper holster and dress concealed carry is easy with either. if yu can conceal a 3.5" bbl and 4.5" is a moot point. same for the grip, and extra 1/2-3/4" won't make a difference. My daily carry is a p220 combat. about the only legit argument is weight. some people notice it, others don't. Well, the argument I made is absolutely legitimate. If all body types and clothing styles could conceal full-size handguns, most people would opt for the largest heaviest gun possible. But that isn't the case. Also, having owned a Sig in the past, I cannot see any benefits over those of Glocks. Oh, and they are overpriced IMO. So, as to my original question of G36 vs. Kahr... if you can conceal a g36 you can conceal a full size pistol just as easily. make is irrelevant. most people have issues because they opt for cheap holsters and belts with poor designs and or refuse to modify their dress. If you can conceal a small gun, you can conceal a large one? That doesn't make logical sense. The converse makes sense, and I can't conceal a large gun unless it's winter. Sure, maybe you CAN conceal a full-size pistol, but why carry around the extra weight? The only reason I don't still have a G36 is my Dan Wesson CCO is nearly the same weight, which is to say "light" for a 4" .45ACP. |
The Kahr triggers are very smooth and not all that heavy but you can not feel the take up point or point before the sear releases etc. I prefer my Glock for that and for the fact that you can feel it reset after you fire a round. This is important for training on follow up shots. I love my PM9 to death and it is much easier to carry than my G27 but the triggers are very different. For fast mag dump style shooting it is smooth and quick but for slow accurate fire the Glock is easier to modulate. I would get the P45 over the cheaper, not as well made CW series. I have not had any major issues with reliability of my Kahr, maybe 1 or 2 fail to feeds, same as my G27 and G23.
|
|
Quoted:
I would get the P45 over the cheaper, not as well made CW series. http://www.kahr.com/imgs/img_cwvsp45.gif This is a misleading statement as the build quality for both is the same. I have shot both and actually prefer the Kahr based on how it fits my hand, how it handles the recoil and how the trigger is very similar to a quality double action revolver. There is also a LARGE price point between the CW and the P series. Price not withstanding, I have by far had more polymer framed Kahrs come back with customer complaints than almost anything else. They seem to be VERY sensitive to lubrication of the slide rails until adequately broken in, in my experience. Another point of contention is that the frame rails seem to have no apparent metal re-enforcement which turns some people off. I personally believe that the steel framed Kahrs are a much better product for that reason and my T9 and MK40 have been wonderful firearms. While I am not a "Glock Guy" I must admit that given a choice between the two guns you inquired about, I'd put my money and trust in the Glock 36 for a carry gun based on the aforementioned design elements. YMMV. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would get the P45 over the cheaper, not as well made CW series. http://www.kahr.com/imgs/img_cwvsp45.gif This is a misleading statement as the build quality for both is the same. I have shot both and actually prefer the Kahr based on how it fits my hand, how it handles the recoil and how the trigger is very similar to a quality double action revolver. There is also a LARGE price point between the CW and the P series. Price not withstanding, I have by far had more polymer framed Kahrs come back with customer complaints than almost anything else. They seem to be VERY sensitive to lubrication of the slide rails until adequately broken in, in my experience. Another point of contention is that the frame rails seem to have no apparent metal re-enforcement which turns some people off. I personally believe that the steel framed Kahrs are a much better product for that reason and my T9 and MK40 have been wonderful firearms. While I am not a "Glock Guy" I must admit that given a choice between the two guns you inquired about, I'd put my money and trust in the Glock 36 for a carry gun based on the aforementioned design elements. YMMV. Price is probably the main issue here, which is why the CW series comes in to compete with the G36. I prefer all black Kahr's and a black PM45 is almost $700. $200 less for the Glock can be put towards ammo and training, hard to pass that up. Manufacturing as far as forging and casting of the slide or frame may be the same on the PM vs the CW Kahr's but overall, my statement is true. The PM is more well made. Machined vs MIM parts, machining on the slide to reduce weight, sights are not pinned in etc. I am not sure of how an X-ray of the Kahr's vs the Glock would look but it was my understanding that both had the metal slide rails molded in to the polymer and not an internal metal skeleton which is what I assume you mean by reinforcement. The PM series has metal inserts front and rear, the fronts are lower in the slide axis which most people miss upon inspection. They are not on the same plane as the Glock. Owners have had the inserts come out of Glocks on rare occasion. |
| Had a G36 and tried to carry it...but could never bring myself to give up my 1911's. Shot the G36 plenty at the range. Decent enough gun. Thin, compact, reliable. If it was a G36 or Kahr, I'd opt for the G36 again...but I'd still want to compare it to an Officers. |
|
Of the 2 I’d go G36 for sure. The grip is thinner than your G19 and feels as such. I don’t like the long, revolver-like trigger of the Kahr and Kahrs are much more hit and miss than Glocks are in my experience.
With that said, I pop wood over the Sig 220. Going to have to get one some day. |
|
That G36 is just a tad thinner then the Kimber Ultra carry i bought recently....The G36 is 1.13 inch and the Kimber is 1.28 inch.
The G36 is lighter at 20.11 oz and the Kimber is 25 oz. I guess you guys might have talked me in to a G36 if i had not already picked up the Kimber. Actually I would probably would have considered it but no one around here had one i could handle before i got the Kimber...way more money on that too. looks like the kimber mag holds 7 over the G36 6rds though... 
|