Thread: Kahr Polymers vs. SIG P290: Which are better made?

I just made a video comparing the new SIG P290 with what I feel to be it's main competition...the Kahr PM/CM series.

The video is a bit long but it is very detailed. I tear both guns apart and pretty much compare them piece to piece. I cover everything from fitting, finishes, rails, sights, triggers, barrels, guide rods, and so on.

In the end I make a very clear cut decision as to which I feel is the superior gun.

Check it out if interested.

YouTube - SIG P290 vs. Kahr PM/CM Series: Which is the better gun?

Originally Posted by PlayboyPenguin

I just made a video comparing the new SIG P290 with what I feel to big it main competition...the Kahr PM/CM series.

The video is a bit long but it is very detailed. I tear both guns apart and pretty much compare them piece to piece. I cover everything from fitting, finishes, rails, sights, triggers, barrels, guide rods, and so on.

In the end I make a very clear cut decision as to which I feel is the superior gun.

Check it out if interested.

YouTube - SIG P290 vs. Kahr PM/CM Series: Which is the better gun?

Can't you just tell us up front? I have a short attention span....

Nice comparison. I still have a S&W .380 as my only polymer pistol and I know it is metal in the rear part of the slide rails. As much as I shoot it it will last forever. But I have been looking for a 9MM. Good timing for me.

I recently got a PM40 and im not a DA only type of guy, but i think i can get used to this one.. i havent shot the P290 or P250 series but id like to give em a try sometime

Informative review. Thanks.

FYI Crimson Trace makes a laser and XS makes 24/7 sights for the Kahr so accessory wise I think they are a little more equal. I have never like the side plate on the polymer Kahrs either.

I bought one of the new CM9s last last week. Have never owned a Kahr, but wanted something to replace the Taurus 709 I sold, so I thought I would give the Kahr a try. The CM9 does use the steel recoil spring guide rod. OK, I hope it isn't because I need new glasses, but it looks to me like the polymer part of the frame is not carrying the slide. It looks like the front steel guide rails on the frame, and the ones on the rear of the frame, are what carries the slide (not the polymer mid section of the frame). Tolerances do look close though. Will have to put some rounds through it to see how it wears, but for now that is what it looks like to me.

Whats the deal with the raised bump inside the trigger guard of the Sig, any idea?

Originally Posted by EZLivin

I bought one of the new CM9s last last week. Have never owned a Kahr, but wanted something to replace the Taurus 709 I sold, so I thought I would give the Kahr a try. The CM9 does use the steel recoil spring guide rod. OK, I hope it isn't because I need new glasses, but it looks to me like the polymer part of the frame is not carrying the slide. It looks like the front steel guide rails on the frame, and the ones on the rear of the frame, are what carries the slide (not the polymer mid section of the frame). Tolerances do look close though. Will have to put some rounds through it to see how it wears, but for now that is what it looks like to me.

According to Kahr, the steel rails take about 90-95% of the stress. The polymer rails are just secondary and help the slide travel straight without flexing the frame. Still, that have had some pretty serious issues with the frame still flexing in the past. I am still hearing similar complaints with the .45acp models and even a few regarding the P380 models.

The polymer rails work fine on the .40s&w and 9mm guns. I just do not prefer them.

Originally Posted by titsonritz

Whats the deal with the raised bump inside the trigger guard of the Sig, any idea?

Keeps you from pinching your finger under the trigger.

Originally Posted by PlayboyPenguin

According to Kahr, the steel rails take about 90-95% of the stress. The polymer rails are just secondary and help the slide travel straight without flexing the frame.

Ok. It makes sense based upon how it looked to me when I tore it down. (Good thing; I did not want to buy different glasses.)