Glock 26 or Kahr MK9?

Oops! I forgot to mention in my original post that I'm choosing one of these firearms for legal concealed carry (on-body). Thanks.
 
Therapydude, I've never had one of the small Kahrs. I have had one of the early Kahr K9's. It took 3 men and a boy just to strip the piece for cleaning. I think they are one of the best looking line of small pistols, and when the one I had worked, it was quite accurate. How ever the Glock 26 that I have has never failed to feed or fire and is more accurate than the Kahr that I had. Much more accurate, I might add. For me, even though the Glock is thicker than the Kahr, it is the best choice. I should say though, that the Kahr that I had was an early model and they had quite a few buggs when they first came out. The G 26 has more fire power and is lighter. Glock it is! Shoot Safe.....CO

------------------
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them." From the movie, " The Shootist"
 
Well, I guess I'm going to be the unpopular one here and say "Kahr".

The Kahr is smaller and thinner. Yes, it is a brick, but when you compare both guns loaded, the weight difference is negligible.

Yes, Glock is more popular, but IMHO, who cares?!?!? Many people argue that Coors beer is the most popular brand out there, but to me it tastes like $#&@!! (No offense to Coors lovers!)


6(or 7 depending on mag) rounds vs. 10. OK, Glock wins that one. But don't think for a second that I feel any less armed. Heck, ask anyone who carries a S&W or Taurus snubbie if they feel "under" armed!


I went through this dilemma when I was shopping for a pocket auto. I had narrowed it down to these two guns - I researched, I rented, and I shot hundreds of rounds through each of them. (FWIW, accuracy was about even). I had come to the conclusion that both were equally accurate, reliable, and concealable. My deciding factor - feel. The Kahr just "felt" better. I had decided that if I went with the Glock, I'd have to get a grip reduction.

There have been concerns about rust with the Kahrs. Personally, I've never had that problem, nor the people I know that also have Kahrs. I haven't heard any recent complaints about the finish on the Kahrs, so I'll assume that they were either isolated incidents or early model years. I will admit, I do love the Tennifer finish of the Glock! I'm actually considering putting that Teflon MolyCoat from Brownells on my MK9.

So bottom line, go with what "feels" best in your hand and what you shoot better. I doubt you'll be dissapointed with either.
 
I'm also going to recommend the Kahr MK9. When you get into the realm of sub-compacts, I believe that "thin is in" -- or put another way, the thickness of the gun is a major consideration. For example, I can conceal a S&W3913 better than a Taurus PT-111 because even though the 3913 is larger, it's also thinner. The MK9 is the smallest 9mm gun around. Fully loaded, it weighs about the same as a fully loaded Glock 26 and my MK9 has been 100% reliable in the year that I've owned it (about 700-1000 rounds).
FUD
fudflag.gif
Share what you know & learn what you don't
 
LOL. Your not alone voodoo, I think Coors tastes like $%#@ too!

Back to guns...I don't have experience with Kahrs, but my understanding is that their quality is very good...equal to Glocks.

[This message has been edited by Quantum Singularity (edited September 23, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Therapydude:
The Kahr is smaller and thinner, but the Glock is lighter and more popular. Your thoughts on the subject?[/quote]

Boy! That's a tough choice...
I looked at both too. The deciding factor for me was the Kahr fit better in a pocket holster (my primary method of carry). Although it's a heavy (for it's size) little beast, a good holster and a good belt make pocket carry work well. I use an Uncle Mike's holster currently.
It was a tough choice...I've two Glocks now (a 17L and a 19). They are great guns. But the 26 just didn't fit the pocket as well.
 
I'd say your preference would be the deciding factor. Between the MK9 and the G26 I'd favor the Glock slightly but I have, in fact, chosen a Kahr...just a P9. It is lighter than the Glock, provides a better grip and is flatter. On the down sides is the (excellent) DAO trigger as I happen to prefer Glock triggers. Also, it holds 7+1 vs. 9/10+1.
 
Of those two, I'd get the Glock 26 simply for the greater number of rounds. If it doesn't HAVE to be a 9mm, then I'd get the G-27. Still more rounds of a more potent caliber than the MK-9.

"And that's all I have to say about THAT."

Ben

------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target" http://ben.gunsnet.net

[This message has been edited by Ben (edited September 24, 2000).]
 
Had an MK9. Tried to like it, but I couldn't. Didn't like the trigger and felt awkward in my hand. Very accurate, reliable and concealable, although a little heavy. Overall, a very nice piece.
Keep coming back to my Glock 26, just wish it was as thin as the Kahr.....
 
owned g26- good pistol
own MK9- good pistol

both high quality reliable firearms. I chose the Kahr because it fits my hand better.
 
I have to say the Kahr hands down. I had a Glock 26 for almost a year, but I wanted something smaller for day to day carry, as the Glock was a thick piece to lug around. I now carry a MK9 everywhere I go, and I dont notice its there after the first 5 minutes. Go ahead and get the Elite 98 version, its trigger is much better than the standard Kahr, and will run you about 50 bucks more, also this version has a polished stainless look, compared to the matte you'll find on the standard ones. I can not miss the target with the Kahr, and I am a lousy shot. Get an Alessi Talon plus for it, and forget you even have it on....untill you need it.
 
Both are dependable, accurate, quality firearms. Both are a good choice for carry. Your decision will probably be made depending on HOW you plan to carry, your body size, and mode of dress.
I had a Glock 27, but it was just too thick for a concealed carry gun on me. Lots of guys do, and have no problems, but it just didn't work for me.
I'm over 230lbs., wear blue jeans 99% of the time, and there's not much extra room between me and my Levi's for 1 1/4" of steel.
The Kahr fits better in IWB carry, pocket carry, as well as any where a Glock26 will fit, but it's got a 4 round deficit. There really is very little actual weight difference, but the Kahr feels a bit heavier because it's smaller than the Glock, at almost the same weight.
If you aren't going to carry IWB, or you're a slim guy, or you wear loose waisted pants, and you won't "pocket carry", you may prefer the extra 4 rounds that the G26 has to offer.
Be sure to handle both extensively. I also had a dislike for that hump at the rear bottom of the grip of my G27. It felt like I had a golf ball pressing into the web of my hand.
I finally settled on neither, but went with the Kahr P9 instead... I just don't like pinkie swingers. :) But my wife's well protected and quite happy with her MK9.
Just to keep the attacks to a minimum, my next handgun purchase will most likely be a Glock 23 for those days I can get away with a bigger gun.
 
I have both and Onslaught is right, it depends on what you want to do with it. For carry on the belt, or in a fanny pack the 27 is great although its not much more difficult to carry a 19/23/29/30 size gun on the belt or in the fanny pack. For pocket/ankle/ belly band/tuckable carry the MK is much better. In those carry modes the extra thickness of the double stack kills you.

I'd say get the MK unless you are looking for a small belt pistol. Both are quality guns so there's no bad pick here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top