Kahr, in general.
Most report on the features of the gun with a dismissive attitude claiming they are less than optimal, without comparing them to any others which are far worse.
If you could shoot them at a range without knowing what was in your hand then things would be different. Kahr's have far better triggers than a lot of other DA's, and in the pocket .380 category a 6 pound trigger that doesn't require pulling back to the frame makes them a front runner. Says the guy who owned a first Gen LCP and tried a Kahr along with a RM380.
Guns are first and foremost not about looks, even there the Kahr isn't nearly as ugly as many, or weird. The M&P BG380 or Taurus Curve come to mind.
Shooting one is a lot more pleasant than the average LCP, too. Owners of both say the Kahr is their preferred range gun for practice. It doesn't punish them. I agree, two mags from an LCP is harsher than 50 rounds from the CW380. Loading one is easier, too.
I think the real issue is that it's fashionable to trash a decent gun because it makes the poster feel socially elevated. It's not like the caution exerted with the RM380 - basically a Remington made affordable Rohrbaugh. I sense a pernicious agenda of innuendo.
Not like that ever happens on the net, (coff coff silvers .300 bo posts coff).
Kahrs are underappreciated. How a US gun maker not dependent on government contracts stays in business seems to be remarkably ignored. Maybe it's happy customers and repeat sales?
In fifteen years when some models are no longer made will they start to rise in demand the way the HK P7 did? After all Kahr was the first single stack 9mm defensive gun on the market at a time with the duty double stacks had just taken over from revolvers.
I was going to buy them both at one time . . . ahh, coulda shoulda woulda.
