CW9 vs Glock 19

[kydave19]

Hello,

Anybody here own and shoot both?

Curious about perceived differences.

Is the size difference worth the round loss?

Does one shoot better for you than the other?

Thanks,

Dave

[yqtszhj]

Hello,

Anybody here own and shoot both?

Curious about perceived differences.

Is the size difference worth the round loss?

Does one shoot better for you than the other?

Thanks,

Dave

I have both. For real concealment and ease of carry of the cw9 the round loss is definitely worth it in my opinion. One could always carry an extra mag in a pocket. The G19 shoots a little easier due to its size but the cw9 is an easy shooter too. For carry all day I’d go with the cw9. If I was forced to go into town at night I’d have the g19 in the car and the cw9 in my waist band.

[XFlyboy]

I have a Glock 19 and a P9. The Glock wins in terms of reliability and low maintenance. The Glock is also heavier, has a longer barrel and sight radius so you will get better groupings with it. In terms of concealed carry the P9 wins hands down primarily due to its being a single stack. It's also smaller in every dimension and lighter. It is also easier to carry a spare mag with the P9 if you choose to do so. So I use my P9 for inside the waistband concealed carry and also have a P380 for true pocket carry. I don't think much about the round difference. In California you can only carry a 10 round magazine anyway so it's not that big a deal. With the Magguts springs you can get 8+1 in the CW9 with the flush mag. Another thing to consider is the trigger. The Glock has one of the best stock striker-fired triggers on the market IMHO. But it is still a stiker-fired trigger. I prefer the Kahr trigger.

Otherwise, the Glock 19 is in a class of its own. Whereas Kahr recommends you lubricate your Kahr on a monthly basis, you can toss the Glock into a drawer for 5 years, then pull it out and shoot a thousand rounds without a hickup. They like to run dry.

Finally, Kahrs are more prone to mechanical failures than Glocks. Actually, all other semi-autos are more prone to mechanical failure than Glocks, so I'm not knocking Kahrs in paticular. But along those lines, you might consider spending a couple of hundred extra bucks for a P9 vs. the CW9. The CW9 comes with a one year warranty while the P9 comes with a lifetime warranty. (Recently, I had to send my five year old P9 back to the shop due to the trigger intermittently failing to reset, and my P380 which is much more failure prone has been back to Kahr for repair four times.) The P9 is also prettier, comes with two extra mags, and has an improved slide stop and barrel. I think it is the better value in the long run.

[gedallum]

I have both. The Glock is a way better built gun than the CW9. The frame is outstanding on the G19. It is (IMHO) poorly built on the CW9. Someone used a rotary tool or equivalent on mine to get the slide and frame to mesh. Not very impressive! I will say that I have had no problems with any ammo that I have put through either gun. To me, the G19 is a way more accurate gun. I prefer the short Glock trigger. The Kahr has a very long, but very smooth trigger. Because of the long pull and the shorter grip to trigger distance, it is harder to keep the sights steady on the target. I need a lot more range time with the CW9. I do agree that the Kahr is significantly smaller and therefore easier to conceal and carry. The Kahr single stack magazine has adequate capacity if you live in California which is a 10 round limited state. It is just a size versus capacity tradeoff that you have to make. Remember these are just my opinions, others may see it totally different. Good luck!

[DavidR]

If you get along with the Kahr trigger I’d take the CW9 or P9 over the G19.

I don’t believe that the G19 is more reliable. I’ve owned a CW9 and a P9 that were reliable. Kahr is smaller and lighter so it conceals easier and is more comfortable to carry. 9 rounds with Magguts is sufficient for me.

[Scott321]

Not exactly the answer to your question... I've shot many different Glocks over the last 25 years. They are good guns... I don't own one. However, I have tried different sized pistols/revolvers for EDC. For the 'G19-20' size firearms I have, I almost always default to my Kahrs for CCW. I've tried different holsters and different carry positions, and although I have setups for the larger firearms that work OK for CCW, none have been quite as comfortable or concealable for my specific dress or daily activies as my Kahrs.

If I wasn't as concerned with CCW with my specific activities/dress, I wouldn't hesitate to carry the larger firearm(s) (in your case the G19). You can become proficient with just about any quality firearm. It just takes practice. Round count might be another consideration.

Only two things I'll mention: 1. The Kahr has a long reset and more of a surprise break. Many striker fired pistol owners hate it, but many DA revolver shooters like myself like it. Even most of the subcompact and micro alternatives to Kahr share a similar short reset/wall trigger feel to the G19 that most forums prefer. 2. The Glock has a grip angle that is slightly different than most alternatives.

[kydave19]

Thanks All!

[bugs]

I'm a glockophile at heart, but a CM9 has been my EDC for years because of its' carry flexibility; lately though with the onset of colder weather (heavier jackets) I've been considering my G19 in either a shoulder holster or a chest rig like the new de santis (expensive) over a liner, under a gore-tex type shell; zip the liner all the way up and the shell open enough to allow access from the top. I've made a shoulder rig from a couple 511 fuzzy holsters w/retentson strap and velcro pads for the CM9 recently, it seems to work, and thinking of using another fuzzy holster for the 19.a high bred belly band with a shoulder strap for support and to keep the grip tight to the chest( another working idea) might work too. maybe idle hands really are the devils workshop!

NRA LIFER

IDPA BELIEVER

[fsilber]

1. The Kahr has a long reset and more of a surprise break. Many striker fired pistol owners hate it, but many DA revolver shooters like myself like it. Even most of the subcompact and micro alternatives to Kahr share a similar short reset/wall trigger feel to the G19 that most forums prefer.

I have noticed this. I think the people who prefer the short-reset / wall trigger are foolish and ignorant, but maybe it's just me who's an old fogey. I started on revolvers in the '90s. I learned by reading people who relied heavily on revolvers in their early police careers (e.g. Massad Ayoob). So is it just old-fashioned to believe that a self-defense pistol trigger should be like that of a tuned revolver?

Massad Ayoob discouraged the use of single-action triggers for most people on service / self-defense guns. He believed it was wise when revolvers were converted to double-action only. But it seems unwise that people want their striker-fired triggers to be more like single-action triggers than like double-action triggers. Like a single-action trigger and no manual safety!

Ayoob warns about the danger of an unintentional discharge if one is surprised by a sudden noise or bumped from behind while one's finger is on the trigger. So he teachers "finger OFF the trigger" not just until one is "ready" to shoot but until one has actually DECIDED to shoot. So when the finger goes on the trigger it means you want to shoot RIGHT NOW. That means pulling the trigger the whole way through the motion as fast as can be controlled. NOT to leisurely take up the slack, reconfirm one's sight picture -- and THEN make the gun fire. I think people are preferring short-reset/wall triggers because they're easier for target shooting. But if target shooting skill is your priority -- why not buy a target pistol? (Typically a .22 rimfire ...)

Also, I've seen so many people who can't shoot decently, and it's because they're flinching right as they make the gun go off. So people need the surprise break, even if they don't realize it. You can get the surprise break two ways -- one is with a true single-action trigger that doesn't move as you increase the pressure until suddenly it gives way, and one is with a smooth double-action trigger that one just moves from front to rear and the gun goes of when it goes off. As I understand it, it was because the double-action triggers of Colt revolvers stacked but double-action triggers of Smith & Wesson pistols didn't -- that police switched from Colt to Smith & Wesson revolvers as double-action shooting replaced single-action shooting.

So to look for a striker-fired pistol whose trigger stacks (makes you break through a wall at the end of the trigger pull) is just wrong.

Or maybe I'm an old fogey, and the word now is that with good holsters and passive drop-safeties we should want our guns to be single-action only with light triggers and no manual safety -- or close to it.

[DavidR]

I prefer a shorter pull and a wall.