GunTest Mag. gives Kahr PM4543 an "F"

[Crystalship1]

FWIW -

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Kahr PM4543 45 ACP, $855[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At first look, we liked what we saw in the Kahr Model PM4543, as it is officially known. We found excellent Kahr workmanship, a great-feeling grip, and a decent, clean, useable DAO trigger, even if a bit stiffer than the triggers of the other two guns. It broke at 6.1 pounds. The two magazines that came with it each held only five rounds, which gave the nod by two to the other design. Still, 5+1 might be enough. The sights were excellent, and the two-tone finish was well done, about as good as on the other pair of test pistols. The grip and frame were polymer, with suitable steel inserts at wear points. The slide was matte-finish stainless, and the thick magazine bottom added size and comfort. For an extra $120 you can have the PM45 with tritium sights. The gun could be fired with the magazine removed, like the other two pistols.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Takedown was not difficult, but could have been made easier. Per the Kahr website video (kahr.com), you must first unload the gun and remove the magazine. Then align a mark on the slide with one on the frame, pulling the slide back against the recoil spring. These alignment marks are on the left side of the gun. Then you are then instructed to turn the gun over, maintaining that now-invisible alignment, and rap the protruding end of the slide stop to start it out of the gun. Seems to us the alignment marks ought to have at least been repeated on the right side, to make this task easier, because with this handgun you’re fighting a strong recoil spring. Pull the slide stop completely out of the gun. Then, press the trigger and pull the slide forward to remove the slide from the frame. Remove the compressed dual-concentric spring assembly and barrel, and that’s it. Reassembly was just as straightforward. Note that the inner of the two recoil springs can’t be readily removed. The rather brutal spring assembly came out much easier than we expected, and gave no problems in going back in.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We found very good workmanship inside with one exception. The forward-most lip of the plastic guide rail, on the right side, showed some cutting or wear on its lower edge. The cause for this seemed to be the rearmost protrusion inside the slide, which was shaped about like a cutting tool on a lathe. If the soft frame were repeatedly rubbed against this while being twisted, the result could be the severe wear on the plastic we observed. We found it when we first took the gun apart. It seemed the gun had been test fired or mishandled in some manner before we obtained it, but we had no way of verifying that. Reassembly was straightforward.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fit of the barrel in the frame was excellent. We thought this would give fine accuracy, but we were wrong. We had generally lousy accuracy with the little Kahr. At the range we found the small size and light weight were not a problem for our shooters. Recoil was entirely manageable. In fact, we found the gun comfortable to shoot. If we had to fire hundreds of rounds of hot ammunition at a sitting, our opinion might be different, but we had no recoil discomfort whatsoever in our test of this gun.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But what did give us a pain was the immense force needed to chamber a round. We had to use a great deal of strength to pull back the slide. We could not easily, nor safely, get it back far enough to catch the first round, so rather than risk our hand slipping, we resorted to removing the magazine, locking the slide back manually, inserting the magazine, and then dropping the slide to chamber the first round. We don’t like wrestling with a gun with live rounds in it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Then we suffered the pain of the Kahr’s poor accuracy, combined with what we felt were quite dangerous malfunctions. There were many malfunctions, and we were not inadvertently breaking our wrist to cause them. Neither are our test shooters weaklings. Our crew has fired hundreds of thousands of 45 ACP cartridges in a great variety of pistols, and good guns never give us these sort of problems. The first malfunction happened after we fired the fifth shot, light target loads, from the PM45. The last ejected case got caught by the slide, and the high pressure of the recoil spring jammed the magazine in place. We could neither remove the magazine nor get the empty out. In fact, the brass was sliced open by the returning slide, and we had to pry the spent brass out of the gun with a screwdriver. Only then was the magazine freed for removal. This sort of thing continued with great regularity until we decided we’d had enough of this pistol, and ceased all testing."[/FONT]​

Expensive gun = Good Gun ....... I think not!!!! ​

[/FONT]

 

[Lakefield22]

I seem to recall that a lot of people have switched to only using Gun Test Magazine for puppy training paper...especially after they gave a bad review to Maks. Take their articles with a grain of salt.

 

[shooter521]

I seem to recall that a lot of people have switched to only using Gun Test Magazine for puppy training paper...especially after they gave a bad review to Maks. Take their articles with a grain of salt.

I used to subscribe to Gun Tests years ago. The big problems I had with them were:

1) They only evaluated a single sample of a given make/model. If it sh*t the bed for any reason, they panned it like *every* one of that make/model would be that way. Never heard of a lemon or the fact that all manufacturers put them out from time to time, I guess.

2) The writing and editing of the articles were atrocious. I am an editor by trade, so these things bug me. Especially when you pay that kind of money for a magazine that has crappy B&W photos and looks like it was printed on a deskjet printer in someone's office.

3) The "tests" were limited in scope and not indicative of much. "We took pistols A, B and C out and had 3 people fire 50 rounds through each one. C is the winner." Yawn.

4) The magazine liked to trumpet how they were "unbiased" because they didn't take any advertising money. Truth is, they're just biased in a different way. I don't recall ever reading an article where they had anything nice to say about a Glock, for instance.

I haven't seen a copy of that rag in ages, but I don't recommend it as a credible source of information or opinion.

 

[indykid]

I have the PM9 and although the recoil spring is super stiff, the pistol itself has been 100% reliable in well over 1000 rounds, and with that little pistol I can still hit paper at 25 yards, which is well beyond it's designed range.

I have heard both good and bad about the Kahr pistols, but usually it is because they are being judged before the factory required 250 round break in. Kahr also recommends the heavier loads rather than light loads.

That said, everyone makes a bad one now and them. The problem is when it gets in the hands of a reporter. That makes them all look bad.

 

[Bigum1969]

I have the PM9 and although the recoil spring is super stiff, the pistol itself has been 100% reliable in well over 1000 rounds, and with that little pistol I can still hit paper at 25 yards, which is well beyond it's designed range.

I have heard both good and bad about the Kahr pistols, but usually it is because they are being judged before the factory required 250 round break in. Kahr also recommends the heavier loads rather than light loads.

That said, everyone makes a bad one now and them. The problem is when it gets in the hands of a reporter. That makes them all look bad.

I've got the PM9 and it has been 100% reliable. Doesn't mean there aren't bad copies out there, though. The recoil spring is stiff.

 

[kludge]

If 1/1000 is bad, good luck getting the one,
If 1/100 is bad... same goes
If 1/10 is bad chances are pretty good.
1/4? 1/2? Anyway you get the point.

Our company sends stuff to magazine reviewers all the time. Every product that goes to a magazine is hand picked.

Now, what does that say? You had a hundred to choose from and you sent the bad one?

 

[techres]

This is what made me give up my Kahr (it happened way to often):

YouTube - PM40 Jamming on recoil

 

[shooter521]

Our company sends stuff to magazine reviewers all the time. Every product that goes to a magazine is hand picked.

Now, what does that say? You had a hundred to choose from and you sent the bad one?

IIRC, Gun Tests purchases their review guns off the shelf, specifically to avoid getting a specially "fluffed & buffed" or hand-picked piece. They want the gun they review to be a typical example like you or I might buy.

 

[Lakefield22]

IIRC, Gun Tests purchases their review guns off the shelf, specifically to avoid getting a specially "fluffed & buffed" or hand-picked piece. They want the gun they review to be a typical example like you or I might buy.

I'm not sure if that is true of all of their guns. I seem to recall that some manufacturer sent a rather angry letter in about their review and pointed out that they did not pay for the gun, as they claimed, and that they regularly received test guns.