Patton

I would disassemble the LCP and pay close attention to the recoil spring to see if it is in a bind or one spring is in wrong. It has functioned correctly on the previous visits correct?

I gave the cw380 to a family member and traded the cw45 for a loss. The cw45 had godawful recoil and the takedown pin would back out when shooting. Both were ammo finicky and had really rough edges. Maybe after a couple of years of carry those edges may rub smooth. Polymer Kahrs have plastic rails with short metal guides up front around the recoil spring. I hate the idea of that but apparently it has never been an issue for others.

The all metal Kahrs are the only ones worth owning in my opinion. I have owned two CW series and hated them both.

Brass to face is the term and it is pretty common. There are three common culprits: 1. bad or poorly designed extractor. 2. Poorly designed ejector. 3. Weak ammo. Changing either the ejector and/or extractor fixes BTF about 95% of the time.

Either striker fired or double action for me. Technically I prefer double action only to keep the trigger pull the same each time. My Shield is my primary carry and is on me about 90% of the time I am out of bed. The other 9% of the time I have a double action revolver on me. Prior to a year ago I was carrying various Glocks and occasionally a DA revolver or keltec/LCP. As a rule I don't do single action, but I have carried a NAA revolver on a few occasions.

I am almost for certain it is a $150 to upgrade to a 3rd gen, 3 pin frame. You will have mismatched serials though.

The good news is that they are very accommodating with warranty claims.

As big of a Hi Power fan as I am there are a lot better target and plinking guns available. Slide bite is a common complaint and so is the lack of sights because you are truly stuck with low combat sights. This is of course ignoring the magazine safety and having to deal with the ambidextrous safety. Like their 1911 brothers they tend to love attention in the maintenance department. As long as people are aware of this I am all for Hi Powers. I would be much more in favor of a Browning Hi Power than any 9mm 1911 since you asked.

With a G29 there will not be a whole lot of differences between a G29sf Gen3 and a Gen4 other than grip texture and a reversible mag release. Both will have a dual recoil spring assembly. You will have larger backstraps to install on the gen4 but hardly anyone uses them because the grip is so fat anyway. The Gen4 will also include an additional magazine for a total of 3. The regular 29 has a thicker backstrap making the trigger reach substantial and the 29SF (short frame) was a successful attempt to shorten the reach by a short distance. The regular 29 has been discontinued and SF and Gen4 without a backstrap are about the same distance from the backstrap to the trigger.

It is $464.20 plus taxes and fees. The 10/45 Glocks don't work into as great of a savings as the smaller frames.

NextExit, are you still in the Military or retired? If so you would be a fool to not get a blue label Glock for $529ish OTD.

They have a shorter lifespan. You may get 10k rounds but there are a few that say they have worked loose in a lot less. Besides they are pricey.

Of all my shorts and pants I have one pair of shorts that has shallow pockets making it hard to carry the Shield discretely. Other than that I have no issues with pocket carrying a Shield. I even do so with the Pearce Extension. Carrying a Shield is about the same as carrying a j frame. They both take up about the same volume and are about the same height and length. It is beyond me why S&W can't replicate the Shield's trigger into the othe M&P handguns.

That's what I think of all Kahrs. My Shield is ten time the gun my Kahr cw series is that I gave to my dad.

Get a Shield and you will never have a desire to own any other subcompact gun.

That is the the thing I have said for years. I found it to be true... I think I am an ounce heavier with a 64 and about three with a 65.

It would have to be cheaper than a Shield for me to even consider it and come with an extra magazine.

While I think they are pretty close in comparision I expected others to think the magnum would have been more.

I believe you. So you think your 640 w/magnum is easier to shoot than an airweight?

I actually doubt that. I desperately want to own a S&W 242. It is the titanium L frame 357 mag. If I ever get one I probably will never even shoot a magnum from it.

Little Shields are amazing for how well they handle powerful rounds. I am a huge fan of snubbies but the ever so popular Airweights are terrible to shoot. A 20oz 60/649/640 in 38spl weighs only a deglible amount more but is a dream to shoot. I have completely cleaned my collection of Airweight j frames. I do have a LCR and a 16 oz CA Undercover that is actually smaller than a j frame though.

If I had the knowledge of reloading years ago that I have now I would have never bought a traditional tumbler and especially not a dry tumbler. Ninety percent of the time I just shake my brass in a citric acid, water, and dish soap mix. I then rinse it about an hour later and then shake it dry while waded up in a towel. The result is brass clean enough for reloading. Really dirty brass gets sorted to go to a friends house for the stainless media bath in solvent. This is normally range pick up brass or brass on it's fifth or sixth reloading.

The 442 is not a range gun. Why don't you reload and make you some powderpuff loads?

I have not shot a LC9 but I have heard they have a lot more recoil than my Shield. The only two smaller autos that I have shot that have more recoil than a airweight may be a Kahr cw45 or a XDS 45. Maybe a glock 27 but maybe not.

The Sig is a suprise but I am not surprised to hear that the Kahr is ammo finicky and not liking reloads. I sold mine because of it not liking reloads. The factory crimp die did not work for me.