Kahr or Taurus?
I'm considering picking up a pistol of use as a CC piece. For this purpose, which do you prefer and why, the Taurus Millenium .45 or the Kahr P9 or P40?
www.ebsart.com
"Live by the three 'R's: Respect, Responsibility and Residuals."
www.ebsart.com
"Live by the three 'R's: Respect, Responsibility and Residuals."
0
-
In my opinion the Kahr is a whole nother level above the Taurus. Though the Taurus is perfectly fine, a great gun. I'd pick the Kahr any day over it.
U know what suprises me is the way some people won't spend $1000 dollars to save their life, but they will go out and spent that much on a hunting rifle or fishing equiptment.
If I'm wrong please correct me, I won't be offended.
The sound of a 12 gauge pump clears a house fatser than Rosie O eats a Big Mac !0 -
Its true the Kahr is more expensive,but the Taurus is a very good gun.They shoot well and are very reliable and last but not least the Taurus has a Lifetime warranty.And has an 11 shot capacity compared tothe usual 7 shot Kahr.
Best!!!
Rugster
Toujours Pret
Edited by - Rugster on 09/25/2002 10:27:020 -
I would suggest the Kahr. It doesn't carry as much ammo but it is better quality. I own a millenium 45 and had more problems than I thought possible. 0 -
Yeah.....What leeblackman said. I also would consider the Taurus PT 945 before the millenium but when all's said & done the Kahr would be my choice for you. rg 0 -
Kahr has it hands down on quality. Taurus does have the lifetime warranty but how many $35+ shipping fees do you have to pay to justify the lower price. As for the reduced capacity of the Kahr, people have been carrying 5 and 6 shot revolvers for decades without problems.
AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY0 -
I would say the gun that suits you best. No question the Kahr is of better quality. However there must have been something that made you look at the Taurus. 0 -
Yeah, because the Taurus is .45 caliber. My primary handgun is a H&K USP45 and I am extremely pleased with it, and .45 is a great caliber for self defense. The additional ammo capacity of the Taurus appeals to me as well. However, after shooting my gf's Glock 22 (.40) quite a bit, I'm getting more used to the 'snap' of .40 cartridge.
I prefer .45 in full size handguns, but I have not been able to shoot any subcompacts and I don't know if the recoil would be managable in a lighter frame. Both the Kahr and Taurus feel good in my hand (unlike every other sub I've held) at the store, but I don't know which would behave better at the range. Which one is more likely to keep its nose down?
www.ebsart.com
"Live by the three 'R's: Respect, Responsibility and Residuals."0 -
Taurus is crap, I thought everyone knew that. 0 -
Trust your life with the Kahr and you will live to understand why. My 2 cents. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
9 comments