Simply can not decide (one of those threads)

[shooter521]

For me, a CCW must be absolutely reliable, and it must have a laser sight.

Something that relies on sensitive electronics, batteries and tiny adjustment screws would seem to fly in the face of reliability...

I think few of us shoot pocket guns enough to be truly accurate without a laser.

Why not just practice more, then? IME, for folks who aren't dedicated shooters, laser sights will accentuate or cause more problems than they solve. On the flip-side, for folks who are dedicated shooters, they aren't really needed except maybe in certain niche applications.

The inability to add a laser without significantly altering the size of the weapon (and the ability to use normal holsters) turns me off to the Kahr pistols.

You can add a laser to the Kahr PM9 and P380 without significantly altering the size of the gun, and you can find holsters for them...

 

[loony1]

i'm thinking ditch the diamondback and go with the kahr, yes pricy, but anything of quality is.

 

[Koukalaka]

Something that relies on sensitive electronics, batteries and tiny adjustment screws would seem to fly in the face of reliability...

You make a good point! But the revolver itself seems just about foolproof, doesn't it? I guess if you dropped the thing in mud or something, the cylinder might get stuck...but under normal circumstances, revolvers seem pretty reliable.

The sights on small pistols I've used (especially the NAA Guardian, and Beretta Tomcat) are rather minimal and difficult to see (although I have to admit the stock sights on my Kahr PM9 were pretty decent given the size). I guess I don't know what problems adding a laser will cause--is it just a concern about over-reliance on them so that the shooter doesn't know how to use the normal sights? I think the laser has actually helped correct some of my problems...it makes it really obvious if you have a flinch during dry-fire practice, for example.

The CT laser pictured above is pretty small...but how cool would it be if Kahr would collaborate with CT to build a laser into the pistol frame, kind of like the new S&W Bodyguards? Never gonna happen, I suppose, but it would be nice to keep the overall profile the way it is.

Yikes, didn't mean to jack the thread. Back to the OP...I do agree with others who have advocated going for the Kahr; my PM9 was the only pocket pistol I've ever had that NEVER malfunctioned, even from the very first magazine. Haven't shot the .380 version, the one's I've examined seem really nicely made. And the 9mm is nice and small, at least with the flush-fitting grip.

 

[Squib]

Someone sold me their problem, and when I could not get it fixed, I decided to eat it rather than pass that along to someone else. Once you have an opportunity to put a couple of hundred rounds thru it, if it works, sell it if you no longer have confidence in it.

I'll be faced with the same situation soon. I bought a new Taurus TCP and the first, and only time, I shot it I had 36 FTEs! Not a happy camper. When I get it back from the factory, it will have to preform flawlessly. I bet I'll never forget those 36 FTEs, either.

 

[PatriotPride]

I'd personally get rid of it and get another LCP. The LCP is a proven platform and fills its role very well. Why mess with a gun you may have a hard time trusting?

This. Hit the nail on the head, IMO.

 

[snorko]

I will definitely keep the DB380 for a while. After an additional 100 rounds this past weekend, it seemed to smooth outh and the greoups tightened up a bit. Function was virtually flawless.

I have decided to pick up a Kahr. It too is proven and my K9 is one of the smoothest, most accurate 9mm's I have shot. The pocket .380 is a primary carry gun for me much of the time, so the price is well worth it to me.