Talk:Kahr Arms

Rewrite
Maybe it's just me, but I feel that the following passage should be rewritten or maybe even removed.

Kahr was at the forefront at offering small well-made pistols that fire eight or fewer relatively large 9mm and .40-caliber bullets. Their single-stack magazines enable a slender compact pistol that has proved popular with the buying public.

There is some truth to this but, at least to me, it reads a bit like it was taken from a marketing brochure. Glock, for instance, far surpasses Kahr in terms of popularity and sales and offers comparable firearms (ie. the G36 and possibly some of their other subcompacts). The same can probably be said of other, smaller caliber semi-autos and short-barrel revolvers. --Seed 2.0 21:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kahr is not Glock
Glock firearms are not quite comparable to Kahr. Nearly all of Kahr's products were specifically designed for concealed-carry work (with the notable exception of the Auto-Ordanance Tommy Guns and 1911 .45ACP pistols,) while Glock's products had their genesis in a request by the Austrian government for a sidearm for their military forces. All of Glock's firearms (perhaps with the exception of the G21SF, which just came out recently, and of which I am unfamiliar,) have a double-stack magazine, which significantly increases the width of the Glock versus the single-stack magazine Kahr. The smallest Glock subcompacts (26, 27, 28, 33,) are all 6.29" long, while the smallest Kahrs (MK9, MK40, PM9, PM40) are 5.3" (9mm) and 5.35" (.40SW) long. The forthcoming Kahr PM45 carries a .45ACP round in a 5.67" long package. As a result, however, the ammunition capacity is reduced in the Kahrs (Glock magazine capacity is across-the-board higher than the Kahrs. (See kahr.com and glock.com for references.)  In my opinion, people desiring to trade off ammunition capacity at the expense of size will gravitate toward the Glocks; people desiring concealability with a large caliber will gravitate toward Kahr.  Kahr's real competitors, IMHO, are gunmakers like Kel-tec and North American Arms, who also produce small, highly concealable firearms.

Further, not all Kahrs are polymer-framed as all Glocks are. The "K" series uses a stainless steel frame.

What Kahr HAS done, and (I believe) was one of the first to do, was offer large-caliber (9mm, .40, .45) firearms in a small, highly concealable package.

For these reasons, I feel that the statement referenced by the poster above should be retained. 209.195.164.34 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kahr is not Glock
This is true. However the original writer to this is referring to internal firing pin safety mechanism that is very similar to Glocks. Meaning if accidentally dropped it won't misfire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamstupidsometimes (talk • contribs) 07:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Need info on specific products
Either additional information should be included on this page concerning the Kahr K, E, MK, CW, P, and PM series handguns (in 9mm, .40SW and .45ACP), or else this information should be added in handgun-specific articles.

Weight of PM9
the weight listed here for the PM9 (14.0 oz) differs from the weight listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahr_PM_series#PM9 (15.9 oz) Perhaps one is with the mag and one is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ownership
According to this article in guns.com, we're referring to the wrong Saeilo Corporation in the opening paragraph. The article claims that the Saeilo Corporation that owns Kahr is different than the Tongil Group's Saeilo Corporation. The 2011 post on TheFirearmBlog about this is worth a read, but the references from both Christopher Stewart ("Zilliox traced Kahr, one of more than a dozen Moon family companies in the U.S., through an intricate chain of firms to a mothership holding company called ­ Unification Church International") and the New York Times ("The church owns the Washington Times newspaper and the New Yorker Hotel in Manhattan, as well as the New York-based gun manufacturer Kahr Arms.") support that Kahr Arms is owned by the Unification Church. Gobōnobō + c 21:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit from July 26 added incorrect links on references 3 and 4 to http://www.rickross.com/reference/unif/unif204.html and rickross.com/reference/unif/unif166.html :  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kahr_Arms&oldid=565854738 [See (cur | prev) 06:13, 26 July 2013‎ Gobonobo (talk | contribs)‎. . (10,641 bytes) (-108)‎. . (format references, requesting citation, dubious tag for ownership of Saeilo by Tongil) (undo)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.86.140 (talk)

Ownership: Article and sources inconsistent
I have a Wikipedia conflict of interest: I work for Kahr Arms.

This article suggests that Kahr Arms is owned by the Tongil Group, citing 3 sources. By my reading, the first citation says that Justin Moon, who founded Kahr Arms in 1993, was the chairman of the Tongil Group at the time the article appeared in 2010. It does not say anything about who owns Kahr Arms but specifies that Kahr is a U.S. business.

The second citation contradicts the Wikipedia entry by saying Kahr Arms is owned by a different entity, not Tongil, based on the assertion of someone who worked for a "cult awareness group".

The third citation, from the New York Times, hedges its bets by declaring that Kahr Arms is owned by Unification Church without specifying what form the ownership takes or what its sources are. There is no mention of Tongil owning Kahr Arms.

Although the talk comment above demonstrates awareness of Kahr Arms' protestations that Justin Moon (not Tongil, not the Unification Church) owns Kahr Arms outright there appears to be no room for that little detail in the article.

In summary, I suggest that the current section regarding the ownership of Kahr Arms is flawed because the sources cited do not back the assertion that Tongil owns Kahr Arms, the sources cited are inconsistent within themselves and no mention is made of the company's own position on the matter.

24.89.142.50 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That second link was a thinly designed hit piece. The author is admittedly not a firearms expert and uses weasel words to try to fit an agenda. In the interview with Mas Ayoob, Mr Moon clearly states: "I currently am the majority shareholder of Kahr and operate my business to provide high quality firearms to the public and to make a profit. I am a member of the Unification Church, but I do not hold any formal positions in the church. I proudly participate and support my church and my community. This is, after all, a free country. I cherish my First Amendment rights as well as my Second Amendment rights." --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal history
The history section of this article, especially the first paragraph, does not seem to belong in the history section of Kahr Arms. This is not Kook Jin Moon's personal biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.71.34 (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kahr Arms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910232341/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2919043 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2919043

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Blessing "with" or "for" AR-15's
Sjo,

The link referenced as the source for this claim is invalid. I have been going to this church for years and can tell you what you wrote is factually incorrect.

I am interviewed here by sky news at the 4min mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAwb5Pl71eM

Thank you, Mira Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrrh11 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the link above contradicts the two sources I referred to in the edit comment. Sources are important here, see Verifiability and Reliable sources. One person's say-so just is not enough. Also, since you appear to be a member of the church you ought to refrain from editing articles connected to it, per Conflict of interest. Sjö (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Again the first source has a non functioning link. The SPLC source is suspect as they do not make clear where they got the information from, they simply make the claim. For example they don't say they interviewed anybody to determine why the AR-15's were present. Here are two sources that clearly show that it should be "with" instead of "for":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wz3OgEgiek At 50:10 - 50:30 the emcee, Tim Elder, explains that the ceremony is not for blessing the guns themselves.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hundreds-of-worshipers-gather-at-church-hosting-ceremony-featuring-ar-15s/ "Tim Elder, Unification Sanctuary's director of world missions, told worshippers the ceremony was meant to be a blessing of couples, not "inanimate objects," calling the AR-15 a "religious accoutrement." "

Notice that unlike the SPLC article, CBS actually cited where they got the information from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrrh11 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I copied the text above from my talk page since article content is best discussed there.
 * You do make a good point about the CBS source saying something else, and perhaps the text should read "blessings featuring AR-15's". I leave this here for others to comment on. Because of your conflict of interest you should not edit the article yourself, but participating in a source-based discussion on this talk page is OK. By the way, the Telegraph source has a working link, but you have to click the Archived link. Sjö (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)