An update on this that may be of interest.
First, talked to Kahr CS and had great success - customer service was fantastic. Was able to have them ship out a new striker which I received today, saving me (and them) the hassle (and cost) of having to ship the slide or entire weapon back, and wait for its return. a HUGE +1 for them.
However, I noticed something different about the two strikers. The broken one clearly had parting lines and what looked like mold injection spots on it, whereas the replacement had none, with clearly machined surfaces, and was also noticeably heavier.
I'm wondering if the original one was MIM, whereas the replacement was not.
When I was making the decision between the P9 and the CW9, all I could find out about the differences were:
- the CW9 had laser engraving instead of roll marking on the slide
- the slide on the P9 had some extra machining to remove weight from the slide that the CW9 did not
- the CW9 front sight was staked on where the P9 was dovetailed
- the slide stop on the CW9 was MIM, where the P9 was not
- only one magazine was shipped with the CW9
All in all, these differences weren't enough for me to justify paying an additional $150 but had I known the striker may have been MIM I would have went for the P9, because although I have nothing against MIM in general, I don't think it belongs on fire control parts on a carry weapon, especially a striker or firing pin.
Does this square with anyone else's experience? Or am I mistaken on the construction of the original striker?
Am extremely happy with the pistol overall, and with Kahr's customer service - it won't be the last Kahr I purchase.