PM9 vs J-frame for pocket carry ? Why ?

[USGuns]

I've read lots of threads here about folks trying to decide on a pants-pocket carry gun. In my unscientific observations, it seems the most frequent primary contenders are between the Kahr PM9 and the S&W J-frame.

I've been kicking back and forth between the PM9 and 340PD as well for myself for pants-pocket carry.

Anyone care to share WHY they made their decision to go with one vs. the other? The PM9 over the J-frame OR vice versa? Either which way you went, I want to hear from you! But ONLY from those folks that decided between the Kahr PM9 and the S&W J-frames please.

Thanks!

[TarpleyG]

Do a search, specifically for my username. This has been hashed out a few times here.

Greg

[JNewell]

TarpleyG is right about this being a horse that's been well-beaten. However...

Have both, have carried both, prefer the J-frame -- here's why.

First, my experience has been that both are rock-steady reliable and more than accurate enough for defensive purposes.

On paper, I would prefer the PM9 for several reasons:

better sights
9x19 +P probably still has an edge of .38 Special +P, even in the new 135 gr Gold Dot load
faster reload
reloads easier to carry

In spite of these advantages for the Kahr, I find that for pocket carry the J-frame has the following advantages:


conceals better in pockets
draws better and faster


The J-frame, at least for me and what I wear, conceals better because the rounded contours just don't make funny lines in my pants the way the blocky Kahr did.

And, the angle and shape of the J-frame's grip allows me to get a nearly perfect firing grip while the gun is still in my pocket, which I cannot do with the Kahr -- I have to adjust my grip after the gun clears the pocket.

So, that's my $.02. Others will no doubt disagree, but I have been at this for quite a few years and for me the J-frame works much better as an "always" carry.

[Erich]

My experience has also been a small revo is much easier to grip and draw from a pocket holster than a small auto. (I do not have any specific experience with the PM9, though - only PPKs, PPK-types, Maks, and baby Glocks (33 and 26).) I also find the small revos to conceal somewhat better in the front pants pocket, which still seems sort of counterintuitive to me (but that's the way it is for me).

Accordingly, I mostly carry a S&W 36 or Colt Agent in my front pants pocket, although it's sometimes convenient to carry the baby Glocks there instead. If I needed to get the gun out from the pocket quickly, however, I can do it faster with the small revolver.

Good luck with whichever you choose. :)

[HankB]

I'm now doing pocket carry with a 340SC.

I used to have a P9 - make that a POS9 - but the numerous problems I had with that tupperware turkey soured me on polymer Kahrs.

(Kahr replaced that horribly unreliable pistol, but I traded the unfired replacement for a Glock 26. The Glock is very reliable, but a bit too big for pocket carry.)

[Whole Hog]

I have a PM9 and a couple J-frames, one blue steel and one Al/Ti, and Hedley pocket holsters for each. I'll second everything JNewell said.

Scott

[scbair]

I'd like to differ with the previous posters . . . but I can't! :D

I've never tried a Kahr, but I find my J-frame conceals and draws better from the pocket than does an old AMT Back-Up (a pretty compact auto in its own right). Add the extreme reliability of the J-frame versus the AMT's . . . oh, never mind. :rolleyes:

The only auto I find does conceal better in my pocket is a Kel Tec P32, but it's nowhere near as accurate as my 642, even discounting the 642's edge in power (.38 Spec. vs. .32 ACP).

[Morgan]

Another +1 for JNewell.

I love my PM9. Better caliber, more accurate (in my hands), higher payload, faster reload.

My backup, however, is a 642, for reasons already stated.

[Krag]

I can slide my PM9 into the side or rear pocket of my jeans and there is no "signature" at all. I cannot do that with my M49 or M442! The Kahr holds a greater number of more powerful cartridges; extra ammo is easier to carry and faster to reload; the sights are better, the grip is larger (unless you fit bigger grips to your J-frame, negating it's small size); and I shoot it significantly better.

I rarely carry a J-frame since I've gotten the PM9.

[Sistema1927]

My 99% of the time carry weapon was a pocket carried 642.

Was. No more, due to the fact that I now have a PM9. After firing 300 rounds without a hitch during the break-in period, I felt confident to carry it. I have over 700 through it now, and not one problem.

The PM9 carries flatter, give me an extra round, and has better sights (Meprolights). It is also faster to reload, and I am more prone to carry an extra mag than a speed-loader or speed-strip.

[USGuns]

I should have made this a poll but so-far, in this thread at least, it seems as though the J-Frame is significantly more popular than the PM9 for pocket carry.

[Zach S]

Like JNewell, I think the PM9 is too blocky. The top of the slide gets caught on the corner of my pocket, and I cant get a good grip on it while drawing. A J frame would be more doable, but still too big for my pockets. Unlike the PM9, it slides right in a front pocket and I can draw it, but it prints. Badly.

I wear 30x32 jeans so pocket carry doesnt work so well for me.

[azrael]

Wel not that it is much of a contribution to the thread, but I sell ALOT more pocket holster's for the J-frames than I do the Kahr's..

prolly 8 to 1

[Sistema1927]

"I should have made this a poll but so-far, in this thread at least, it seems as though the J-Frame is significantly more popular than the PM9 for pocket carry."

"Wel not that it is much of a contribution to the thread, but I sell ALOT more pocket holster's for the J-frames than I do the Kahr's.."

I am not surprised. The price point on the PM9 is significantly higher than the J-frames, especially the 642 these days.

Yet, if you were to poll PM9 owners only, you would probably discover that their experience mirrors mine: Used to carry a 642 (or other J-frame), but once they had a PM9 the J-frame became a safe-queen.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the 642. I own both a 642 and an 80's vintage 37, and would not feel "naked" with either one in my pocket. Yet, the PM9 is an improvement, IMHO, in every respect.

[Morgan]

I should emphasise that, for me, the 642 or Kahr are backup pieces.

Were only the two available for primary, I'd reconsider...

[USGuns]

I am not surprised. The price point on the PM9 is significantly higher than the J-frames, especially the 642 these days.

This is true for most of the J-Frames, except for the AirLite Sc models (e.g. 340PD). Though I wonder what the sales breakdown is for the Airweights vs. the AirLites - obviously as the Airweights are significantly less expensive they probably sell a lot more of them.

[cslinger]

Count me in the J-Frame camp as well. I think price point has a lot to do with it along with the fact that many folks don't trust uber small autos. Things like limp wristing really are exacerbated with those tiny autos.

A J-Frame basically looks like a wallet in a pocket where as the KAHR has a distinctive outline.

Chris

[ddj8052]

Yet, if you were to poll PM9 owners only, you would probably discover that their experience mirrors mine: Used to carry a 642 (or other J-frame), but once they had a PM9 the J-frame became a safe-queen.

I still think that most prefer the J-frame. I had a PM 40 and a MK40 (same size approx. as the PM9) And while I still have the snubbys I have neither of the Kahrs. I really prefer the snub nose as an all around gun. It is perfect for tossing into a pocket when going out the front door. I keep my snubbies thank you very much.

[DBR]

My reasons for the J frame:

1-lighter-S&W342 Airlite=13oz loaded
2-harder to be disarmed
3-more likely to work for a contact shot
4-can be held ready without brandishing and can be fired through pocket more than once (I carry in an outside coat pocket in the winter)
5-no ammo sensitivity (some ammo considerations with Airlite)
6-I like soft lead bullets
7-generally better shape for concealment
8-I do not like small striker fired pistols (and while I do carry a Glock, I am not all that enthusiastic about large ones either)

[USGuns]

It's interesting how, even given the wide cylinder of the J-frame that many folks feel it is easier to conceal and doesn't print like a more blocky gun like the Kahr might. Even though the J-frame is dimensionally larger than the Kahr, it's frame is thinner everwhere and the shape breaks up the outline.

[azrael]

USGUNS,
never thought of it, but ya do have a point...


I like the 638 myself, and plan on getting one when I find one for the right price :)

[Skyviking]

I've carried a J-frame S&W or a D-frame Colt for a lot of years. Currently, my favorite pocket gun is a PM-9. While the snub-nose .38/.357 is unexcelled as a coat pocket gun, the PM-9 makes a better combination BUG and occasional sole/primary carry piece.

I do not feel "undergunned" when toting just the PM9 w/a spare magazine or two. I do when packing only a J-frame and a couple of speed strips on my way to the local Stop & Rob. What's your gut say?

[Marshall]

Little small auto's bother me in pockets. I'm not comfortable with the possibility of lint/debri getting in the gun and rendering it unable to fire. Yea, even in a pocket holster.

J-Frame for me.

[Sir Aardvark]

You can shoot the 340pd from inside your coat pocket (just like they do in the spy movies!) again and again and again; no auto pistol stuff, such as the slide, to hang up on things.

For real now - it is hard to find something that is as light, reliable, powerful, and proven for pocket carry than a S&W J-Frame .357mag.


Not to mention the HUGE aftermarket for this model - grips, sights, holsters - it's all there.

[USGuns]

I was trying to think of all the things that I've read that can go mechanically wrong with an auto that a J-frame by it's inherant design *isn't* sensitive to:

- Generally more sensitive to dirt, lint, etc.
- Could jam due to limp-wristing.
- More prone to failure due to improper or poor maintenance.

Others?

Of course, some autos are better at these than others.

[R.H. Lee]

I like the J frame, specifically the 642. No safeties to worry about, no chance of AD, it's so light you don't know it's there. Pull it out of your pocket and it's ready to go.

[gbelleh]

Last summer I either carried a PM9 or a Taurus 85UL in a front pocket. I found them very similar and equally easy to conceal. The PM9 came out the winner for me because of the extra 2 rounds it holds. But, I would have no problem carrying the .38.

This year I'm still carrying the PM9, but in an IWB holster. It conceals just as well, and frees up my pocket for other stuff.

[jason10mm]

My 642 prints pretty badly in most shorts or pants I wear (ie, you can easily tell that SOMETHING is in my pocket), but the outline isn't a GUN outline. The Disanti nemesis holster has a fairly large waddle of material under the barrel to keep the gun oriented in the pocket, that helps distort an obviouls "L" shape in the pocket. I suspect that the small fraction of the people that even notice that I have a full pocket think it is a phone/PDA/wallet/PSP/GBA/whatever with gun being far down on their list.

I'd like to try a small auto with a low profile IWB. I can carry a 1911 in a milt sparks VM-2 without trouble, but I'm always paranoid with nothing but a t-shirt over it. I think a PM9 or PPK held tight against the side with the grip just above the pants line would carry well, be all but invisible, and still be quick to deploy. Any holster recommendations?

[fiVe]

I've had no experience with the Kahr. My 642 conceals well in my pocket, it carries well(light), and it can be brought to bear in a quick & snag-free motion.

R/fiVe

[Clocktower]

J frame guy here as well... I used to go with a 340 but I revently switched back to my 442. Its only a few ounces heavier but I shoot it better.

[rWt]

Give the Rohrbaugh R9S a look. It may change the way you evaluate the pistol vs revolver for pocket carry.http://www.rohrbaughfirearms.com/

Dick

[1911.45]

Sold my 340PD and kept the Kahr PM9. The Kahr shoots better for me, is only two ounces heavier than the Scandium J-frame, carries six or seven rounds rather than five rounds, reloads quicker, and 9mm +P is more potent ammunition than .38 spl +P. While .357 magnum is more powerful than 9mm, the recoil in a 340PD with .357 magnum is so intense that S&W warned about bullets moving forward in the cartridges, rendering the pistols temporarily inoperable.

Some folks can competently shoot .357 magnum in a 12 ounce J-frame, but I could not get off meaningful subsequent shots. The PM9 was better for me, but the J-frames are fine guns and might be better for you.