January 18, 2006, 11:02 PM
Has anybody shot both?
How does recoil compare?
I remember someone saying that the MK compares to a Ruger SP101 - good, solid performer? How about the same gun with the plastic grip -PM9/40 - of course they weigh less - but is it worth it considering recoil increase?
Any thoughts guys?
January 18, 2006, 11:32 PM
Only shot a K-9, but the P-9 and PM-9 both felt good in my hand.
I would go for a 9mm, due to the cost of ammo and ease of use. I think practice and competence with a good round count more than having a gun with slightly more firepower.
Knowing way too little about the subject, I would go with the MK-9.
January 19, 2006, 12:29 AM
I have owned both (and both where Elite 98s).
My MK9 has been significantly more accurate.
The recoil of the .40 is noticeably greater than the 9, but it didn't bother me (but I kinda like recoil :evil: ).
Carried in a good IWB holster I don't think you'll notice the weight (there's times I have to check and see if the pistol is still there). If you want to pocket carry, however, you might want to go with the PM9/40 over the MK (however I imagine the recoil of the PMs is greater than the MKs ... but I've never shot an poly Kahr).
January 19, 2006, 12:38 AM
If you are looking for the metal framed MK series I think you won't find the .40S&W to recoil too much.
I've only shot the MK9 and PM9. My best friend had an MK9. Recoil wasn't an issue. It was a fun gun to shoot and once used to it quite accurate. He later traded it on a PM9 (he wanted the lighter weight). While it recoils noticably more, it is still fairly easy to shoot. The MK9 is 22oz, the PM9 is 15oz- with the 7oz difference there I'm pretty sure the recoil difference between those two is greater than the difference between the 9mm MK9 and .40S&W MK40.
I do own a Taurus PT140 Milennium Pro. It is a 23oz compact .40S&W pistol (this is for a comparison as the Kahr MK40 weighs the same- obviously there is more to weight when it comes to felt recoil but it gives some comparison). The recoil is noticable, heavier than my friend's MK9 was, but quite managable and a bit lower than the recoil in his PM9.
I doubt you'd have a problem with the MK40. So, if for whatever reason you would prefer .40S&W over 9mm then I see no reason not to go with the MK40 (there are plenty of good arguments for either over the other, but in this case I don't see recoil as an argument against the .40). If you were looking at the 15oz polymer however I'd probably suggest sticking with the 9mm. I see no reason not to recommend either the MK40 or the PM9.
January 20, 2006, 01:30 PM
I can only speak for the MK9 - its a great gun and a blast to shoot! It handles suprisingly well for such a small gun - very accurate!
January 20, 2006, 02:05 PM
I have fired my friends PM9 and PM40 one after the other. When you get to guns this small and light, the difference between the recoil of a 9 and 40 gets significantly larger than it is in standard size guns. The muzzle flip of the 40 is also much greater. Preceived recoil is a very individual thing. I don't mind 10mm full house loads all day in a G20, or full house .357 all day in a GP100, but a few mags of .40 in a PM40 would be plenty for me. The only real answer to your question is find a way to try before you buy.