[jon_in_wv]

The title about sums it up. I'm looking for a summer carry/pocket gun for this summer. I normally carry my M&P 9C in the summer and my P32 when i feel the need to be really discreet but there are time when I would like something in between. Something I can pocket but is still accurate and more powerful than my P32. I've narrowed it down to one of the lighweight 38 or 357s or perhaps a PM9. I've handled the PM9 before and I was impressed. I also owned a SMith 442 years ago and while it was a bear to shoot is was easy to carry. What do you think the pros/cons would be for either?? Am I missing another option?

[jon_in_wv]

I'm not sure how it compares in size but should have I included the Bersa 380CC also??

[ArchAngelCD]

I'm a big fan of the 15 oz S&W Airweight J frame revolver. I would buy either a M642, M442 or M638 for pocket carry. If you thought your M442 was a bear to shoot don't buy a M340. At 12 oz it's much more to handle than a M442 especially if you are firing .357 Magnum rounds through it.

[jon_in_wv]

Usually I do prefer a softer shooting gun if it shoots better. I put my accuracy withe the weapon FIRST, caliber second. I recently sold a Taurus M85. It was just too heavy but it shot well.

[Joe A]

If you're comfortable shooting a light J-Frame, I'd vote for the S&W M&P 340 with a Crimson Trace LG-405 grip. The M&P has a standard size XS night sight and a U-shaped rear notch that greatly improve the vestigal sights on the rest of the Js. The CT grips make the short sight radius a mute point and lets you make head shots way beyond where you think you could make them.

I regularily carry a 642 with CT grips in an Uncle Mike's size 3 pocket holster with a speed strip in my weak-side pocket and a safariland speed loader in my coat pocket. If going for a J and you're going to pocket carry, make sure you get a concealed hammer model. You don't want a hook on your gun when drawing from a pocket. I'm partial to the speer 135 gr. golddot +Ps specifically developed for the 1 7/8" short barrel.

This combo carries and shoots great if you're willing to put in the practice time. Don't be shy about using standard velocity ammo to pratice with (the gold dots can get expensive). If you need to use your the +Ps to defend yourself, you'll never notice the increased blast. That said, you do need to know where they hit so do shoot them and take note.

Good luck

[jon_in_wv]

I see the 642 is beating the PM9 2-1. The PM9 has better sights and faster reloads. Most likely softer recoiling also. Why the 642 then?

[SigP232]

642 ... I carry mine in my left front pocket, sometimes i use a belt holster but most of the time it backs up my 4'' or 2.5'' 686

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj212/glockshooter34/6421.jpg

[Kind of Blued]

I see the 642 is beating the PM9 2-1. The PM9 has better sights and faster reloads. Most likely softer recoiling also. Why the 642 then?

You don't own one do you?

[jon_in_wv]

No, thats the purpose of the thread is that I'm going to buy one of these guns. I did own a 442 years ago.

[mavracer]

if money's no object 340 m&p with CT grips if its any concern 642.

[glockman19]

Not even a choice. The S&W 642 hands down.

[greenparrot]

I would get the Kahr. I own the MK9 and I love it. It is my favorite gun to carry IWB. This is coming from a guy that owns a few Glocks, XDs, Walther, CZs, Kel-Tecs, one HK, and a Baby Eagle.

I had a 642 but I sold it because shooting it was a pain in my opinion and I was not very accurate with it.





The Kahr gives you a good light and thin gun that is easy to shoot and is chambered in a good self defense caliber.

[Joe A]

You specified pocket carry. Have you tried both in your pocket? I have and the 642 hides better than the PM9 for me. Both were in a pocket holster but the revolver hid better and was easier to get a grip on and pull it out.

I'm also a range officer and get to stand next to at least 40 shooters each week firing all types of handguns. I've yet to see a revolver quit but see somebody's semiauto jam or hiccup each week.

I like and shoot semiautos frequently but for your application, I don't think you can beat the 642 or 340. I've heard Tom Gresham state on his GunTalk radio show that most of the trainers he knows carry J-frames.

Best of luck,
Joe

[Soybomb]

I see the 642 is beating the PM9 2-1. The PM9 has better sights and faster reloads. Most likely softer recoiling also. Why the 642 then?
Autoloaders seem much harder to hide to me, the shape in your pocket really says gun. The shape of the gun at the back of the slide also makes it snag easier on your pocket when drawing than the low sloped back of the j-frame. I want to like pocket auto's better, but no matter how hard I try I can't.

I find +P .38 special in the 642 is about as hot as I like to shoot, I'd try a 340 and be sure you want to shoot magnum rounds before spending the extra money on it.

[Joe A]

I agree with Soybomb that +Ps are enough for me and we hope for the receipient!

But you don't have to shoot magnums to consider the 340, if cost isn't an issue. I think it's worth it for the night sight / U-shaped notch and a slightly lighter weight. The 642 is great but I'm pretty sure a family member will get that when I order the 340.

[romma]

Kahr all the way!

[fiVe]

For me, the 642 in a Mika round-cut pocket holster is the perfect carry configuration year round.

[alucard0822]

The 442/642 are hard to beat when you want an effective round, light weight, and a small concealable gun. The internal hammer models are reliable, snag free, and rounded by design, and require you to simply draw and pull the trigger when needed, and a contact shot cannot bump it "out of battery". A 340 increases recoil and cost substantially for a mere 2 oz drop in weight, and IMO, 357 mag is a waste in snubbies, there is little effective improvment over 38+p, but flash and recoil become quite excessive, and SA is not really needed, the hammer is about the only thing that can snag, and you can fire just as accurate in DA with some practice. Recoil with the standard coke bottle grips, or even boot grips is fairly harsh with heavy or +p loads, but a monogrip lets you grip it with all fingers, and has thick soft rubber over the backstrap, mine felt like recoil was cut in 1/2, and is fairly easy to rapidly put 5 158gr+p on target quickly, and makes it downright pleasant to shoot a couple hundred warm loads at a time. I still use the bootgrips for IWB carry under a t-shirt where the extra 1/2" just happens to be in a bad spot, but both grips conceal eaqually well with most other modes of carry IMO.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=72136&stc=1&d=1201722784

[DougDubya]

I like the 642 (though my absolute favorite is the 638). Not exactly keen on the ultraflyweight.

[jad0110]

I also owned a SMith 442 years ago and while it was a bear to shoot is was easy to carry.

I'd stick away from the 340 then.

I see the 642 is beating the PM9 2-1. The PM9 has better sights and faster reloads. Most likely softer recoiling also. Why the 642 then?

Like the baby Glocks, I've always considered the Kahr PM9 to be better suited as a IWB gun. It may appear small, but as others indicated, it is more likely to snag while drawing. That is one of the biggest advantages to the x42 to me. Very rapid, easy draw - it just glides right out of it's hiding spot. And I can shoot it pretty well and it is 100% reliable.

I've never shot a PM9, but judging by my experience with other 9mms, I don't think I'd like the felt recoil of the PM9 at all. I don't mind the 642 one bit. Recoil is a highly subjective thing, and grip design has a lot to do with that. That is one other plus to the J Frame. There are bunch of different grips available for it for that perfect fit.

Note that I'm not knocking the PM9 at all. It's just not my cup of tea. If you prefer the PM9, then go for it ... though as I said, IMO it makes more since as an IWB gun. If your pockets are large enough, it will work there too.

[jon_in_wv]

In the summer I wear pretty baggy shorts. I'm 5'10" 240lbs so I'm not really a small guy. I usually carry a M&P 9c but honestly sometimes I just want something a bit smaller in the summer months. A lightweight snub may fit the bill but if the ammo is carried in speed strips reloads, in comparison to an auto or speed loader, are SLOW and a bit awkward. A speed loader is better but not very comfortable in the pocket. The snub is plenty accurate in aimed fire but I've been that great with one when the speed picks up. I'm leaning toward the auto for its faster reloads, better sights, and I will most likely shoot it better. BUT the majority here seems to lean towards the 642. I'm am so confused.

What about the 340 M&P?? I can shoot 38spl in it and it seems to have vastly better sights with the XS sights. I should have about 700 to spend so this could be an option. What is the advantage of the 642 over the 340 aside from the price?

[GunNut]

I'd look for a used 340PD for a great summer carry piece. I picked mine up last May for $500 shipped, it was carried a bunch but shot very little.

I love it, but may look at a PM9 eventually too.

[jaydubya]

The 642 with Crimson Trace 405 grips. The 340 is a few ounces lighter but the increase in recoil (and the 642's recoil with defense loads is substantial) is tremendous. Would you practice with a weapon that makes your hand bleed every time you fire a few rounds in it?
Cordially, Jack

[Lou22]

I love my PM9 and have pocket carried it for about 2 years. Lately though I'm feeling concerned about an autoloader's possible failure to function in a stressful confrontation, though my PM9 has always been reliable after break-in.

And you can shoot a revolver out of a pocket if need be with follow up shots.

So I'm getting a 642 and will see how it carries vs. the PM9. I think it will be a wash as far as concealability.

Lou

[jon_in_wv]

Does the 642 have a pinned in front sight so I can switch it out for a night sight? Which ones do other than the 340 models?

[ArchAngelCD]

Even though many are voting for the M642 I still like my M638 Bodyguard. :D
I hope you don't mind a few pictures?

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/DSCN2203.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/DSCN2209.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/DSCN2054.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/ArchAngelCD/DSCN2082.jpg

[Deanimator]

I would never trust my life to any S&W revolver with the Internal Locking System (ILS). My "no-dash" Chief's Special is an entirely different matter.

[ArchAngelCD]

I would never trust my life to any S&W revolver with the Internal Locking System (ILS). My "no-dash" Chief's Special is an entirely different matter.
I'm very happy for you that you have a nice old no-lock revolver but some of us aren't that lucky. Unfortunately I lived most of my life in NY City where guns are not allowed or I would probably have many to choose from.

I'm not fond of the ILS either but at the time I needed a J frame and this one was cheap. From everything I've read none of the .38 Special +P revolvers are locking up, only the ultra light heavy Magnums with extremely violent recoil like the M329PD are doing so. When I find a no-lock Bodyguard at a fair price I'll change over but I haven't been able to find one for over 2.5 years now. As you can imagine, not too many shooters are willing to let go of a no-lock J frame that's in good condition.

[orionengnr]

Over the last five years I've owned five or six j-frames, from steel M-49 to alloy M-37 to a 360 and two 340s.

The 37 was my first. Then I found the 49. Fun-er to shoot, but too heavy for CCW (at least it was for me, spolied by the 37).

I really wanted to try the 360, so I bought one. Then traded it in on a 340, then that on a 340 with the HiViz sights. (To be more accurate, I bought each used, selling the previous.)

Firing 357s in the 360/340 is more fun than I care to have, so they became really expensive, slightly lighter 38s. When I started reading about ILS issues, I started getting concerned. when it happened to someone I knew, I got a lot more concerned. The 340 went back in the safe, and eventually, went away.

The 37 was, for me, a decent compromise.

Then I bought a Kahr PM9. The 37 has been in the safe ever since. The Kahr is shorter in length, every bit as light, has much better sights and holds two more rounds. Even shooting +P or +P+, the recoil is much less than the 37. Carrying an extra mag gives me 14 rounds.

I pocket carry my PM9 at least nine months of the year. In the winter I try to IWB something larger. Usually a Kahr P45. :)

[jon_in_wv]

The sights are a big one for me. I'm not a Point shooting spray and pray guy, I use my sights. I shoot fast and I shoot accurately. The snubs have pretty bad sights with the exception of maybe the 340 with the XS sights. I wouldn't mind the 38spl. I think the Corbon DPX load and some others available have really brought the 38s potential out. I know the point shooters would tell me its perfectly possible to point shoot with the snub but am I really gong to put enough rounds down range in one of those hand cannons to become proficient? I'm not sure. I'm still stuck. I know what to expect with the snubs but I still wonder about the PM9 and some of the reliability issues I've read about. I've only handled one PM9 and it had a sweet trigger and seemed to fit my hand well.

[ryanl]

Well as most here will tell you, and im sure you already know. What fits you is very important. I voted for the 642 myself, I recently purchased a no lock 442 and a pocket holster. I have never owned anything but semi's until now. I have carried a glock 27, and a springfield xd9sc. I will tell you the 442 is the only one of the 3 I can assure you will never be sold. It is to me the perfect pocket carry weapon. Although i do agree the sights are not the best, i plan on replacing the factory stocks with some CT's. I have never handled the Kahr so i guess im a bit biased, but i definately like the j-frame better than any of the semi's i have. Oh ya heres a clip (no pun intended) for those of you who think revolvers are slow shooting and reloading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

[jad0110]

ryanl,

I never get tired of watching that video! Jerry M makes a 45 ACP S&W 625 sound like an M60!

[UnTainted]

9mm does really well out of a short barrel.

hit up speer's ammo website and look at the short-barrel info for their 9mm load.

[Navy joe]

Owned two Kahrs, traded them out for a 642. You won't be sending a 642 back to the factory near as much as the Kahr. The 340 is just going to bite you hard and then you won't like it anymore. Too much $$$ for that much pain, a 340 is better spent as two 642s.

[jon_in_wv]

Isn't there only 1.5 oz difference between the 642 and the 340? How can it kick that much harder if you use the same ammo?

[DougDubya]

Jon - it's more that the 340 is a considerably smaller mass than the 642. The Scandium frames are notorious for recoiling so hard that the bullets unseat themselves in the brass. The alloy airweights don't have those kinds of reports. I've also heard that the Sandium revolvers have grittier trigger pulls than the alloy and steel frames.

[DougDubya]

Even though many are voting for the M642 I still like my M638 Bodyguard.
I hope you don't mind a few pictures?

My favorite too, AA. And no, don't mind pictures of the Airweight Bodyguard at all. (I love that name.)

[jad0110]

Isn't there only 1.5 oz difference between the 642 and the 340? How can it kick that much harder if you use the same ammo?

Actually, the 340 is 3 oz lighter. That isn't much if you were starting with a gun that weighs 40 oz. That would be a 7.5% weight reduction. That same 3 oz removed from the x42 is a 20% weight reduction.

[jmt1271]

My hand has never come close to bleeding from my M&P340CT. I have never put more than 30 rounds thru it at a time, because of ammo costs, not pain. It is slightly more violent than the recoil from my 642.

[jon_in_wv]

Many votes for the 642 but very few reasons WHY?? Are we voting for it because we have it?? Or because it is truly the best choice? I would really like to hear some pros/cons for each.

You guys are right!! It is 3 oz. BUT the 340/360 are the only ones that have a pinned in front sight so I can replace the front sight with a night sight. Have any of you had a night sight installed on you 642?? How much did that cost? The sights on the snubs are pretty useless in low light and honestly I work during the day so I'm out with my family at night. That is the time I need good, high contrast sights the most. A font night sight might tip the scales all the way in favor of the 642. I know a lot of you are going with the CT laser but I don't have total faith in a 3 cent battery to work when I need it most.

[The Lone Haranguer]

I prefer the PM9 for its shooting qualities over any snubnose revolver (light or heavyweight) I've tried. It has far more manageable recoil and muzzle blast, a better trigger pull, real sights I can see, and two more rounds of what is arguably a more effective/efficient cartridge.

The shape of the gun at the back of the slide also makes it snag easier on your pocket when drawing than the low sloped back of the j-frame.
This I will give to the revolver. I need large pockets to draw the PM effectively without snagging, e.g., "relaxed-fit" jeans or cargo pants. But I am willing to dress around the gun for the increased hit potential that the PM gives me.

[Erik]

"Isn't there only 1.5 oz difference between the 642 and the 340? How can it kick that much harder if you use the same ammo?"

The 340 M&P is approx 1.5 oz lighter; the other 340s are approx 3 oz lighter, iirc.

1.5 ounces doesn't make all that much of a difference, practically speaking. 3.0 is noticably, but not significantly more so. Magnums out of the 3-series j-frames are quite another thing, though. (I fired them side by side just this week out of curiousity, as a matter of fact.)

[jon_in_wv]

I think I've come to the conclusion the M&P/PD 340 might be the best choice for me. It has the best combination of light weight, good lights, easy carry and concealment, and loaded with Powerball or DPX 110 HPs it shouldn't recoil too severely while still providing a good measure of stopping power. I want it primarily as a pocket pistol which I think gives it an edge over the PM9 as the snub revolvers are in my experience much easier to draw from the pocket and in a pinch could even be fired from the pocket. Thank you for all of your advice. The High Road really is a good crew of people.

[tiko_joe]

i own a s&w j-frame, i think its a great gun. its shoots very accuratly for being a snub nose and has always fired no matter what i did to it. I do carry this gun in the summer in a galco iwb j-clip holster. its real easy to draw sucks to re-holster ( doesnt matter other than training). What i am not under standing about this thread is everyone saying they carry it in their pockets. I live in Utah and here theres alot of laws governing when and how you may draw and/or shoot (for the most part if it doesnt involve your wife and/or child, you better make damn sure that you cant take the asilant with your fists). Heres the scenerio, here in Utah they got the 21' rule, your attacker can close a distance of 21' with a weapon in less than 1.5 secs, so thats the your self defense bubble. If your carrying in your pocket how can you reach in grab draw or even turn in side your pocket to shoot in 1.5 seconds? what if your on your back or nose to nose? most confrontations happen at point blank range. even with pocket holsters, a pocket draw is still awkarwd, and from what ive seen most pocket holsters cover the entire trigger guard which is what makes pocket carry safe for the individual and everyone around them. so how would you shoot from inside the pocket? any way i carry my j-frame in a j-clip holster from galco right above were my wallet goes in my back pocket. i can pull easy and shoot quick with out a full draw for those real intimate confrontations and yet can still get a bead on a target in less than 1.5 secs. i would go with the cw9 or p9 and carry a revolver as back up. the kahr carries more rounds than a revolver. simple. unless your gonna be defending your life in a movie most self defense cases invovling guns dont involve one shot one kill. most of the time the defender doesnt even remember shooting twice then the officer will tell them that they unloaded to mags, and will be dumb founded and the asilant will only one to two wholes in them. heres a statatistic i saw on that self defense tv show (out door channel), police train 80-80 percent of the time and in sittuations hit their target 20-30 percent of the time. for all you five round superstar champion shooters that carry an airweight body guard bad guys tend to do something that targets dont do when you shoot at them, take cover! you take a 5shot into a gun fight with how ever many speed loaders you can caryy and ill take a semi auto with how every many mags i can carry and see who has to cover who under fire at reload time. but like i said ilike s&w and i do own a j-frame revolver and is mainly a back up or when i am wearin a tank top and shorts. but 99.9% of the time i wear jeans, a t-shirt, and s&w m&p, soon to be Kahr.

[tiko_joe]

oh yeah and if you want take down power but dont like the recoil on an average weight revolver, why would you consider a something in the feather weight class? my .357 has got some kick to it but my buddies .357 airweight feels like a .44 mag. and yes i do agree with the other guys that said that alloy frames are way better than scandium frames.

[jon_in_wv]

Back to the topic at hand, I have been offered a trade for a Smith 337. I believe this was the aluminum frame 38 with the titanium cylinder and a pinned in front sight. Any problems with the 337 compared to the others?

[jon_in_wv]

Double post.

[F1]

and loaded with Powerball

_____________________

Last time I looked, Powerballs seem to have disappeared from the market.

[Socrates]

This is for those highly unlikely times you find yourself in a situation you wish you weren't. Taking out the trash, going places you need a weapon concealed, but don't think you are going to face any threats.

Most bad guys RUN when they see a gun. If they don't, then you're in pretty deep already.

Also, at 7 feet, the blast and noise from a snub 357 can blind, injure, and deafen the bad guy. Alleged study of shootings showed most at night, most at point blank range, most under 3 shots, and, given those ranges, 357 blanks would work just fine...

If I'm in a situation that is just random chance, I'll take the throw in your pocket 357. If I'm going to battle, I want an M1A, and a 1911.

Also, the advantage of the 340 is you don't have to bring it out of your pocket to shoot it, so, no brandishing...

[Joe A]

Back to the topic at hand, I have been offered a trade for a Smith 337. I believe this was the aluminum frame 38 with the titanium cylinder and a pinned in front sight. Any problems with the 337 compared to the others?

The biggest issue I see, for POCKET carry, is that it has a hammer on it.

The 337 has a Scandium frame and a Titanium cylinder. Scandium is great but the Titanium can be touchy if you like to keep it clean. It has a special coating on it to protect it so you have to be carful when cleaning. The 340 has a black, stanless steel frame that you can clean without concern and it adds about 1.5 oz. in weight.

I'm not sure about this for the 337, but some of the other Sc/Ti j-frames (like the 360) are limited to bullets less than 120 gr. bullets with .357. That said, I think a .357 in a < 2", light weight gun is over kill on both ends.

Check this thread:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/530103904/m/5341085552?r=3131027552#3131027552

The photos don't show the 340 M&P from a rear sight view but it is a great night sight that is also very visible in normal light. You really should try to hold one.

[jon_in_wv]

I'd take the 337 if the guy takes the trade but I'm really interested in Ruger's LCP. The Keltec design with better execution in a slightly larger package. It looks like a WINNER. My dealer is already working on getting one for me. I"ll bet Ruger is going to sell a MILLION of those little rockets.

[DawgFvr]

642 in a Mika pocket holster. I like the idea of a small 9mm auto in the pocket...but have tried it...lint, dust, etc., = malfunction after carrying it all week. Naw...give me the revolver that goes bang every time.

[florida1098]

If money is no object the 340PD is the ultimate lightweight pocket gun. I recently sold my 642 and purchased a 340PD. I have never shot it, and hopefully never will. After 25 yrs in law enforcment I am reasonably proficient with a snub. If the time comes at 5-7 yards when I have to pull the trigger, I am betting my life I will not miss.
My wife has almost 20 yrs as a cop and I purchased a 340 PD for her also, simply because of the lightweight. She carries it everywhere, and I mean everytime she leaves the house. If the time comes to use it, the adrenaline and stress will make recoil a moot point. She never carried the 642 due to the weight. Here in Florida, shorts and tees are standard dress code, and the 340PD fits the dress code.
On duty we both trust our lives to Glocks, G21 and G23.

[Clean97GTI]

PM9 but only because I prefer autoloaders.

[Socrates]

I'm not sure about this for the 337, but some of the other Sc/Ti j-frames (like the 360) are limited to bullets less than 120 gr. bullets with .357. That said, I think a .357 in a < 2", light weight gun is over kill on both ends.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/Model%2083%20FA%20475/360and475.jpg
I was hoping you could see the print on the 360 barrel.
"no less then 120 grain bullet."
Something about lighter bullets breaking a very thin forcing cone...
Just have the hammer bobbed on the 360 and it doesn't catch.

[jon_in_wv]

Well thank you for all your input peeps. It was very informative. I have made a deal with a fellow High Roader for a 337. I think it will fit the bill nicely. I also have my dealer hunting for a Ruger LCP. I WILL get one of those too. We'll see which one spends the most time in my pocket. I'll have to do some head to head shooting and post the results.

[jon_in_wv]

Picked up my 337 today. It looks just like the pic and even came with a really cool soft case. That thing is STUPIDLY light. Holy crap. I wouldn't even want to shoot .357s through a gun that light. IT will make a really cool poicket gun though.

[The Annoyed Man]

I just bought a 642 Crimson Trace on Saturday for my wife for Valentines day. I actually gave it to her today. Suffice it to say that things went well. :D

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/firearms/163811_large.jpg

[Dollar An Hour]

I own one of each.

The 340 packs the biggest punch, but more than likely you'll end up carrying .38's in it because they are quite a bit more controllable. With stock grips its a nice light pocket gun, but the grips are too small for controlling .357's. If you install Monogrips to make .357's more tolerable, the gun becomes much more controllable, but it's no longer a pocket gun, the grip is too bulky, and it is now a belt gun. ;)

A 442/642 is a little easier on recoil than the 340 with the same grips and shooting the same ammo, but not much difference. Still excellent weight for pocket carry too. No night sight and sweet DLC finish like the 340 though, but you save about $200.

The Kahr carries 7 rounds instead of 5, has better sights than a J-Frame, and 9mm +P has more punch than .38's. It's also much easier to control and fire quick, accurate follow-ups than either of the J's. My Kahr is easier to shoot accurately than my J-Frames, and I don't mind putting 100+ rounds through it, as opposed to the airweights where I'm not interested in putting more than 50 in a typical range session. I have put over 100 .38+P's downrange in my M&P 340 in a single session, but it's more painful than the same number of rounds out of the Kahr.

[jon_in_wv]

I compared my 337 to my P32 and while it is a bit larger the weight difference is hardly noticeable and I think i got a major leap in OOOOMPH. Especially loaded with Corbon Pow'rballs. I take up a bit more room in the pocket but I REALLY like the hogue grips. I have kinda meaty hands and I doubt I would have been able to get a PM9 out of my pocket very easily. Now I have to do something about the spur on the hammer. I hate to bob it off but it is a carry gun not a show gun.

[colubrid]

I know the orig poster wanted opinions but it would have been cool to keep the poll open

It seems kinda lame to close a poll when the votes are not in.

.

[jon_in_wv]

Well thanks for the opinion but the poll was set for a certain time period because the orig poster (ME) wanted to get a few opinions to make a decision about what gun to get. Your opinion might have been helpful a week ago when I asked for it but I have already made my purchase (post #56). The information is still there. I don't think the opinions of the 122 people who did take the time to vote and/or comment is "lame" nor have any of the other 1300+ people who viewed this thread. If you think it is than post your own poll instead of complaining about mine.

[Alan Fud]

If I am not mistake, the PD has a titanium cylinder and those have been known to seize up with certain ammo. It happened to my 342.

I have both the 642 and the 360SS (the hammer version and stainless cylinder version of the 340M&P). They are both good carry guns but for summer carry, I'd go for the PM9.

[kanderson586]

i traded my pm40 towards the 340ct about three months ago and am pleased. i had problems with the pm trigger reset, it only happenned twice in a few thousand rounds but i value my life. also the new ct405 fits bigger hands WAY better than previously owned cts

[abrink]

I agree you should go with the 642. I saw someone else say to get the hammerless model. Honestly the hammer isn't that big a deal even if you are pocket carrying. I pocked my 640 with the hammer all the time. When i practice my draw the hammer wasn't caught once. And with the hammer it allows you to go into single action if you need to make a precise shot like maybe someone with a hostage.

[jon_in_wv]

I practiced drawing the 337 from my pocket and it was way to easy to get the hammer caught on the lining of my pocket. I will most likely bob the hammer to make that less likely. I think I will leave a little of the spur though so I can cock it if I choose to.

[jon_in_wv]

Well, after a few range trips with the 337 I promptly sold that little mule for kicking me and I bought a Ruger LCP. Problem solved!!

[P95loser]

I just bought a PM9 3 days ago and am LOVING it! I used to carry a 637... a little too fat and not nearly accurate enought and a P3AT not really accurate and hard to hold on to. The PM9 is really accurate... i mean REALLY. I can shoot it better than some full size handguns, and I ran 150 rounds through it and my hands didnt hurt like if I was shooting one of the aforementioned firearms.