Kahr PM45 vs Kahr PM40


PDA






jwalker497
February 23, 2009, 08:32 PM
I am interested in picking up a small 40 or 45 and I have narrowed it down to these 2 models becuase they smallest thing out there, plus I like Kahr. So I wanted to see what a poll would say. I am not considering any other pistols, just trying to decide between these 2. Which do you like and why?

PM45
Pros - Larger Bullet and Less Recoil
Cons - Larger than PM40 (5.67in) and Slower Bullet

PM40
Pros - Faster Bullet and Smaller than PM45 (5.35in)
Cons - Sharper Recoil and Smaller Bullet

Each gun's advantages are the others disadvantages - I am torn between the 2 becuase they both are effective calibers, i guess caliber talk in inevtibale here, but I can't seem to make my mind up. What do you think? Both are about the same price so that's not an issue. Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Kahr PM45 vs Kahr PM40" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Justice5
February 23, 2009, 08:55 PM
I previously owned a PM40. I'm hopefully not the only one who has this opinion. It was a totally unreliable gun. I had several problems, the biggest being that the slide would not completely cycle, basically failing to go to battery. I was told by Kahr that it needed the 200 round breakin, but it continued to do the same thing after that. I sent it back, even though they told me I was Limp Wristing it, ya right. They replaced the recoil spring and polished the feed ramp. Helped a lot, but it still did it at least one round per magazine. Also had a bad magazine, which Kahr also replaced. I had a MK-40 prior to this, the same gun basically but not polymer. Worked great. I have heard that my problems were common with the Pm40, but the rest of the PM's were fine and quality guns. Good luck.

If I had to pick between the two, I would go with the .45 version.

RedAlert
February 23, 2009, 11:27 PM
My experience with a new PM-40 is just the opposite. No failures so far of any kind.

It IS a handful when you pull the trigger and requires a very firm grip to control it. I've only run a 100 rounds thru mine and I'm very happy with it to this point.

I would say, that you should make the choice on which caliber you prefer. The .40 will be slightly smaller and more easily concealed.

Ralph

federalfarmer
February 23, 2009, 11:33 PM
.45 because I think the .40's recoil is sharper(more snap). IMHO
Also try 185 grain instead of 230's - lot's of info out there about how well the heavy one's open up from a short barrel (less velocity)
I am looking the Kahr .45 over also.

LightningMan
February 24, 2009, 01:09 AM
Just my opinion, as I have the PM9, but anyway I would go with the .40 because I feel you lose more velocity out of short barreled .45 acp than the high pressure cartridge of the .40 S&W. I'm not saying the .45 is in any way a bad round but it's performance is much better in a standard length barrel of a full size 1911. LM

jocko
February 24, 2009, 04:17 AM
I am a 9mm fan and love my PM9 which is flawless. that geing said of ur survery, I would go witht he 45 over the 40 expecially in the polymer kahrs. There is alot of recoil in the 40 and of most complaints given about kahrs , it seems to come for the 40 cal. due to recoil. There has to be a trade off when you go so lite and yet still stay in a hot caliber and the 40 is just that.

I do feel that most 40 cal issues are due to shooter error (limping the gun). where as the 45 is just so much more pleasant to shoot. A fellow poster carrys his PM45 in his front pocket with ease, so both would be pocketable.

That being said, give my my PM9 any day...Just so nice to shoot, very accurate, very controllable and the round will do the job when required..And also one of the chepaest rounds you can punch paper with to.

Raoul
February 24, 2009, 07:42 PM
I recently bought a PM40 to use as a carry weapon. I've put about 400 rounds through it so far. Absolutely no problem. I also have a Steyr M40. Of the 2 guns I am more accurate with the Kahr. Both short and medium distance. I definitely like the PM40.

jwalker497
February 24, 2009, 09:19 PM
I posted this poll in other places and it seems that the .45 is winning by a wide margin over the 40. The 45 is also .35inches larger in length.

Randyc74
February 24, 2009, 10:27 PM
I've had a PM45 for the past year. It's been 100% reliable with around 600 rounds sent down range. I prefer to carry it OWB, but have also pocket carried it on occasion.

sgtdraino
March 22, 2009, 07:08 AM
I have a PM40 I've been very happy with, that I am nevertheless probably going to sell in order to get a PM45, based on the feedback here and elsewhere.

The one concern I have, is the effects of such a short barrel on the already rather slow .45 ACP round. In a barrel that short, which bullet (.40 or .45) is really going to have better knockdown power? What about effective range?

geronimo509
March 22, 2009, 08:47 AM
If it ain't .45 it ain't right. Just kidding! I have an mk9 and love it, its a little easier to shoot when its a little heavier. I would recommend the .45 because of the recoil, just like most people already said.

Seven For Sure
March 22, 2009, 09:03 AM
The P40 and the PM45 are almost identical in size. You could get one more rd. with the P40. The PM40 is pocketable, the PM45 is a bit large. You can get three fingers on the PM45, only two on the PM40. The 40's are thinner than the 45's as well.

I guess what I'm saying is for pocket, I'd get the PM40. For IWB, I'd get the P40 or P45. I've got a P9, PM9, P40, K40 and P45. They are in a league of their own for carry even though I can shoot Glocks faster.

Here's the specs from Kahr's website:

45's http://www.kahr.com/dtlspec_pm4543.html

40's http://www.kahr.com/dtlspec_pm4043.html

jad0110
March 22, 2009, 10:28 AM
If I was picking, I would choose the same gun my father carries: a K9 (all steel 9mm). Very little felt recoil, and with a good gunbelt and holster, you won't feel the weight difference anyway.

But between .40 and .45, I would personally go .45. 40 IMHO has 9mm snap and 45 push. It's not painful to me, but it is harder for me to get 40s back on target than either a 9 or a 45. But that's just me, YMMV.

In the end, I shoot a 38 snub better than any of them, so that's what I usually carry. Again, YMMV.

UFKAHR40
March 22, 2009, 10:53 AM
I've shot the PM9 and the PM 40. I own the PM 40 and it does have quite the snap. I would get the PM9 for a pocket carry. One more round and doesn't have the kick of the 40. I've heard the 45 doesn't snap as bad as the 40.

I woud make my decision based on how I was going to carry it.

Maybe open your search criteria to the 9 not just the 40 or 45.

sgtdraino
March 22, 2009, 04:35 PM
I've had a 9mm mousegun, I decided I wanted something in a stronger caliber.

I tried the PM45 out in my pocket, and it seems to fit just fine. It even fits in the PM40 pocket holster! The grip is just a tad longer, and that's it. The magazine capacity on both guns is the same (5 rounds), at least with the smaller magazines, which are the ones I always use.

Does anyone know of any ballistics testing done with these various calibers, as used in short 3-inch barrels? Or effective range/accuracy?

If you enjoyed reading about "Kahr PM45 vs Kahr PM40" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!