Which Kahr?


PDA






gbran
June 19, 2004, 12:43 AM
PM 9 or PM 40? Both are pocket guns with nearly identical dimensions. 5.3" long, 4" high, .9-.94" wide, 16-17 oz. The PM 9 gives one more round capacity (7+1 with extended mag).

I've got more handguns than I need, but no pocket guns. And I want one. My problem is that I've heard the 9mm PM9 is more reliable than the PM40. I've also heard this was only true when the PM40's were first intro'd. I'd buy the PM40 if I could convince myself it was reliable. I do know that Kel-Tec discontinued their small 40 because of reliability problems.

Any help here?

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Kahr?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bart Noir
June 20, 2004, 04:48 PM
I had the P9 (fired +P rounds) and have a Glock 27. Both have noticiable snap and muzzle lift during recoil. My view of the Kahr P series is that the grip is almost too thin for much .40 caliber shooting. Kind of the opposite of the Glock, which is why I mention it. I don't like the blocky Glocky grip. But expect that the Kahr will tenderize the hand fairly fast. Now, for carry a lot and shoot a little, the Kahr may be just right for you.

Latest purchase is a Kahr .40 Covert. All steel, so it's not in the lightweight category of the P series. But I think it will be less of a climb-for-the-sky gun than the Glock (or any P series Kahr). I found that I am too slow getting back on target with the lightweight guns. I bought the wood grips from Kahr and they are nice, very nice. And a little fatter, so it fits the hand just right.

Bart Noir

James Bondrock
June 20, 2004, 09:27 PM
Were this my choice to make, I would choose the 9mm and never look back. IMO, the 9mm will have better cycle reliability, far less recoil and better gun durability.

mini14jac
June 21, 2004, 08:07 AM
I've got the PM9, and while it does jump around a lot when shooting, it's not painful, uncomfortable, or hard to control.
My daughters both like to shoot it.

If it was my decision, I would see if I could find a PM40 to shoot first.
It just seems like a lot of bullet, in a small gun.
I doubt that I would want to fight the recoil myself.

If you are only going to shoot it a little, and carry it a lot, then it should be fine.

Curley
June 21, 2004, 11:57 AM
I've found the recoil of my PM9 to be fairly light and manageable. Of course, I'm comparing it to my 337PD Airlite and Kel-Tec P3AT, two guns known for their recoil. The PM9 is a lamb in comparison.

peashooter
June 21, 2004, 01:21 PM
Check the K-9. A little heavy compared to the P-9, but much quicker to the second shot on target.

Redlg155
June 21, 2004, 03:26 PM
I haven't fired the PM40 yet, but I'm sure it's a handfull.

The closest comparison I could do would be a G26 and G27. Firing Corbons 115gr +P JHP out of a G26 felt like shooting standard .40 loads out of a G27. We all pretty much know that Corbon has some hot stuff, if not the hottest ammo out there. If I translate that to the PM9 vs the PM40, the PM40 should be a good bit snappy.

I'm happy with my PM9. With 124Gr +P Gold Dots it's all I care to fire in a small handgun of that size. Not only do I consider the recoil, but I also consider firing the weapon when it is wet, whether it be from blood, sweat or water. You definitely don't want a handgun that will pop out of your grip when fired..and the PM9 is pretty slick.

Good SHooting
Red

oldfella
June 21, 2004, 11:10 PM
GBran - A good source of info about Kahrs is www.pistolsmith.com (Kahr Forum) and the new Kahr Club at GlockTalk:
http://glocktalk.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=111

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