Glock 27 or Kahr MK40 Elite

Which would you carry?

  • Glock 27

    Votes: 28 53.8%
  • Kahr MK40 Elite

    Votes: 24 46.2%

  • Total voters
    52
Status
Not open for further replies.

kashton

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
323
Location
Houston, TX
I own a Glock 27 but am also wanting a Kahr MK40 Elite due to the smaller size. I've heard that the stainless series are well made and have excellent triggers as well. I want to carry it in my pocket and also IWB in a Comp Tac 2 o'clock holster. Which would you choose based on reliability, recoil control, and concealability? I've never had the chance to even hold a Kahr MK series so I don't know from personal experience.

And where can I purchase one for a good price? I've looked at buds gun shop, clydes armory, impact guns... nowhere has one in stock.
 
Didn't vote. Thought I'd offer some thoughts, though.

The only reason I even bought a G27 was that I unexpectedly came across a deal on a barely used one w/night sights that was simply too good to pass up, and I thought I'd probably adapt to it since I already had a G26. I simply like the G26 better, all things considered. It was my first choice in buying a subcompact Glock, and after having owned both I'd again choose the G26 if faced with the same choice.

Anyhow ...

I've handled and fired a MK40 a bit. It was owned by a cop from another agency whom I qualified a couple of times.

He'd initially brought it to the range NIB to qualify with it without having even fired a single round through it, so I suggested we shoot it a while before he qualified with it. After shooting it himself he seemed to really welcome the idea of me doing a lot of shooting while 'breaking it it' ... :uhoh: ... and I didn't mind, so we spent some time shooting a bit over 3 boxes of standard 180gr JHP's through it before I ran him through the standard course-of-fire.

Having handled and fired a K40 off & on, I can offer that the MK40 doesn't 'feel' all that much lighter in the hand, but it seems to have a noticeable amount more snap & muzzle whip than the larger K40.

It seems to have more snap & whip than my G27, too. I'd expected the all-steel MK40 to have less felt recoil than the polymer G27 subcompact ... but there you go. Subjective perception at work. :neener:

The next time I ran into the cop who owned the MK40 I asked him how he'd been adapting to his little steel gun. He didn't seem much more enthused about it than the last time. Apparently, both the felt recoil and the heaviness of the little gun hadn't turned out to match his expectations.

Each potential owner might benefit from trying examples of both for themselves before making up their minds.

Oddly enough, while I chose to order a SW99 Compact chambered in 9mm, after having handled and fired a couple of them chambered in .40 S&W, I plan to order a M&P 40 Compact, instead of a 9mm model.

Never said I was consistent. :neener:

I own 4 pistols chambered in 9mm and 4 chambered in .40 S&W, and I've carried issued pistols chambered in both calibers, as well. I have various preferences which are satisfied by different makes/models/calibers, depending on the time & circumstances.
 
i highly dislike glock sub compact guns, and i love kahr so my vote s kahr i have a kahr k40 ad it is an awesome little gun. the triggers are better than the glock, reliability i have had 0 issues with mine. recoil managementi am constantly surprised how well the kahr lightweight shoots, and i would should one all day compared to the glock maybe a mag or 2 through the glock and i am done having my fun. concealability well it dosen't get much easier to conceal than the kahrs.

so to sum it up i would go kahr and never look back.
 
There are better choices IMHO, but given these options I would go with the Glock 27.


:evil:
 
Maybe it's just me, but I find that recoil between my MK40 (not Elite) and Glock 23 (with a tungsten recoil spring guide rod, which really took the edge off) are absolutely indistinguishable. Snap, muzzle flip, etc., are the same. Only difference is the G23 is a bit more comfortable because of the thicker grip, and it shifts around less because of both the larger grip, and the serrations. But if I still had the plastic rod in there, I'd probably find the G23's recoil more objectionable, actually.

You may want to look at a regular MK40. Yes, the electropenciled markings are incredibly chintzy looking, but the laser engraving, polished flats and feed ramp, and beveled mag well are the only difference. Ever since 2002, I believe, Kahr has put the Elite trigger, with the shorter pull, in all of their guns.
 
I believe, Kahr has put the Elite trigger, with the shorter pull, in all of their guns.
IIRC kahr has put the ny trigger in all there guns, and to get the better trigger you have to send it to kahr and they will put it in but that is like an aditional $60, or you go with the elite and get the good trigger or better i should say right out of the box.
 
I own an H&K P2000SK V2 LEM .40 lol...

The Kahr is just smaller than the G27 and the H&K P2000SK... as well as the Sg p229

The H&K P2000 doesn't compare to the Kahr in size at all, it is just way bigger
 
Last edited:
I'd say it's probably only worth it if the trigger is different. If they've started putting an "NY" trigger in all their guns as standard, it's recent. From an E-mail from Dottie Herold, from Feb 19 of this year:

You have the old style trigger. We did not start shipping the elite trigger as the defacto standard until 2002. Your gun was manufactured on March 25, 1999.
 
I would opt for the Kahr. I guess it depends if you want to carry a brick or a nice slim design pistol made for concealed carry.
 
I own both and must say that although I prefer the Kahr MK40, they do weigh a lot more as compared to the G27 carrying an additional 4-rounds.
 
How is the matt finish vs the polished? I've never seen them in person. Which finish is this:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/attachme...6&d=1193077487

That picture looks like a regular MK40. Personally, I like the bead-blasted matte finish. Polished finish is only applied to the sides of the slide, and would look like any other polished stainless gun. The only reason I'd get an Elite would be for the laser engraved frame. The electropenciled markings really do look cheesy. Laser engravings would look more like the stamped markings in the slide.
 

Attachments

  • kahr.jpg
    kahr.jpg
    118 KB · Views: 11
I wouldn't bother with the Elite..just get a regular MK40 if you want to go the Kahr route..Elites look cheesy to me. The standard matte stainless finish on Kahr guns is excellent and looks pretty sharp if you ask me.. see that link above in kashton's post if you don't believe me.

I've owned a G27, and although it was a great gun I sold it. I just don't like shooting anything bigger than a 9mm out of a sub-compact gun with a short 2-finger grip. Just hurts to shoot after a few dozen rounds. I guess for self-defense you wouldn't shoot more than a few rounds anyways, but to become good at shooting your primary self defense weapon it takes lots of practice and range time. Shooting a G27 for extensive periods of time starts to hurt.

It just depends on what you want in the end. The MK40 is a much better true CCW being under and inch in width all-around. The G27 is fat and harder to conceal, but gives you a few more rounds just incase. Also, the MK40 is an all-steel machine that should be very reliable right out of the box..something that the polymer Kahrs can't guarantee. The G27 is a Glock. It's going to work perfectly out of the box, 99.999999% guaranteed.
 
Get the Glock 27 and an extra barrel in .357SIG and have two calibers for very little $. I have a Glock 33 and the .40S&W extra barrel. Just a drop in item and magazines fit both model 33 and 27.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top