Kahr CW40 vs PM40

[ejfalvo]

I'd like an objective comparison of these two autos. Hopefully from someone(s) who actually has owned both. I'm interested in either for CCW in the summer to replace my XD40SC. I realize $150-$200 separates the two but I am willing to pony up the difference IF there is a realistic difference in performance.

I understand the Kahr break-in period, etc. and am willing to work thru kinks that can occur with these short barrel firearms.

Thank you.

 

[LightningMan]

I don't have either, but do have the Kahr PM9 which is nearly like the PM40, while I wouldn't part with my PM9, I don't know if I would want anything more powerful in the same size package. Control could be an issue for some, along with failures to eject, do to lack of a firm grip. I know a member of my gun club had a PM40 which he confessed that he couldn't shoot it consistantly without having a FTE. He knew it was him and not the gun as he has let others shoot it without any problems. He ended up trading it for something else. LM

 

[PT1911]

A friend of mine has he CW 40 as his EDC and he loves it... IMO, the CW's are a great value and you are likely to never notice much (if any) difference between the two.. Given the choice, I would opt for the CW and just simply polish down the sharper edges.

 

[DasFriek]

I own the MK9 which is the all steel version of the PM9, And i know id not want to have that gun in the .40 caliber.
Imo the CW40 would be a better choice shooting wise and its only minimally larger.
A CW40 is about the same size as a 3" 1911 which is rather small, But alot lighter.
And you never hear anyone complain that a 3" 1911 is too large to ccw IWB carry.

If you were talking 9mm id say get the PM9 or MK9, But with the .40 i think id go with the CW.
I know i want to try the PM45 as thats has got to be like holding an M80 tightly in your hand and lighting it when you pull the trigger. But i have yet to hear anyone really complain about it.

If you want more "Owner" opinions on the CW vs PM .40 head over too http://kahrtalk.com They are a great bunch of people and way helpfull and pretty much convinced me i need a PM45 for some reason i cant even rationalize yet.

Tell them i sent ya!

 

[wally]

The PM40 is significantly easier to carry for me. YMMV. The price is much higher the CW40 is a lot cheaper and you are not really giving up anything over the P40 (othr than the spare mag) unless you plan on changing the sights which will be much more difficult and expensive with the CW 40 since it lacks the dovetail. The CW40 will be easier to shoot than the PM40.

I've been running 50 rounds a week through a CW9 (its more than paid for itself in ammo savings at the price of 9mm practice ammo vs .40S&W practice ammo) for about six years. Its held up very well and only changed recoil springs twice and striker spring once so far.

 

[Ben86]

I can tell you the CW40 would be a lot easier to shoot, given its larger size.

The PM40 is a bit too small for a .40 pistol IMO.

 

[gb6491]

...unless you plan on changing the sights which will be much more difficult and expensive with the CW 40 since it lacks the dovetail.

Wally,
Kahr and Dawson Precision now offer replacement sights (plain, night and fiber optic) for the CW series at a price point near that of those available for the MK, K, P, PM, and TP series pistols. The CW sights might even be easier to change out.
Regards,
Greg

 

[Sgt_R]

I own a P380 and a PM9, and have shot 2-300 rounds out of the PM40 (rental gun).

The recoil of the PM40 is stout, to say the least, but not unmanagable. I'd place it somewhere between a Glock 27 and an airweight J-frame .38 w/ +p loads. Given the ergo's of the PM40's grip and its excellent sights, I actually shot it much better than a J-frame.

I have not shot the MK40, but I would expect the added weight to tame it slightly compared to the PM40.

Ultimately, the wife and I decided on the PM9, but I intend to own both a PM40 and a PM45 one day. They're all great little guns.

R