kahr k-40 elite what else could you want

bullfrog99 · October 14, 2002, 08:52 PM

I handled a kahr k-40 elite today and was quite impressed. I thaught to myself, excepting perhaps a rimfire for plinking I could be happy with just this handgun. The kahr was bueatyfully made and had good sights. it was compact or rather it seemed the perfect size. kind of like a ppk but in a better caliber. If you don't hunt with a pistol and have no fear of four legged preditors, I think this diminitive little 40 could do it all. I have not handled the 9mm version of this gun however and 9mm is so much cheaper nowadays, perhaps that would be the way to go. what do you think about it as an all around defense pistol,(ccw, shtf, working pistol etc.) which caliber do you think would be better?

denfoote · October 15, 2002, 06:56 AM

Hey yer preachin' to the choir here.

There's a K40 with my name on it sitting in my dealer case, I think!!

Rovert · October 15, 2002, 08:19 AM

I know the debate between 9 and 40 rages all the time, but I have absolute confidence in 9mm as a defensive round, particularly since I use the Ranger 147gr SXT's.

I own the MK9 Elite, and love it. See my personal website for some photos. If compact size is what you're after, this little guy is hardly larger than a Beretta Tomcat.

harrydog · October 15, 2002, 09:05 AM

I like my K9 a great deal. It's a great size that conceals easily, yet is comfortable to shoot. It's been designed to handle hot loads and will hold up to extensive use. And it has been absolutely reliable.
I'd opt for the 9mm over the .40, but that's just my preference.

M1911 · October 15, 2002, 10:20 AM

I have the K9 and K40. The K9 has very little felt recoil. For me, the K40 produces impact on the web of my hand, between the thumb and forefinger. I've added a Harrts recoil reducer and hold the gun very firmly. That seems to reduce the felt recoil somewhat. As a result, I won't shoot more than about 70 rounds through the K40 at one range visit. I think this may be a function of hand size and/or shape, as I've heard other people say they have the same felt recoil and others say that I'm nuts. YMMV.

One downside of the Kahrs is that the trigger reset is relatively long (unlike Glocks, which have very short resets). This slows down followup shots just a bit.

I like my Kahrs, but these days I'm usually carrying a 1911.

M1911

Eric Larsen · October 15, 2002, 10:40 AM

In all honesty, the K9 and K40 both have great strengths and a few compromises.

The K9 does shoot a less recoil intensive round compared to the 40 and will fair better for follow up shots. Great 9mm JHP's are available, some giving the better 40 loads a run for their ballistic money. These guns are extremely comfortable to shoot, quickly and accurately. The weight and size are perfect for flawless shooting with practice. Easily a premier choice for a CCW/Defensive gun

The K40 is one of the smaller 40's still available. The KT P40 went by the wayside...bummer! It has alot of merit also. With the 40 S&W round in a smaller gun...good shooting becomes an act of balance. The round has substantially more recoil than the 9mm in most cases and does slow followup shots accordingly. The K series is about the best size and weight in a smaller gun to really make the 40 round advantagous, especially in a CCW. The grip is adequate for a full grip to help take recoil and the barrel length is just long enough to get the rounds up to 'fightin velocity".

Kahr in my opinion did the CCW a great service by designing and making these guns. The ban of 94 pushed the smaller/lesser capacity guns farther and faster than they would have been developed otherwise. Justin Moon did what couple of other gun makers tried and failed...and did it very successfully in the process.

Shoot well

bullfrog99 · October 15, 2002, 01:02 PM

looks like three for the 9mm and two for the fourty, anyone else got an opinion, Looking at durability do you think the gentler kicking 9mm would last longer between spring changes and trips to the shop for worn parts? Which do you think would be the most accurate?

Alerion · October 15, 2002, 01:43 PM

I've been very happy with my K-40 Elite. Accuracy is surprisingly good for a gun with a 3.5" barrel. With the same dimensions as the K-9 except for being 4/100" wider, I like the extra power of the .40 as a SD CCW. OTOH the K-9 carries one more round than the K-40 if you tend to miss a lot.

Tom

Onslaught · October 15, 2002, 02:02 PM

When it comes to the K's, I prefer the .40. The extra weight of the K model really holds down the recoil. Nowhere near an ultralight .38 with +p's. When you get to the MK's, I like the 9mm's better, because when you're going THAT small, every ounce counts...

The only thing I don't like about the K's and MK's is the weight. I have found that I don't need a 12 or 14 ounce pistol, but I would prefer a LOADED weight of 24 or 25 oz on the belt, and 19 or 20 oz in the pocket. it's amazing how much 4 or 5 ounces makes in comfort, especially in the pocket/on the ankle.

In sum:

CCW - excellent
SHTF - not for me... too small, to few rounds.
Working pistol - probably, as long as you're not working in Alaska

And a couple you left off...

Deep CCW - too big, too heavy (IMHO)
Home Defense - Round count OK, but I'd prefer a longer barrel and sight radius.

Too bad Kahr couldn't make an aluminum framed K/MK family of pistols, rather than going the Polymer route.

M1911 · October 15, 2002, 03:56 PM

bullfrog:

I can't say as I see any difference in accuracy between my K9 and my K40, though admittedly I don't have a ransom rest. Either is accurate enough if you do your job. My MK9 is a bit less accurate, mostly due to the short sight radius, but still quite respectable.

Regarding reliability, of my 3 Kahrs, the K40 has been back to the factory. After I first purchased it, I sent it back to the factory for them to install night sights and to upgrade the trigger to the elite trigger. A couple years later, the rear sight had slipped over to the left. I used a hammer and punch to drift it back to the center, but it kept slipping to the left. I shipped it back to the factory and they fixed it. No other malfunctions.

If you want to shoot the gun a lot at the range, I'd go with the 9mm. It's got less recoil and 9mm ammo is a bit cheaper. If it is strictly for CCW with more limited time on the range and you feel more comfortable with .40, then consider the K40. But realize that it may have significantly more felt recoil. I agree with onslaught that the K40s recoil is nowhere near as bad as my S&W 642 with 158 gr .38 Spcl +p.

M1911

October 14, 2002, 08:52 PM	#1
bullfrog99 Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2000 Location: Southeast Michigan Posts: 811	kahr k-40 elite what else could you want I handled a kahr k-40 elite today and was quite impressed. I thaught to myself, excepting perhaps a rimfire for plinking I could be happy with just this handgun. The kahr was bueatyfully made and had good sights. it was compact or rather it seemed the perfect size. kind of like a ppk but in a better caliber. If you don't hunt with a pistol and have no fear of four legged preditors, I think this diminitive little 40 could do it all. I have not handled the 9mm version of this gun however and 9mm is so much cheaper nowadays, perhaps that would be the way to go. what do you think about it as an all around defense pistol,(ccw, shtf, working pistol etc.) which caliber do you think would be better? __________________ Are you a gamer? Try Fortress Forever, It is a free HL2 Mod. http://www.fortress-forever.com/?a=media

October 15, 2002, 06:56 AM	#2
denfoote Senior Member Join Date: November 12, 1999 Location: Buckeye Arizona Posts: 5,526	Hey yer preachin' to the choir here. There's a K40 with my name on it sitting in my dealer case, I think!! __________________ Ich bin kein Nationalsozialist!!!!!! Ich bin Republikaner!!!!!!!! Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset. Arizona: Flush the Johns!!!

October 15, 2002, 08:19 AM	#3
Rovert Senior Member Join Date: October 6, 2001 Posts: 824	I know the debate between 9 and 40 rages all the time, but I have absolute confidence in 9mm as a defensive round, particularly since I use the Ranger 147gr SXT's. I own the MK9 Elite, and love it. See my personal website for some photos. If compact size is what you're after, this little guy is hardly larger than a Beretta Tomcat. __________________ "Following the path of least resistance is what makes rivers, and men, crooked."

October 15, 2002, 10:40 AM	#6
Eric Larsen Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2001 Location: Bountiful....Ut. Posts: 3,226	In all honesty, the K9 and K40 both have great strengths and a few compromises. The K9 does shoot a less recoil intensive round compared to the 40 and will fair better for follow up shots. Great 9mm JHP's are available, some giving the better 40 loads a run for their ballistic money. These guns are extremely comfortable to shoot, quickly and accurately. The weight and size are perfect for flawless shooting with practice. Easily a premier choice for a CCW/Defensive gun The K40 is one of the smaller 40's still available. The KT P40 went by the wayside...bummer! It has alot of merit also. With the 40 S&W round in a smaller gun...good shooting becomes an act of balance. The round has substantially more recoil than the 9mm in most cases and does slow followup shots accordingly. The K series is about the best size and weight in a smaller gun to really make the 40 round advantagous, especially in a CCW. The grip is adequate for a full grip to help take recoil and the barrel length is just long enough to get the rounds up to 'fightin velocity". Kahr in my opinion did the CCW a great service by designing and making these guns. The ban of 94 pushed the smaller/lesser capacity guns farther and faster than they would have been developed otherwise. Justin Moon did what couple of other gun makers tried and failed...and did it very successfully in the process. Shoot well __________________ If they dont know you have a gun.....then I did alright! If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice......Rush

October 15, 2002, 01:02 PM	#7
bullfrog99 Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2000 Location: Southeast Michigan Posts: 811	looks like three for the 9mm and two for the fourty, anyone else got an opinion, Looking at durability do you think the gentler kicking 9mm would last longer between spring changes and trips to the shop for worn parts? Which do you think would be the most accurate? __________________ Are you a gamer? Try Fortress Forever, It is a free HL2 Mod. http://www.fortress-forever.com/?a=media

October 15, 2002, 09:05 AM	#4
harrydog Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2000 Posts: 283	I like my K9 a great deal. It's a great size that conceals easily, yet is comfortable to shoot. It's been designed to handle hot loads and will hold up to extensive use. And it has been absolutely reliable. I'd opt for the 9mm over the .40, but that's just my preference.

October 15, 2002, 10:20 AM	#5
M1911 Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2000 Posts: 4,055	I have the K9 and K40. The K9 has very little felt recoil. For me, the K40 produces impact on the web of my hand, between the thumb and forefinger. I've added a Harrts recoil reducer and hold the gun very firmly. That seems to reduce the felt recoil somewhat. As a result, I won't shoot more than about 70 rounds through the K40 at one range visit. I think this may be a function of hand size and/or shape, as I've heard other people say they have the same felt recoil and others say that I'm nuts. YMMV. One downside of the Kahrs is that the trigger reset is relatively long (unlike Glocks, which have very short resets). This slows down followup shots just a bit. I like my Kahrs, but these days I'm usually carrying a 1911. M1911

October 15, 2002, 01:43 PM	#8
Alerion Senior Member Join Date: January 13, 2002 Location: Bloomington, IN Posts: 287	I've been very happy with my K-40 Elite. Accuracy is surprisingly good for a gun with a 3.5" barrel. With the same dimensions as the K-9 except for being 4/100" wider, I like the extra power of the .40 as a SD CCW. OTOH the K-9 carries one more round than the K-40 if you tend to miss a lot. Tom __________________ Well, sometimes we’d travel right down the green river To the abandoned old prison down by Adrie hill. Where the air smelled like snakes and we’d shoot with our pistols But empty pop bottles was all we would kill. -John Prine, Paradise

October 15, 2002, 02:02 PM	#9
Onslaught Senior Member Join Date: November 11, 1999 Location: GA Posts: 1,749	When it comes to the K's, I prefer the .40. The extra weight of the K model really holds down the recoil. Nowhere near an ultralight .38 with +p's. When you get to the MK's, I like the 9mm's better, because when you're going THAT small, every ounce counts... The only thing I don't like about the K's and MK's is the weight. I have found that I don't need a 12 or 14 ounce pistol, but I would prefer a LOADED weight of 24 or 25 oz on the belt, and 19 or 20 oz in the pocket. it's amazing how much 4 or 5 ounces makes in comfort, especially in the pocket/on the ankle. In sum: CCW - excellent SHTF - not for me... too small, to few rounds. Working pistol - probably, as long as you're not working in Alaska And a couple you left off... Deep CCW - too big, too heavy (IMHO) Home Defense - Round count OK, but I'd prefer a longer barrel and sight radius. Too bad Kahr couldn't make an aluminum framed K/MK family of pistols, rather than going the Polymer route. __________________ Yes Rico... KaBOOM!

October 15, 2002, 03:56 PM	#10
M1911 Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2000 Posts: 4,055	bullfrog: I can't say as I see any difference in accuracy between my K9 and my K40, though admittedly I don't have a ransom rest. Either is accurate enough if you do your job. My MK9 is a bit less accurate, mostly due to the short sight radius, but still quite respectable. Regarding reliability, of my 3 Kahrs, the K40 has been back to the factory. After I first purchased it, I sent it back to the factory for them to install night sights and to upgrade the trigger to the elite trigger. A couple years later, the rear sight had slipped over to the left. I used a hammer and punch to drift it back to the center, but it kept slipping to the left. I shipped it back to the factory and they fixed it. No other malfunctions. If you want to shoot the gun a lot at the range, I'd go with the 9mm. It's got less recoil and 9mm ammo is a bit cheaper. If it is strictly for CCW with more limited time on the range and you feel more comfortable with .40, then consider the K40. But realize that it may have significantly more felt recoil. I agree with onslaught that the K40s recoil is nowhere near as bad as my S&W 642 with 158 gr .38 Spcl +p. M1911