Kahr PM9 vs PM40 Thoughts?

[sageowl]

Trying to decide between the PM9 and the PM40. I had previously ruled out the PM40 because it was "bigger," but when I paid attention to the actual size difference (0.05" longer, 0.04" wider, same height and 1oz heavier) its completely a non-issue. So, without this turning into a "favorite caliber" thread, I'm trying to figure out which would be a better choice for a front-pocket backup (and hot-weather primary) carry gun.

Some of the things I'm wondering about include the relative performance of 9mm and .40 out of a 3-inch barrel - informational resources and personal experiences welcome. Also, are there any issues with either of these guns to be aware of before buying? Anybody else in this situation just gone with 9mm for the extra capacity? I'm not opposed to 9mm, but I'm a bit partial to .40 since I already have weapons chambered for it. Thinking in this size pistol .40 recoil might be a bit much though - then again, I have no problems with my 3" Kimber Ultra Carry in .45 so who knows. To top it all off, none of the rental ranges have either that I can shoot so I'm going in blind on this one.

Also, are the manufacturer-equipped Night Sights any good?

Thanks all for the thoughts. Again, let's try not to make this a favorite-caliber war :)

[Stiletto]

No personal experience, but I hear that a) Kahrs are very accurate for their tinygun status, and b) the PM40's a little wild because of its light weight. You might want to check out an MK40 (metal frame) along with the PMs.

Do you have a range anywhere where you can rent them and try them out?

[BillCA]

Some time ago a friend bought a Kahr K-9 (9mm). We had gone to the range and I'd fired the .40 S&W K-40 just to check it out. Recoil was pretty sporty, but not unmanageable with the weight of the steel frame. In a polymer frame I would imagine that recoil could be "brisk" or stout but still controllable.

Though one should also remember that a small defense gun is likely to be fired one-handed in a pinch (maybe even the weak hand) and that's how I'd establish whether I can control the recoil or not.

[old_ironsights]

Ya might wanna check out the "Kahr Club" on GlockTalk...http://glocktalk.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=111

[2002gti]

my decision was made easy because the pm40 isnt available to ca.

[Marcus]

I can`t speak directly about the PM40 but I have put quite a few rounds through a PM9 and I shoot my P40 a lot. The P40 has a lot of kick for a .40. It whacks my hand harder than my S&W 1006 with full house 10mm. Not that that`s bad,but it can take a little of the fun out of long range sessions. The PM9 kicks just as hard and for me has quite a bit more muzzle flip. For some reason I have a much harder time getting good groups with the smaller gun as well. Unless you plan on pocket carry I`d take a hard look at the P9 and P40 instead of the PMs. Marcus

[sageowl]

Thanks all for the input. As this gun will be exclusively for pocket carry, I ended up with the PM9. Figured it would be easier to shoot than the .40 in the same size, and I didn't want to go with a metal frame for a pocket gun. Now if anybody has some suggestions on what ammo to put in it (obviously hollowpoints, just wondering on weight and +P or standard for SD use) let me know. Thanks for the input. The Kahr Club on Glock Talk was especially helpful.

[Watch-Six]

I got a PM9 when they first became available. I recently added a PM40. Any size difference is insignificant. My PM40 seems to be more accurate than the PM9. I now prefer the 40, but they are both good pistols. Best. Watch-Six