I'm considering my next CCW purchase, and it'll be a Kahr; either a PM9 or a PM40. I absolutely love my CW45, but I'd like something a little smaller.
Feedback would be appreciated from anyone who has (or has had) BOTH a PM9 and a PM40. They're pretty much identical in size, with the .40 just weighing a couple of ounces more. Neither of these calibers is new to me, but I haven't had any really small pistols in either 9mm or .40. I'm not much bothered by recoil, but I'm sure the PM40 is going to be pretty stout. My question: Do you feel that the added power of the .40 is worth the increased recoil and giving up a round of capacity? Thanks in advance for replies.
I had a PM40 and sold it to get a PM9. I used it as a backup gun and didn't feel comfortable with it. The recoil is heavy and it is very hard to be accurate with it. Follow up shots are slow, and it sucks to shoot. I am thinking about an MK9 now. I would get the PM9 for sure.
Although I don't own a PM40, I was lucky to have tried one out a few times before I went with my PM9. Much quicker target acquisition on follow up shots due to less recoil. My friend handles his PM40 quite well although he admits my PM9 allows for more accurate and quicker follow up shots. He has two other 40cal guns and wanted to stay with that platform. I'm a 9mm guy, for now anyway...
I own a PM9 and CW40 and the difference in recoil is substaintial but ceratinly manageable in the CW40. It depends on your own personal sensitivity to recoil basically. In the PM series size guns I think the 9mm is the better choice. But again with this type of handgun (pull, point, shoot, repeat) if you have to present this gun in a self defense situation, with the adrenaline pumping recoil will not matter much IMO. They are not range guns they are close in weapons of last resort....as all small pocket/BUG guns are.
I've settled on Gold Dots for all of my carry calibers. A 124gr. 9mm +P Gold Dot in my opinion doesn't kick that much less than the 165gr Gold dot in the 40. Sure, the 40 kicks more, but I shoot 40's almost exclusively, so I'm used to the way the 40 behaves. I like it.
Shootability? My thumbs get sore from loading the mags before my hands get tired of shooting either. If I had the time and the ammo, I'm sure I could burn through 500 rounds in an afternoon. The LCP I used to own was a 100 round range gun-100 rounds was all I could take before my hands began to hurt.
Either of the PM's mentioned in this thread carry very nicely in the front pocket of my Levi's, every pair of shorts I own, and in the back pocket in a plain jane rough-out leather galco IWB. I cut off the sewn on clip, and I worked over the shape with a razor blade to make it my own. It's a thin carry holster, covers the trigger, and stays put during any sort of draw.
I'm a 40 guy and carry the 40 over the 9 in the PM line.
Same experience as mine. Recoil of the .40 was just too uncomfortable for me too. I sold it, but kept my PM9.
If a person wants a small .40 S&W pistol that is more comfortable to shoot, they should consider the Walther PPS in .40 S&W. It does not have the bad bite that the plastic Kahrs in .40 S&W do.
NOTE: The all metal Kahrs in .40 S&W like the K40 are fine, but they do weigh a lot more.
Same here keeping PM9 and finding the .40 just a little too much. The PM9 has been reliable and more accurate than I expected. It has fed anything that I gave it. I always shoot it strong hand only and use Powerball for SD.
I really like my PM9, I have not shot a PM40 both would be fine guns. I studied ballistics of each caliber and decided that there is not much difference. The .40 is 10mm so only 1mm bigger than the 9mm. Do some pricing and you will find a 50% difference in price for FMJ, and self-defense ammo is cheap for the 9mm also.
So far no one has convinced me that 1mm larger diameter will make any difference in a self-defense situation. With or without expansion the difference is very small. I believe the PM9 holds 1 more round than the PM40.
If recoil is not concern, you really can't go wrong with either.
I'm not really concerned with comfort, or 'handling the recoil'. I'm not real sensitive to it, and I shoot a lot of big-bores. What does matter to me is recovery time for the second (and additional) shots in a SD situation.
Most of your replies have supported my thought that the 9mm is probably a better choice in a tiny pistol like the PM. The extra round is a plus, too.
Let me throw another question into the mix. Does anyone have firsthand knowledge of the difference in recoil/recoverability between the PM40 and the PM45? I'm a BIG fan of .45's, and being a lower-pressure, lower-velocity round, my guess is that the .45 might actually be a little more manageable than the .40. This is kind of supported by many accounts I've seen where people always seem to remark that the recoil of the PM40 is 'stout' or 'sharp', while most of the reviews I've seen of the PM45 mention that the gun is surprisingly mild to shoot.
I had originally ruled out the PM45, thinking that the .45 was probably just too much in that tiny platform, but I'm starting to second-guess that opinion. The smallest/lightest .45 I've shot to date is my CW45, and I have NO problem with the recoil - It's my favorite CCW. Wonder how the PM45 compares (?).
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!