This is a discussion on Thinkin Kahr MK40 within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I originally was going for a Sig p239, but the thickness, or lack thereof has kind of steered me to the mk40. I'm a smaller ...
I originally was going for a Sig p239, but the thickness, or lack thereof has kind of steered me to the mk40. I'm a smaller guy (well short and kind of thick) so that has aided in me changing from the p239. Are there any other non polymer versions in the Kahr's size range I should look into? I also prefer DA/SA, but can handle DAO only as long as it's smooth, and I'm aware of Kahr being DAO. Thanks in advance Darren
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples' Liberty's Teeth." - George Washington
I'd rather have the MK9 or K9 myself, but either one is an excellent choice. The Kahr trigger is very smooth.
"Just blame Sixto"
I have a MK-9 and a K-40 both shoot well and handle recoil very well. One of the young men Iwork with carries a MK-40 as a backup, he thinks it is top of the line.
MK40 or K40 seem like they may fit what you are looking for. I also have an MK9 and love how smooth it is.
I also think the 9 version would be a better choice in this gun.
Friends don't let friends be MALL NINJAS.
I am just as nice as anyone lets me be and can be just as mean as anyone makes me. - Quoted from Terryger, New member to our forum.
Agreed. I have a relative who carries the MK9 constantly and LOVES IT.
When seconds count, help is minutes away!
I have a PM9 and while it is a great gun for its intended purpose (small easy to conceal pocket gun) it is not an easy gun to shoot. The felt recoil of PM9 is worse then 357sig in Glock 32. The 40s&w is a much harder kicking ammo and the effect on such a small light gun would be exponentially higher.
I have never owned or shot PM40 so I cannot compare directly, but whenever I go to a gunshow there are plenty of used PM40s for sale but usually no used PM9s. That should be a good indicator.
I do not mean to detract from PM40/MK40 but if you want to buy that gun make sure you shoot it first somewhere to make sure you can handle the recoil.
I for one have never really had an issue with recoil in any pistol I own. My PM40 kicks, and hard too but no more than my snub-nosed 357mag and somewhat less than my aluminum framed PA-63. While I agree that an MK9 would have less recoil than an MK40, I think there are other factors to consider. There are low-recoil SD loads available from Hornady and Federal that still give you the benefits of the 40 with much lighter recoil. I like the 135gr Powrball rounds in a short barrel. They give 357sig like performance with 1350fps and 580 ftlbs.
Thanks for the replies. The main reason I have been looking for a steel gun instead of polymer is to help with the recoil of a .40 in a small frame. I have shot a Glock 23? .40 that had a lot less recoil than My Ruger LCR. I really would rather .40 over 9mm. If I did choose 9mm I would have to reconsider polymers, with the scorching Summers of Arizona it was my original choice, but I still would prefer a little more weight for security. Thanks again Darren
My BUG is a MK9 Elite 2009 with 115 gr Corbon DPX. Before I got it I tried a MK40. Although the Corbon DXP ammo the MK9 has less recoil and it is more peasant to shoot than the MK40; actually, you enjoy shooting it at the range. It is a very reliable weapon and the trigger is nice for being a DAO. Sure I would like to also own a MK40, but I prefer the MK9.
"The Second Amendment: America's Original Homeland Security"