[Pete14]

I am a new user to the forum and I am looking at getting a CCW. I have it narrowed down to a Kahr PM40 or a Glock 27 but I am wondering if the small size of the handgun has to much recoil to make it accurate for a defensive situation. I am thinking about going with a 9mm but since I already have a 40cal glock it would be nice to keep the ammunition the same. Any suggestions?

 

[Rollo]

Personally I prefer 9mm in subcompact guns for exactly that reason. 40 cal recoil isn't unmanageable but I find quick follow up shots a lot easier with a 9mm.

 

[RoadRunner71]

Already have a .40 GLOCK? Go with the G27. Mags from your other will fit the G27. The recoil on the sub-compacts really is not that much more noticable to me. No-brainer on this one, at least for me.

 

[Pete14]

I already have a Glock 23 so the magazines would fit but just stick out more?

 

[purwater]

Yep they just hang out the bottom a bit. I shoot the 23 mags in my 27 when at the range and the 27 mags are empty. I went for the 27 due to having plenty of .40 ammo and the 23 already. Keep the same system to keep it simple.

 

[varob]

I have the G27 and have shot the G26 many times. The difference in recoil is hardly noticeable.

I've kept my handgun calibers down to three for that exact reason. .38/.357, .40, and .45

I have nothing against 9mm, it's just hard to stay stocked up on so many different calibers.

 

[Glock23MI]

Why not just CC the G23? That's my EDC with a good IWB holster.

 

[BlueNinjaGo]

I'd personally get a 9mm just because the ammo is cheaper, you generally get more rounds per magazine, and follow up shots are quicker. It's your choice though.

And as for having different calibers, sometimes I can only find 9mm, while sometimes I can only find .40... it'd be nice if I had some variety so that I can shoot whatever I can find (cheapest) at the time...

 

[harley2007]

I'd personally get a 9mm just because the ammo is cheaper, you generally get more rounds per magazine, and follow up shots are quicker. It's your choice though.

And as for having different calibers, sometimes I can only find 9mm, while sometimes I can only find .40... it'd be nice if I had some variety so that I can shoot whatever I can find (cheapest) at the time...

I agree with having a variety....and I have a G26 love it, had a 27 and for me, was too snappy to shoot, but that is only my opinion.

 

[Freedomofchoice]

I have both a 23 and a 27. Honestly, I don't find the 27 to be a great improvement over the 23 as far as ease of carry, and actually carry the 23 more because I prefer the grip configuration.

The Kahr would be much thinner, but does have a somewhat spotty reliability record. I have a CW9 and it runs great from the day I bought it, but most of the problems I read with Kahr's are with the 40s.

 

[OLDPUPPYMAX]

Not accurate enough? According to an FBI study, participants in 88% of gunfights have fewer than 20' between them. Forty percent of fights took place with a 5' distance between the actors. Nothing wrong with worries about accuracy, but don't let them be the basis of choosing a weapon.

 

[Pioneer]

I carried a mod. 27 for several years, both as a police backup gun and off duty carry. The recoil of a 40 is crisp, but manageable. Most folks who have to use their pistols for self defense, report they don't feel the recoil because of the massive adrenalin dump the body experiences.

Model 27 is a very good shooter, and managing recoil becomes a bit easier if you put magazine extentions on the mags. They give you a bit more to hold on to.

I got rid of my 27 because I decided I don't like the Glock trigger and lack of positive safety. But, that's just me.

 

[Ram Rod]

Personally, I think you'll do well with the G27 for the reasons you've stated. Very accurate, just like the 40S&W cartridge itself. Recoil is manageable, and not much more than the 9mm G26. Polymer frames are lighter though, and with either the 9mm or 40S&W, the perceived recoil of either in the Glocks will be apparently more than a steel frame pistol of heavier weight.

 

[RETSUPT99]

You can't go wrong with the Glock, although I would get something in .45 or 9mm...OMO...your 27 would be just fine.:hand10: I presently have the 36 and the 26.

 

[TX-JB]

I have both a 23 and a 27. Honestly, I don't find the 27 to be a great improvement over the 23 as far as ease of carry, and actually carry the 23 more because I prefer the grip configuration.

The Kahr would be much thinner, but does have a somewhat spotty reliability record. I have a CW9 and it runs great from the day I bought it, but most of the problems I read with Kahr's are with the 40s.

I'm just the opposite. I have a 19 and a 26, and I find the 26 much easier to carry than the 19. I do carry 19 mags as my spares though. I also have a CW9 that I think is great, but I end up carrying the 26 the most out of all of them. I got the GAP floorplates, for the 26 mags, which help with recoil, but are no thicker than the std. baseplates...

I'd get the 27, to go with the 23...:yup:

 

[frankmako]

to me the g27 does not have much recoil. and if you shoot it a lots the recoil factor will not be there. but what do i know i shoot an xp-100 in 7mm-08 in long range pistol matches.

 

[Wasabi]

Love my G33 and PM9. Both great guns. I can shoot 9mm, .40 and .357SIG with the G33 by using a different barrel (and mags for 9mm).

 

[fotomaker57]

You have a Glock. So you know in your heart the way to go. Follow it straight to that Glock 27
Mike