CM40 or S&W Shield 40

[nmkahrshooter]

Ok guys thinking of 40 cal and have narrowed down to these two pistols. Have owned Kahr before and like them, especially CW9, have never owned Smith & Wesson. Did have CM9 but had a lot of problems so got rid of it. Is CM40 reliable or do i need to try S&W. Just trying to figure which one would be a better buy. This will be a CCW pistol. Thanks for your input.

[BroncoAZ]

I have handled the Shield 9mm, .40 should be the same for my observations. The Shield is longer than the CM9, closer to the CW9. Their two different magazines allow for a CM grip or CW grip length. The good: the trigger is glock like and can be shot off the reset, weight is about 6 lb with a distinct break and reset click. The little wider magazine is not a true single stack, by staggering the rounds a bit they fit one more in the 9mm. The not so good: the upper part of the grip that sits against the web of your hand is narrow and I think would be unpleasant to shoot. I prefer the wider back of the Kahr to spread the recoil over a larger part of my hand.

Personally I think a 9mm with the right ammo is a better choice in a gun this size for CCW. The extra blast and recoil from the .40 makes second shot placement more difficult, practice ammo more expensive, and the ballistic differences are really insignificant with modern defense ammo. I like .40 in something a little larger like my Glock 23. I can't speak to the CM9 you had issues with, but my PM9 and CW9 have been excellent, enough so that I just plunked down for a T9 for the wife.

[TucsonMTB]

You might want to wait until the S&W Shield has their "fotay" version available for sale and few people buy them. The 9mm Shield is available and seems to be making people happy. The same gun chambered in .40 S&W may be a different story because of the greater recoil.

Did I understand correctly that you had good luck with a CW9, which has a larger grip than the CM9 that did not work well for you? If so, the grip size is likely to be even more of an issue with a CM40.

Don't misunderstand me. I have two PM40's. My wife and I are both quite happy shooting them, but some people are more recoil sensitive or like to hold their pistols with more relaxed grips. That's not as practical with the shorter gripped CM40 or PM40, and may contribute to shooting malfunctions.

Best of luck with your choice.

[gb6491]

The CM will be smaller than the Shield. I can't speak as to the reliability of the CM40 as I don't own one. The Shield is about the same size as the "P" and "CW" series Kahrs (well first hand, I know the Shield 9mm is about the same size as a CW9).
From my own experience with a 9mm Shield (350 rounds fired) and a CW9 (close to 2000 rounds fired):
Both are well made.
Both are reliable.
Both are adequately accurate, though I'd give an edge to the CW.
IMO, the CW has a better trigger. My Shield's trigger was heavy and broke abruptly with lots of over-travel. I did find that it's reset was shorter.
The Shield's grip is "pinky under" for me with the flush fitting magazine (like baby Glocks and CM/MK/PM series Kahrs). It also seems overly long front to back. The extended magazine gives the Shield room for a full three fingers, but then it's longer/taller than the grip on the CW9. The trigger guard on the Shield is "busy" where you finger goes under it: some sharp edges, rough texture and a channel between two different surfaces. Again IMO, the CW9 has a better grip and it's certainly more comfortable.
I found the CW9 easier to control and shoot accurately at speed.
Sans sights/shooting instinctively: both point well with a speed edge to the Shield.

I prefer the CW9, but think others will be well served by the Shield.
Regards,
Greg

[bonjorno2]

for a pocket gun get the kahr, for a iwb gun get a kahr... but for a gun with a safety try the shield.

[nmkahrshooter]

Thanks for the input. Maybe I need to look at bigger gun as in the CW40. Have not fired 40 Cal in a long time. Is it that snappy to shoot? To answer another question I had problems with CM9 reliability but never have had a problem with CW9.

[BroncoAZ]

.40 is more snappy to shoot than 9mm, but not so much that it is uncomfortable generally. Personally I don't think the bad guy is going to get back up and laugh at me after being shot with a 9mm compared to a .40. Either of these rounds loses a bit of its performance when used with a 3" barrel. You do lose one more round (generally) with the .40 vs the 9mm.

[nmkahrshooter]

Maybe should go back to CW45. Only reason I sold it was to get a XD45 Tactical. XD is too big to CCW and never had a problem with CW45. Just liked the idea of a smaller gun but CW45 is not that hard to conceal. Thanks for the input everybody, will have to visit LGS tomorrow and drive him crazy! Can't wait to mention I want another CW45! Guess I will have to hear I told you so a hundred times!

[O'Dell]

Let me be the first; I TOLD YOU SO, or I would have if given the chance. My CW45 is my favorite carry gun, and I only resort to the PM9 when I can't cover the CW.

[nmkahrshooter]

Yep he laughed told me i told you so then rang up the CW45 with a smile on his face!! Sure is nice to deal with friends!

[Markis82]

Personally, I'd never want a gun that has a thumb safety as my carry weapon. I'm sure the Shield is a fine weapon. But for me, could only be used for range fun.

[O'Dell]

Personally, I'd never want a gun that has a thumb safety as my carry weapon. I'm sure the Shield is a fine weapon. But for me, could only be used for range fun.

I'll bet you didn't grow up with Brownings and Colt 1911's like I did. My Kahrs and the P220 are the only pistols I own w/o a manual safety, and that's only because they don't offer them. :)

[Markis82]

I'll bet you didn't grow up with Brownings and Colt 1911's like I did. My Kahrs and the P220 are the only pistols I own w/o a manual safety, and that's only because they don't offer them. :)I did say carry weapon. I won't carry a 1911 style pistol. DAO striker fired for me as a carry weapon. Therefore, no safey needed. Thumb safeties on Ruger SR, S&W M&P etc..., in my opinion, are not called for or needed.

[Wolffire99]

You're right, I give an exception to the 1911, it's so well ergonomically placed my thumb falls on the safety without thinking about it. The shield's is nothing like that.

[pitbull1022]

I have the CM40. Sweet Lil gun. Recoil is about the same as the CW40. Easy to carry. Easy to conceal. My Favorite as of now to CCW.

[O'Dell]

I did say carry weapon. I won't carry a 1911 style pistol. DAO striker fired for me as a carry weapon. Therefore, no safey needed. Thumb safeties on Ruger SR, S&W M&P etc..., in my opinion, are not called for or needed.

In the sixties Brownings and 1911 WERE carry weapons, especially if you were in the service like I was. We'll have to agree to disagree - I much prefer a manual safety. Plus, I prefer a hammer fired system like my SIG's, HK's, S&W's, and 1911's.

[Markis82]

In the sixties Brownings and 1911 WERE carry weapons, especially if you were in the service like I was. We'll have to agree to disagree - I much prefer a manual safety. Plus, I prefer a hammer fired system like my SIG's, HK's, S&W's, and 1911's.Most of us like what we're familiar with. Personally, being born in 1964 I was not carrying a gun in the sixties. :) I like the more modern designs. My point is, guns like the Shield, modern striker fired DAO handguns, do not require a manual safeties. I would never pick a modern design that has a manual safety for my carry weapon. My safey is between my ears and knowing the gun will not fire unless the triggers is pulled. I have not seen many revolvers with manual safeties. Apparently they are not needed. Well they are not needed on modern striker semi autos either. In fact if the SHTF, the safety may just get you killed. However, a safety is required on hammer fired pistols where you carry with the hammer cocked. I'm not knocking anyone who likes to carry those weapons. They are just not for me.

[BroncoAZ]

Most of us like what we're familiar with. Personally, being born in 1964 I was not carrying a gun in the sixties. :) I like the more modern designs. My point is, guns like the Shield, modern striker fired DAO handguns, do not require a manual safeties. I would never pick a modern design that has a manual safety for my carry weapon. My safey is between my ears and knowing the gun will not fire unless the triggers is pulled. I have not seen many revolvers with manual safeties. Apparently they are not needed. Well they are not needed on modern striker semi autos either. In fact if the SHTF, the safety may just get you killed. However, a safety is required on hammer fired pistols where you carry with the hammer cocked. I'm not knocking anyone who likes to carry those weapons. They are just not for me.

+1 :w00t: I couldn't have put that better.

[JFootin]

+1 :w00t: I couldn't have put that better.

+2.

[HenryinFlorida]

I am replacing my LCP carry gun with my new CW45. I just figured the difference between the 45 and a 40 was minimal, so go with the bigger one. I am also considereing getting an XD-M 45acp with 4.5 in barrel and 13+1 magazine for HD. That will replace my 1911 that I keep in my nightstand drawer.

[Markis82]

I am replacing my LCP carry gun with my new CW45. I just figured the difference between the 45 and a 40 was minimal, so go with the bigger one. I am also considereing getting an XD-M 45acp with 4.5 in barrel and 13+1 magazine for HD. That will replace my 1911 that I keep in my nightstand drawer.Good choice! I replaced my LCP with a CM9 and have not regretted it one bit. I couldn't hit a Buick at 15' with the LCP. Needless to say my LCP is long gone. With the CM9 I feel like. Can shoot the eye of a fly. I have post some of my target pics around here somewhere. Re: .40, the Kahrs in .45 have less perceived recoil than the .40.

[scoose]

As previously stated the CM is smaller and IMHO better for CC. Also, the Shield has a thumb safety which I am not a fan of for CC pistols. Hickok45 reviewed this pistol and said that the safety was hard enough that it wouldn't engage or disengage in the holster or accidentally by brishing against it. However, I just dont like a safety on a CC pistol. I know for some thats a controversial subject and I'm not trying to start a rant...it's just my opinion.

On the flip side hickok45 like the pistol very much and gave it a great review. For those of you not familiar Hickok reviews a myriad of gund on youtube and give very good open minded opinions. search youtube for hickok45

[scoose]

Good choice! I replaced my LCP with a CM9 and have not regretted it one bit. I couldn't hit a Buick at 15' with the LCP. Needless to say my LCP is long gone. With the CM9 I feel like. Can shoot the eye of a fly. I have post some of my target pics around here somewhere. Re: .40, the Kahrs in .45 have less perceived recoil than the .40.


DITTO

Likewise my P3AT is on the "to trade list". It is accurate enough ( 2-3 in groups at 15yds ) but it is not a reliable piece. Even after I got it running good it still had the occoasional FTE. I just cant trust it.

Since the wife has the CM9 I am going to trade it on a P290.

[BroncoAZ]

I'm not impressed with the Sig P290. Granted I don't own one, but I have shot one. It is too heavy/bulky and has too high of a bore axis for my liking.

[Wolffire99]

I love my LCP and carry it the most. I can get 12" groups at 21 feet all day long with instinctual aiming.

[TheTman]

Only time I've wished for a safety on my Kahr CW40 was when reholstering it behind my back, other than that they are more trouble than they are worth on a DAO pistol.

[O'Dell]

Most of us like what we're familiar with. Personally, being born in 1964 I was not carrying a gun in the sixties. :) I like the more modern designs. My point is, guns like the Shield, modern striker fired DAO handguns, do not require a manual safeties. I would never pick a modern design that has a manual safety for my carry weapon. My safey is between my ears and knowing the gun will not fire unless the triggers is pulled. I have not seen many revolvers with manual safeties. Apparently they are not needed. Well they are not needed on modern striker semi autos either. In fact if the SHTF, the safety may just get you killed. However, a safety is required on hammer fired pistols where you carry with the hammer cocked. I'm not knocking anyone who likes to carry those weapons. They are just not for me.

As I said we will have to agree to disagree because I do not agree with your premise that a striker fired gun is less needy of a manual safety that any other double action pistol. How many ND have you read about lately, and most seem to be with "modern" pistols as you call them. Please do not state your opinion as a fact. As to being killed by a safety, it won't happen. I swipe off the safety when I draw a pistol whether it has one or not.

[Markis82]

As I said we will have to agree to disagree because I do not agree with your premise that a striker fired gun is less needy of a manual safety that any other double action pistol. How many ND have you read about lately, and most seem to be with "modern" pistols as you call them. Please do not state your opinion as a fact. As to being killed by a safety, it won't happen. I swipe off the safety when I draw a pistol whether it has one or not. Their are some who were taught to carry with an empty chamber, draw and rack. There are some countries whose military do teach that and require their soldiers to carry that way. However, I wouldn't recommend it. Same with manual safeties on DAO. I wouldn't recommend it. I think if you'd take a poll of experienced gun owners, you'd find more people would agree that manual safeties are useless and possibly dangerous on a striker fire DAO pistols than think manual safeties are needed on a striker fired DOA pistol. If they were soooo necessary, why does my CM9 not have one? Oh look here my Glock doesn't have me either. That LCP even though hammer fired, doesn't have one. BTW, you can find many stories how someone missed, forgot, or something related to their safety causing that person to not get a shot off or delayed their shot. It can happen and does happen! Furthermore, I'm not saying they are less needed on striker fired than hammer fired. I'm saying the manual safety is not needed on any DAO pistols.

[Barth]

Option A Kahr CM40
Option B S&W Shield 40
???
I have to go for the third option.
Option C Kahr MK40
Actually I already took option C - LOL!
https://www.t-mobilepictures.com/myalbum/photos/photo42/c9/0e/f1171870797e__1333819622000.jpg

I prefer the all stainless Kahrs for 40.
And Polymer in 9mm.
CM9 vs Shield 9?
I'd still go with the Kahr.