CW 40 versus CW 9 ?

[OldGuyinTN]

I have a CW 9 and take it with me every time I leave the house. I love the gun, and have every bit of confidence in the 9mm round's effectiveness. However I've been thinking...

I've shot a couple .40 cal. guns and am amazed at the difference in power between the two rounds. To make the fairest convenient comparison, I have shot both rounds in Glocks. The 9mm was very controllable, whereas when shooting the .40, the gun's recoil actually torqued it enough to have changed my grip. And I'm a big guy with big hands. But to me the Glock's grip is just too fat for comfort. So that comparison doesn't help me with my question.

Since the CW 9 fits my hand so well, I assume that the CW 40 would be easier for me to handle than the Glock. But I wonder if it would have much more muzzle flip than the 9mm, making target reacqiusition much more difficult. Because of hand fit, I don't think the CW 40's recoil would cause any comfort problem - I'm just curious about controllability.

Is there anyone out there who is experienced enough with both the CW 9 and the CW 40 to give a good comparison of the two's handling characteristics?

If the CW 40 is as much a sweetheart as the CW 9, I might have to add to my arsenal.

[MattTheKnife]

The CW40 is going to have more "kick" because it has 31 more than the CW9.

I'm sorry, but I have to take the low road at times.


Seriously, I've never shot a .40 Kahr in comparison to any of my 9mm Kahrs. I have shot .40 cal and their 9mm equavilents at the same time on a number of occasions (Glock 26 & 27, Glock 19 & 23, Browning Hi Power 9mm & .40). In all cases, the .40 has more kick; it would expect the Kahr to be no different.

My humble opinion: stick with the 9mm. The only .40 I would trust my life to is the Browning Hi Power.

Matt

[getsome]

Hi, OldGuyinTN, I recently bought a CW40 and really like the little pistol...I have about 300 rounds through it so far and no problems...It does have a sharp recoil and muzzle flip which makes it hard to get a second shot back on target...Some say the .40 has more recoil than the CW45 but I havent fired a CW45 so I cant say... I decided to send mine off to Mag-Na-Port to see if porting will tame the little beast...I will make a range report post after I get it back and let you know if it helps...The main reason I wanted a .40 cal is due to the ammo shortage...I shoot .45 .44 and .380 All these are hard to find in my area especially .380 but for some reason there seems to always be .40 cal available at Wally World and Bass Pro Shop so my thoughts were to diversify my ammo stash...I have never had a .40 cal before but I like this one, the gun shoots good and is more accurate than I am so if you want a CW40 I say go for it, after all you cant have too much money or too many guns!!!!:cool:

[jocko]

40 cal polymer kahrs do hve noticable recoil, very light weight gun and a hot caliber indeed. I have always said if I owned a 40 polymer kahr, I would magna port it....

[shooter37]

I have both. Started out with a CW9 and liked it but wanted a heavier bullet.
I now have a CW40 and use WW 155 Gr. Ranger HP as carry loads.
The 40 does have more snap but is very controllable and fun to practice with.
I share your comment re: Glocks: I like the guns but my hands are not large enough to control a G27 grip. I would caution re: the CW40, I did have problems with mag drops until Kahr supplied a redesigned mag catch.
If I were to start over I'd go with the CW40...
Good luck
Al

[OldGuyinTN]

All good advice. Thanks to each of you.

Update... I bought a CW 40. As with every gun I buy, I took it apart and cleaned it - including hosing out the striker channel with RemOil through that little hole. I racked the action about 100 times, then field stripped and cleaned it again. I had bought an extra Kahr magazine for it. The metal slide catch tab on the follower of both magazines had rough and sharp edges. I compared them to my CW 9's, and the 9's are smooth. I felt that those rough edges wouldn't go away, so I eased them with some 400 grit wet & dry sandpaper. Shot the gun this evening, along with my CW 9. Here are my impressions: The 40 feels no heftier than my 9 with its aftermarket SS guide rod. The 40 fits my Don Hume IWB holster a little snugger than the 9 does. Shooting inexpensive FMJ ammo through both, I and my retired cop friend could not discern any difference in handling or recoil. Shooting Gold Dot HP ammo (165 gr. in the 40) through both, the 40 was just a hair snappier. However, handling & recoil were no different than the 9. Follow-up shots were just as easy with the 40 as with the 9. The 40's return spring is a lot stiffer than the 9's. Barrel lockup is actually tighter than the 9's. The trigger pull is equal in length and weight. I could feel the 40's trigger was very slightly less smooth than the 9's, but the 9 has had over a thousand rounds through it and the 40 is brand new. I'm sure it will smooth out with use. But still, it is buttery compared to a lot of other guns of equal and higher cost on the market. We shot fifty FMJs and a full load (magazine plus one) of Gold Dots, with no failures of any kind. Accuracy was dead-on.

So there's a side-by-side comparison of the CW 9 and the CW 40. I'm going to keep both of them. The only issue I can see anyone having with the 40 is that it might be hard for someone with weaker hands to operate the slide or even reassemble the gun after cleaning.