PM40 or PM9 ?

[Duncanp9]

I was wondering if you guys could answer a few questions I have regarding these two guns. I have asked at my local gun stores but cant find anyone that's fired the PM40. Everyone seems to buy the PM9 and I'm not completely sure why when the 40SW is such an effective round. I understand the recoil is going to be more but is it so much more that people just refuse to consider it at all. From the limited research I have done it looks like they sell about a hundred PM9's to one PM40. Can the PM40 be that much of a handful that I shouldn't consider it either. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[MO_Soldier]

I know this doesn't address your specific concerns about recoil, but I bought my PM9 instead of the PM40 simply because rounds are so much cheaper when added up and also so much more readily available. Loading the world's most common handgun round has its advantages. Also, shot placement has been revered as THE important factor in stopping power.

[bonjorno2]

i had a pm40 and sold it, i had a pm9 sold it, i now have a cm9... The pm40 is not my cup of tea, but i'd own a cm40 if they throw one out there in the future. I know this didn't help much, but i'd go with the 9...

[Bawanna]

You'll find plenty of folks in both camps here. Many here swear by the PM40 and think its perfect.
Some say the muzzle flip is too much for a carry gun and prefer the 9. I find myself in the latter camp. I have a K40 the all steel version and because of the flip I much prefer my PM45.
If the PM9 and PM40 were my only options I'd go the 9 myself.
Of course recoil and muzzle flip are subjective so the 40 might be right for you.
Didn't help a bit did I.

[MO_Soldier]

You'll find plenty of folks in both camps here. Many here swear by the PM40 and think its perfect.
Some say the muzzle flip is too much for a carry gun and prefer the 9. I find myself in the latter camp. I have a K40 the all steel version and because of the flip I much prefer my PM45.
If the PM9 and PM40 were my only options I'd go the 9 myself.
Of course recoil and muzzle flip are subjective so the 40 might be right for you.
Didn't help a bit did I.

See bolded quotation: So if I understand you correctly, you prefer a POLYMER subcompact .45ACP over a STEEL full size .40?!?

Sorry, but that doesn't seem to add up. What's the story behind that?

[Bawanna]

See bolded quotation: So if I understand you correctly, you prefer a POLYMER subcompact .45ACP over a STEEL full size .40?!?

Sorry, but that doesn't seem to add up. What's the story behind that?

I prefer a polymer subcompact 45 over an all steel subcompact 40. To add to the confusion the K40 is Magna Ported too.

The recoil and muzzle flip on the 45 is less obnoxious to me than the 40. I like the 40 but its more suited to a mid size or full size gun in my tiny little mind.

Truth be told I'd probably stick with the 45 even if it recoiled more, I just like big slow bullets.

[Brent]

The 9 will have less recoil than the 40 if that is an issue, but it wasn't for me personally. IMO, either will do the job if you do your part.

[pm9fan]

My solution - bought the PM9 first with XS Big Dot night sights. Friend had a PM40, shot it and liked it. Bought a PM40, added a Crimson Trace laser, Agrips.

Deciding which was better for me - PM40. I have several guns in 40 (Glock, H&K, and Kahr). Just standardized on the 40 since I can shot it as well as the 9 round from the PM frame.

IMHO - PM40 is the best power package you can find today. "Best" is the gun that is not a pain to carry so you take it with you ever time you leave the house.

[MO_Soldier]

I prefer a polymer subcompact 45 over an all steel subcompact 40. To add to the confusion the K40 is Magna Ported too.

The recoil and muzzle flip on the 45 is less obnoxious to me than the 40. I like the 40 but its more suited to a mid size or full size gun in my tiny little mind.

Truth be told I'd probably stick with the 45 even if it recoiled more, I just like big slow bullets.

Oh, I had mistaken the K40 for a full-size...but it still makes about as much sense to me! haha.
I just researched Magna Ports and can't believe that your K40 STILL kicks more.
I shot a buddy's Subcompact Glock .45 and it wasn't terrible. I could definitely train to do it. The 9mm is so easy and cheap though!

[Allen]

I was wondering if you guys could answer a few questions I have regarding these two guns. I have asked at my local gun stores but cant find anyone that's fired the PM40. Everyone seems to buy the PM9 and I'm not completely sure why when the 40SW is such an effective round. I understand the recoil is going to be more but is it so much more that people just refuse to consider it at all. From the limited research I have done it looks like they sell about a hundred PM9's to one PM40. Can the PM40 be that much of a handful that I shouldn't consider it either. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Glad you asked the question, been wondering about the two guns myself for a replacement for my .380 Beretta as a CCW. From looking at a Ballistics Chart it appears the 9 will have almost twice the muzzle energy as my .380 so that would be a big gain for me, but the 40 has almost the same energy as my .357 mag and it do bounce or flip considerably. It might be harder to hold the 40 on target with rapid successive shots when necessary. Sounds like this is one of those "trial & error" situations where each individual will have his own opinion.

[Avenger]

... because rounds are so much cheaper when added up and also so much more readily available.

+1 here. That is why I went with 9mm platform vs the 40 S&W to begin with.

Interestingly, I am considering another pistol (surprise), but am looking at the 45 platform instead of the 40 S&W.

For some unknown reason, the 40 platform isn't getting much love from me.

[Joe L]

I have a PM40 and a CM9, both are carry guns, but I shoot them twice/month just to remain competent with them. I normally shoot SIG 9mm full size guns and a 1911 in 45.

I am one of those who really likes the PM40. It is surprisingly accurate but it does kick a little more than the CM9. I can shoot the CM9 all day, I can shoot 50 rounds or so through the PM40 then want to put it up for a couple of weeks. But I can put five rounds out of five in a 9" plate at 25 yards with the PM40 and I will miss one or two with the CM9. To me, both are good, if you like the 40 round, the PM40 is your carry gun. If you are happy with a 9, then PM9 or CM9. If I could have only one, it would be the PM40.
Joe

[sas PM9]

Duncan:

It is a very subjective and personal choice to decide 9mm or 40s&w.

I chose a pm9 over a pm40 because I had sold my ruger p85 (hated the trigger) and was currently without a 9mm.
The want of a 9mm, and the cost of the ammo was a big factor, plus I have a Star Firestar compact pistol in 40s&w. I wasn' really relishing the 40s&w recoil in a pistol smaller than my Firestar.

I felt the PM9 was the proper combination of power, size and reliability for me. I am delighted with the little pistol. I am currently carrying 147gr RA9B in it and they haven't hiccupped once.

It shot perfectly right out of the box. BudsGunShop offers a half hour of range time with a gun purchase, so I bought a box of 115gr ammo and fired it right then and there, no prep or clean-up or anything. I took it out of the plastic bag loaded the mags and let her rip. P E R F E C T ! POA is POI with the sights.

I have since added a CTL and am learning to work with that now. It sure makes shooting from the hip easy.

HTH.

-steve

[golfer]

My $.02 worth. The PM9 is a lot of pustol to hold on to when trying to fire with control. Although I can shoot the 40 and 45, the 9 is more controlable with the short grip and small size of the pistol.
With the 9, I can draw and put 7 rounds in a playing card in 3 seconds at 10 yards with confidence I can do it again and again. Can't say that for the others.
Your mileage may vary, with you ability. IMO, the 380 is a little short on power, and the 9 is just enough.
I do like the 45 etter than the 40 over all, but that is what I cut my teeth on. I generally carry ad 4 or 3" 1911 unless I have to go to pocket carry then the little Kahr comes with me. I carry it in complete confidence.
By the way, whatever you get, save enught $$$$$ for night sights and a CT laser. They are most helpful when you need it the most.

[Popeye]

Like the PM9 over the PM40 because the 9mm round comes back on target faster to get a second shot off if needed. The 40 takes one less round then the 9mm in a standard mag. That and I'm not sold on the 40 cal round being that much better for stopping power than todays 9mm's. I'm another one who prefers the 45 cal .over the 40cal. 45 feels like a hard push to me where the 40 seems just to flippy for my liking. PM series of pistols just seem to be a good fit with the 9mm round. JM.02

[HadEmAll]

Got 'em both. Really like 'em both. Some days I appreciate the extra round in the PM9, (3 extra rounds counting the 2 other magazines I carry), and some days I appreciate the extra horsepower of the PM40. Vive la difference. Same shootability for me. The PM40 rubs a raw spot on my trigger finger that the PM9 doesn't, even with the hot Corbon, but that's at the range, and can be prevented by a strategically place bandaid. If I KNEW I'd be shooting somebody, I'd pick the PM40. If I KNEW I'd be running into multiple bad guys, I'd pick the PM9. But you never know, so back to my first sentence.

PM9 - Corbon 115 grain +P JHP - 1222 fps / 383 ft/lbs

PM40 - Winchester Ranger 155 grain JHP - 1131 fps / 443 ft/lbs

[O'Dell]

PM40 all the way. It's closer to a 45.

[John Law]

Duncan,
Welcome to the forum... When comparing these small poly guns you have to take into account their size and weight, the smaller and lighter the gun the more felt recoil. Again, as has been said, recoil is subjective, it bothers some more than others. I agree with Bawanna that there is more snap and felt recoil from the 40 than with the 45. While I have not shot a PM 40 I did shoot an MK40, comparing that to my PM9, follow up shots were faster and recoil was much less with the PM9. If you can find a range that rents them try shooting both, it will help with your choice. One other thing to keep in mind and I may get jammed with this, other than bullet size there is very little difference in performance between 9, 40 and 45, ballistically with todays JHP ammo they are all pretty close.. Pick the gun you are most comfortable with and that you shoot the best, than practice to become proficient. One other thing to consider is that 9mm is cheaper.
If you Google Tnoutdoors9 he has a you tube site where he tests all calibers of ammunition his reviews are very good, also Hickok 45 for gun reviews. JL

[dirty_sanchez]

John Law- John, are you the John Law from Memphis, Harding Academy in the 3rd grade in the mid-70's?

Dirty

[wyntrout]

I would advise shooting a PM40 before buying one. I have a Mag-na-ported P40 and a PM45. The two are somewhat similar in recoil with the 'porting on the .40, but I would think that the PM40 would be no fun for MUCH shooting at the range with full recoil.

Also, +1 on John Law's advice about the Internet videos.

JMHO...YMMV

Wynn:)

[kahrlover123]

Another vote for PM9.
Here are my reasons:
1) less recoil
2) lighter with loaded
3) lots cheaper ammo
4) more accurate
5) within 5-7 yards encounter, either 9 or 40 will get the same result if you hit dead on spot :)

[John Law]

dirty sanchez... thats a negative I'm originally from NY, the John Law came from the days when I was on NYPD.

[JFootin]

dirty sanchez... thats a negative I'm originally from NY, the John Law came from the days when I was on NYPD.

John, this is interesting. You need to post it in the "Screen name?" thread, too: http://kahrtalk.com/showthread.php?t=7681&highlight=screen

[donnyboy108]

If this gun will be used for self defense, I would go with the PM40. Better track record in the field. :)

[John Law]

JFootin.. Done I used your link, I couldnt find it any other way.

[MO_Soldier]

5. The published results of shooting various media (gelatin, ballistic soap, and water filled jugs) that I recall seeing seem to indicate that the larger .40 S&W round has larger wound channel (even if neither expand). At the same time, .40 S&W usually exhibits greater expansion, and similar penetration, making it the better social use round in the opinion of many police departments and other law enforcement agencies.


I won't argue that the .40S&W isn't a proven round. But terminal ballistics suggest that the temporary AND permanent wound cavities created by the 9mm and .40S&W AND .45ACP to be negligible. They also conclude that the differences DO NOT compensate enough for shot placement.

I for one, don't have any problems shooting some popular .45ACP sub-compact pistols like many of you will probably use to rebute the point I made. BUT, if you can shoot a .45 or .40 accurately, I ask you; How much MORE accurately could you shoot the 9mm? Food for thought.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#9mm

[ltxi]

All my Glocks are .40s. All my .40s are Glocks. They do very well in their place. My ultra compact, LW concealed carry arms are .38/.380/9mm/.22mag in standard pressure. That's 'cause it's what I'm comfortable with and know I shoot well from these kind of guns under stress.

Figure out what actually just works for you and go with it. Theory and 500 pages of statistical data obsession suddenly become completely irrelevant when the shtf.

[O'Dell]

Another vote for PM9.
Here are my reasons:
1) less recoil
2) lighter with loaded
3) lots cheaper ammo
4) more accurate
5) within 5-7 yards encounter, either 9 or 40 will get the same result if you hit dead on spot :)

I think I would also question that a 9mm is more accurate. I know I shoot a 40 better than a 9. Same question about the results at seven yards.

I'll still vote for the 40.

[MO_Soldier]

Figure out what actually just works for you and go with it. Theory and 500 pages of statistical data obsession suddenly become completely irrelevant when the shtf.

That's really what it comes down to, which probably sucks for OP to keep hearing. I know that when I was looking for my 1st pistol, I just wanted a definitive answer as to what was best, because I didn't have access to shooting tons of guns. But that's just the nature of the beast.

[TominCA]

Another vote for the PM9 - (I have never shot the PM40) I got the nine becuase I have a lot of 9's and the practice ammo is cheap and now that I have many rounds through it - for me it is about the most power I would want in a small gun.

The PM9 is such a good gun I don't think you could go wrong with either one!

[QuercusMax]

When I bought my Kahr (MK, not PM), I chose the 9mm over the .40 version simply because I didn't want to bring in yet another caliber of ammo to deal with. Since I already had other 9mm and 45ACP guns (and stockpiles of ammo to match), it just didn't make sense to add something else in-between that I would need to buy in its various types, plus have to get used to a new set of ammo characteristics.

Some might enjoy endless variety - as do I in some things - but starting a collection of every caliber of guns and ammo didn't appeal to me.

Maybe I don't know what I am missing, but that's my strategy and rationale.

[x1wildone]

PM 40 all the way, unless there's a PM 45 around, everybody has a 9.
My wife loves her PM 40. Next time I will do the Pm 45 because there is less felt recoil.

[drgad]

I too have a pm40; fabulous gun! When deciding, I chose it like I did my Glock 27 - I figured, why not carry the largest round I can? Besides, if the pm40 is the same size as the pm9 - why not go with the larger caliber? I did the same when comparing a G26 and G27. If, God forbid, I ever actually had to use it, I want as much power as I can! And, by the way, I don't think the recoil is really bad at all; in fact, I like it! (aaarrgh aarrgh!)
Currently carrying Hornady Critical Defense in it, though also have Rem. Golden Sabers and Winchester Rangers. (Also have a hard chrome Kel-Tec Pf9 and a Ruger LCP - but the PM40 is just too close in size to them to not carry it almost exclusively. Once in a while, I pocket carry the G27 or carry it owb.) Gotta admit, I like knowing I've got a 40 cal in my pocket! Just my .02 :cool:

[John Law]

Makes me want a PM40 now, just so I can have one of each. I still think the recoil is going to be nasty, although not enough to stop me from saving up for one.

[jocko]

Makes me want a PM40 now, just so I can have one of each. I still think the recoil is going to be nasty, although not enough to stop me from saving up for one.

nasty compared to the PM9.

[Brent]

How does the PM40 compare to the P40? I'm guessing the shorter grip makes the PM a little more to handle.

[jocko]

both are still hand cannons, IMO. no doubt I would have to magna port my 40 cal, . I would think the PM40 would be more noticeable than the P40 in felt recoil. The 40 cal kahr can take any amount of rounds through it, but from reading this forum, many 40 cal owners DO report noticeable recoil and range time is normaly shorter.

[Ljutic]

Having now shot both, I am comfortable with either one. The PM40 wasn't horrible on the recoil front. After a few mags of get acquainted time, I really didn't even notice the recoil as I was too focused on seeing where the shots were landing. Didn't try any speed shooting.

[robdnor]

I have a mk9 and a pm40, i love the mk9 due to its being all metal; making it beautiful and a good shooter... but i trust the pm40 to be in my pocket and weigh about the same loaded as the mk unloaded.. since we already know any kahr is awesome, then id say go for the pm40 hands down!!...
i will lay on the table for ya, its a handful. when i first got it, 200 rnds in 2 days and i had a spot on my trigger finger knuckle from the trigger guard. all that took was gettin used to holding on to that hand-cannon and i had no more problems..
i know some who have tried it and refuse to shoot, and others, like myself who love it. so it comes down to preference
do you mind recoil? its got a bit, but nothing unmanageable. i would say that it is personally more comfortable than a g27, but the way those compact glocks fit in my hand leaves me with something to be desired.
i definitely prefer a 40 to a 9 any day.. if you are ok with a little more recoil and one less shot in the magazine (like i and all the other pm40 diehards). then you cant beat that pm40 as the best pocketable 40 cal available!!


good luck with making your decision, im sure your have a great new PM series either way

[PCollen]

My solution - bought the PM9 first with XS Big Dot night sights. Friend had a PM40, shot it and liked it. Bought a PM40, added a Crimson Trace laser, Agrips.

Deciding which was better for me - PM40. I have several guns in 40 (Glock, H&K, and Kahr). Just standardized on the 40 since I can shot it as well as the 9 round from the PM frame.

IMHO - PM40 is the best power package you can find today. "Best" is the gun that is not a pain to carry so you take it with you ever time you leave the house.

If you are already invested in 9mm (or .40cal), go with the PM9(or PM40). If you have weapons of both calibre's, flip a coin. Personally, at typical 'close encounter' distances 20 feet or less, either will perform just as well with the right defensive ammo. I find the 9mm (CM9 in my case) has easier recovery for accurate follow-up shots than does the .40. But I don't shoot 150-200 rounds a month of .40cal. My home defense weapon is and XD9. If I had an XD40, I'd have the .40cal Kahr. I like the lower cost of 9mm target ammo, and at $25/50rds of Speer Gold dot 124g +P HP ammo, that's pretty reasonable as well.

[jocko]

range fodder at wal martr 9mm 100 pak 115 fml $20.50