Confession (and seeking a K40)

[Scott321]

I thought about the K40. Ended up getting a T40. It shoots fine, but kicks more than my S&W M2.0 and is about the same weight empty... pretty similar in size too. However, the CW40 I have is not accurate and has hiccups when returning to battery. This is after I sent it in to Kahr to fix... at least their CS department stopped it from choking every round. It seems like the accuracy went up a little after the fix, but it is still pretty bad. No issues with the T40 though. Still experimenting with it... just not much time/$$$ righth now.

[rx7sig]

... Ended up getting a T40. It shoots fine, but kicks more than my S&W M2.0 and is about the same weight empty... pretty similar in size too. ...

Interesting. Just googled the metal S&W M2.0. Surprised that both the T40 and the S&W M2.0, given their mass, don't both shoot .40 S&W JHP's quite comfortably.

[Redfish]

Late to the dance as usual. Haven't posted in a long time but happened on this thread and could not pass. I came late in life to shooting handguns. I thank Obama for getting me interested in 08 or 09. First gun was Beretta PX4 in 40. Not the most accurate but very soft shooter even one handed on weak side. Second was Kahr PM40. It gave me a lot of grief (well documented on this forum) until you guys helped me fix it. But I liked it from the first time I shot it and it still goes with me every time I leave my house. It does recoil but it's straight back into my hand. Negligible muzzle flip. Amazing for such a small, light weight gun. I thought, based on this, that I would like a bigger version. Got a TP40 really cheap. Hate it. My thinking was bigger gun, more to hold on to, better control. Nope. I'm sure it's all about my technique but bottom line is I shoot one well enough but not the other. By comparison-Wife's J-frame. I find it painful and hard to control even with light loads. I have 9's. Most notably CZ 85 and HK VP9. I like them both a lot and others to a lesser extent. I really don't find 9 and 40 to be that different in terms of recoil. In regard to ammo, I find a lot of difference in what I shoot in the PM40. If you're concerned at all about recoil in a 40 cal Kahr, try Sig 180gr in either hollow point or, if you can find it, fmj. It's sweet. I can shoot 100 rounds of something like white box Winchester, bulk Remington or Federal and others and enjoy shooting. But 40 cal Sig is the most pleasant and the most accurate of anything I've found. Although not enough to make me like the TP. On the other hand, I bought 2 boxes of Blazer during one of the ammo droughts. It was so bad I could only shoot it in the Beretta and even it didn't much like it. I don't have as much to say for the 9's. I don't buy cheap ammo but will shoot most anything decent. So that's me. As for the K40 vs the K9, I think I'd like a K either. Or both.

[187911]

Late to the dance as usual. Haven't posted in a long time but happened on this thread and could not pass. I came late in life to shooting handguns. I thank Obama for getting me interested in 08 or 09. First gun was Beretta PX4 in 40. Not the most accurate but very soft shooter even one handed on weak side. Second was Kahr PM40. It gave me a lot of grief (well documented on this forum) until you guys helped me fix it. But I liked it from the first time I shot it and it still goes with me every time I leave my house. It does recoil but it's straight back into my hand. Negligible muzzle flip. Amazing for such a small, light weight gun. I thought, based on this, that I would like a bigger version. Got a TP40 really cheap. Hate it. My thinking was bigger gun, more to hold on to, better control. Nope. I'm sure it's all about my technique but bottom line is I shoot one well enough but not the other. By comparison-Wife's J-frame. I find it painful and hard to control even with light loads. I have 9's. Most notably CZ 85 and HK VP9. I like them both a lot and others to a lesser extent. I really don't find 9 and 40 to be that different in terms of recoil. In regard to ammo, I find a lot of difference in what I shoot in the PM40. If you're concerned at all about recoil in a 40 cal Kahr, try Sig 180gr in either hollow point or, if you can find it, fmj. It's sweet. I can shoot 100 rounds of something like white box Winchester, bulk Remington or Federal and others and enjoy shooting. But 40 cal Sig is the most pleasant and the most accurate of anything I've found. Although not enough to make me like the TP. On the other hand, I bought 2 boxes of Blazer during one of the ammo droughts. It was so bad I could only shoot it in the Beretta and even it didn't much like it. I don't have as much to say for the 9's. I don't buy cheap ammo but will shoot most anything decent. So that's me. As for the K40 vs the K9, I think I'd like a K either. Or both.

What was the difference between shooting the K40 and T40? I assumed that the T40 was simply a K40 that's a tad longer in the grip and slide.

As far as you not seeing much of a recoil difference, I agree with you that I also don't notice much of a difference. I've owned multiples of the same gun in 9mm and .40 S&W and never noticed much of a difference. I reckon it's all perceived as some would have fired your PM40 and came to the conclusion that it felt like shooting a 50 BMG and was unbearable, while others like yourself would think it's very manageable. I've always thought the M&P Shield platform felt like shooting a bigger gun. I've taken 5'2-5'4 small women to the range, and they shot the Shield .40 and .45 without any issues. They handled them well. That said, I've seen grown men on online forums make claims that it was too much to bear or agree that it's soft shooting. The only thing that makes sense to me is that the choice of ammo is the main cause of the discrepancy, more so than the calibers in general.