1911.COM : General Discussion & Everything Else : General Discussion & Everything Else : Kahr 40 or M&P 9c for CCW opinions please

General Discussion & Everything Else : General Discussion & Everything Else

Kahr 40 or M&P 9c for CCW opinions please

Post

User

7jinxed7

Posted: May 1st 2010, 03:29 PM

I have been looking at both of these pistols for ccw during hot weather but can't decide.The Kahr 40 had a amazing price of $419.00 and M&P was about $529.00. Both seem like good ccw pistols.I have also considered the ruger lcr .38 but I'm not really a revolver fan.I owned a M&P fullsize before and it was ok but i kinda miss it.So i considering replacing it with the 9c. I have never shot a Kahr or known anyone who has owned one. I like the fact it is single stack slim design. But i don't like that their is no safety on the Kahr. Anyone have any experience with the sub compact Kahr's?

Joined:
Location:

Jul 15th 09
TN US

Room 055

Posted: May 1st 2010, 03:59 PM

Why 40 S&W in one choice and 9mm in the other?

If you want 40, check out the S&W M&P 40 compact. It holds 10 plus 1 vs the Kahr's 6 plus 1 in 40S&W.

If you want a slim ultra concealment pistol in 9mm, compare the Kahr PM9 to the Kel Tec PF9. These two pistols are the slimist on the market. I carry KT PF9 every day now.

I was very impressed with the S&W M&P Compact 9mm when I compared it to the Springfield XD Compact 9mm for a friend. He ultimately went with the Springfield because it fit his hand better. The opposite was true for me. I preferred the feeling of the M&P. However, the price on the XD and the better barrel make it a real contender between the two.

Make sure you compare apples to apples with caliber, single vs stagger vs double stack, barrel length, and grip size. You're looking at new nice guns. IMHO, the S&W would win out in that apples to oranges comparison. Check out the S&W in 40 though, and check out the Kel Tec and Springfield as well. For slim, you can't beat the Kahr PM9 and Kel Tec PF9 though.

Joined:
Location:

Jan 8th 09
VA US

7jinxed7

Posted: May 1st 2010, 05:55 PM

No real reason for the calibers.It just happen to be what was in stock.Their isn't a good selection of sub-compacts loacally.I like 40cal usually but in this case for ccw I would really prefer a 9mm because of the size and comfort for me. The M&P was more comfortable to me. The Kahr almost seemed too slim. I'm worried the Kahr 40 as small as it is might be too much recoil. But it's a great price.

Joined:
Location:

Jul 15th 09
TN US

Room 055

Posted: May 1st 2010, 07:04 PM

Having handled a Taurus 24/7 in 40, I will attest to sub compact 40's having some kick. In a sub, I'd rather have more rounds, so 9mm would be my choice. I went with a very slim Kel Tec for that reason. I get 7 plus 1 in a single stack slim pistol. Is it too slim? I don't think so. It's a little slim in the palm, but the carry comfort far outweighs the handling discomfort. It's not a range gun. It's a defensive carry gun. Two very different things. If I was going to put hundreds of rounds through it at the range often, I would get something else. But, for concealment, there is nothing better in my mind. Everything is a trade off. If your body frame can conceal the M&P, try it in both 9 and 40 and see how you like the recoil. I think you'll find the M&P will handle the 40 recoil better than the Kahr in 40. For 9mm, it won't matter much.

Joined:
Location:

Jan 8th 09
VA US

Tac56

Posted: May 1st 2010, 08:30 PM

Room is very much on point here with his comments.

With that being said, I have shot both the guns you mention and each has it's merits. The Kahr .40 was easier to conceal and lighter, but the recoil was considerable when compaired to the 9mm M&P. .40 cal has a very 'snappy' and sudden recoil impulse and that is magnified with a small light weight gun. The trigger on the Kahr is a form of safety, in that it has to be completely pulled in order for the gun to fire. It also has a long but smooth stroke that takes some getting used to. I routinely carry my Kahr CW45 and shoot it quite well, but the recoil impulse is a much milder 'push' in .45 over the snap of the .40. That was one of my main reasons in going with the .45 instead of the slightly smaller .40.

The S&W M&P 9c is a great gun and I love the way it fits my hand. It isa little heavier and thicker, which equates to harder to conceal/carry, but only to a very small degree when compaired to the Kahr. The trade off is the fact that you get more ammo and less recoil in 9mm. Which is more of a concern to you?

I have a Kel-Tec PF9 that Room mentioned too, and his comments on it are dead on. It is a great carry gun, but you won't spend and entire afternoon at the range with it and a case of ammo trying to make small holes in paper targets at 50 yards with it. (if you do, you have a warped sense of the word 'fun')

My advise is settle on a caliber first, then start compairing apples to apples.

-Tac

Joined:
Location:

Jul 21st 09
AZ US

Mad_Max

Posted: May 2nd 2010, 09:53 AM

I'll just add this as my true experience :

I've carried quite a few different pistols and my choice is still the Glock 19......It gives you 15 plus 1 of 9mm, it's almost a full sized pistol in a sub-compact frame - so recoil isn't bad, It's inherently reliable/durable - I have carried and beat the crap outta mine.....

When you compare a Glock 19 to almost any other (Sub)compact - Your getting a whole lotta pistol for not much more size/weight in my humble opinion......The only other pistol out there currently catching my eye is the new Springfield XDM 3.8.....

Just my .02 cents.

Joined:
Location:

May 31st 09
FL US

7jinxed7

Posted: May 10th 2010, 08:35 PM

So made my mind up. I went with the M&P 9c.I put it on lay-a-way so it will be awhile before it's actually in my hands. The Kahr was already gone when I went back the following week.Oh well I felt it was a bit much in such a small pistol anyway.

The M&P 9C fits my hand great compared to my Glock 23.The M&P points straighter and aims very natural for me. I felt that that was very important in a CCW pistol since every second counts in a self defense situation. My G23 doesn't fit my hand properly so If I draw quick and try to fire quickly or try to do a double tap it is very difficult for me to find the front sight quickly. My Glock always seems to point to the right. The M&P9C is always perfectly straight and all sights are lined up without searching for the front sight. It's cheaper to shoot too. I think I made a good choice for me. I'll keep you posted and let you know how it does once i get it.

Joined:
Location:

Jul 15th 09
TN US

Tac56

Posted: May 10th 2010, 08:41 PM

You made a good choice.... And your observations about "pointability" are astute. It has a lot more to do with speed and accuracy than most will ever give it credit for.

Joined:
Location:

Jul 21st 09
AZ US

Room 055

Posted: May 10th 2010, 09:38 PM

Bravo Jinxed! Looking forward to the review.

Joined:
Location:

Jan 8th 09
VA US

Back to General Discussion & Everything Else

Navigation

Front Page

Forums

Search Forums

Users/Login