Kahr PM40 ? The good and bad please

[carlson1]

I have had the PM9 for awhile now. I did the 200 round break through with out one problem. It has performed flawlessly all this time. I carry it about 80% of the time with an extra magazine unless I am traveling then I carry a Sig with extra magazines.

I guess I was just fortunate and got a good one.

[The Annoyed Man]

I have two Kahrs and my wife has one. They are my PM9, my CW45, and my wife's CW9. It is true that the PM9 has a very stiff recoil spring, and this is for all practical purposes unavoidable in a 9mm pistol that small. For instance, this is one of the biggest complaints about the Kimber Solo 9mm pocket gun. My PM9 was purchased used, and it was manufactured in 2007. The other two were purchased new in the box, within the past 2 years or so. I have no clue as to round count on the PM9 before I purchased it, but it was in like new condition at the time. The other two, the "CW" pistols, have somewhat stiff recoil springs, but not that bad. In fact, the spring on my CW45 doesn't seem that much stiffer than the spring on my old 3" Kimber was. My wife has trouble racking the slide on her CW9, but that has more to do with neck/shoulder/carpal tunnel issues than with the pistol's design, as I have no trouble with it at all. We have had zero reliability issues with any of the three.

Here is my hypothesis, because this is not the first time A-R has posted that his PM40 was so unreliable........ The .40 S&W cartridge combines the snap of a higher velocity like the 9mm, with the heavier bullet weights approaching .45 territory. I am an experienced shooter, and it took me a LONG time to get accustomed to shooting the H&K USP Compact .40 I used to own. That, and the fact that I wanted to simply my caliber inventory picture at the time is why I sold it (which I regret today) and used the money to buy another .45 pistol. In any case, I think that the .40 S&W cartridge is harder on pistol frames than either the 9mm or the .45 ACP. Combine that with the fact that .40 caliber pistols tend to use the same frame, slide, trigger group, and other components (except for the actual barrel) designed for their less powerful 9mm siblings; while usually the same pistol design but in a .45 ACP version is necessarily scaled up to match the much larger cartridge dimensions, making that pistol strong enough to manage the pounding of recoil.

One of the reasons people like .40 caliber pistols is exactly because they don't sacrifice the weight and concealability of a 9mm pistol, while they get a more powerful cartridge. But the net effect is like boring out a cylinder to accommodate a bigger piston, without also using stronger and heavier connecting rods to offset the additional forces. Something is going to break.

A-R also told me a while back that Kahr had supposedly addressed the weakness of the .40 caliber PM pistols, and that this was no longer an issue—although I totally understand his unwillingness to try another one. I had the same experience with a beautiful to the eye Sig GSR Stainless Carry 1911 in a Commander length. It was a jewel. It also was a piece of crap that I never could get to run reliably......like it jammed on every 3rd round or so. I finally traded it in and bought my Kimber. I will likely never own another Sig 1911 for exactly that reason. I don't trust them.

Kahr's status in the gun world is reflected in their pricing. The high end guns are high priced, and they probably deserve the price. Their lower end guns are not junk at all, but neither are they quite as nice in the fit/finish department. The CW and CM line are mechanically identical to their more expensive siblings and use the same frames, but they save you money on the purchase by saving themselves money on the manufacturing side. Those savings mean that the slides have less complicated machining, less fancy rollmarks/engravings, and cheaper sights are mounted; and the barrels have standard rifling and production quality instead of being match grade with polygonal rifling like on the PM pistols. My PM9 has their "Black Diamond" coating over a stainless slide, and is equipped Trijicon night sights from the factory. Nevertheless, there is little or no discernable difference from a practical standpoint in shooting one over the other. The Kahr trigger isn't for everybody. If you like 1911 triggers ONLY, then you won't like the Kahr trigger. If you like revolver triggers, then you'll love the Kahr trigger. It is a long, smooth pull of about 5-6 lb with little or no stacking at the end. That long trigger pull is the gun's "safety." In that regard, a Kahr pistol is even more revolver-like than a Glock, the simplicity of which is often described as "revolver-like." The downside is that it also has a long trigger reset, just like a revolver. In the small guns, Kahr's recoil management is surprisingly good. To my perception, shooting any of our three Kahr's is no worse than shooting my 3" Kimber was, which is to say it is no big deal. All three of them, including the .45, will fit in my front pocket, although the .45 is pushing the envelope a bit on that one. But the PM9 disappears completely in my pocket, in a Desantis Nemesis holster, and carries even better than my minuscule .357 scandium snubby in a similar holster.

Takedown is only marginally more complicated than any other modern polymer framed pistol (you have to line up two lines on the slide and frame to push out the slide stop pin, after which the slide/barrel assembly slide right off the frame), and maintenance once field stripped is no different than any other gun.

My PM9 was already broken in when I bought it. My wife's NIB CW9 ran like a top right out of the box and never seemed to need any breakin. My CW45 required exactly 200 rounds to breakin....which is funny because that is the factory recommended breakin number. It has been dead nuts reliable ever since.

When I was looking for a single stack polymer framed .45, I already owned the PM9 and my wife already owned the CW9; and as I mentioned above, the ownership experience has been problem free. But for the sake of fiduciary responsibility, I also looked at the Glock 36 before settling on the CW45. The XDS wasn't a rumor yet, or I would have in all honesty probably bought it instead. In any case, I bought my Kahr CW45 at CTD in Fort Worth. The price was $399. The price for the Glock 36 was $565. The Glock wasn't a $166 better gun, and the ergonomics on the Kahr were simply superior to the Glock's. It was an easy decision to make. That is not to say that the G36 is a bad gun. It isn't. It's simply that it doesn't offer the value of the Kahr when price is compared:

With the Kahr, you get a polymer frame....Glock, check.
With the Kahr, you get a striker fired pistol......Glock, check.
With the Kahr, you get basic sights.....Glock, check.
With the Kahr, you get simplified maintenance........Glock, check.
With the Kahr, you get internal safety mechanisms and a "safe" trigger.........Glock, check.
With the Kahr, you get 6+1 capacity.......Glock, check.
With the Kahr, you get a stainless steel slide.........Glock, not so much.
With the kahr, the price is $399...........Glock $565.

Advantage: Kahr CW45

I own 6 different "carry" pistols, but only two of them have made it to EDC status....which is to say that 95% of the time or more, about half the time I'll be carrying one of them, and the other half of the time I'll be carrying the other. Those two are the CW45 and my XDM-45 Compact 3.8, and which gets carried depends on my wardrobe choices for that day. The Kahr is a bit flatter than the SA, and so if my shirt is closer fitting, that's the one I'll carry. Otherwise, I'll default to the larger capacity of the XDM. When deep concealment is necessary, I'll carry the PM9 or my snubbie (1 & 2 in that order). The last time I carried either of my full-sized semiautos was when I went hog hunting last September.

So, roughly half the time, I am staking my life on a Kahr pistol. MY advice, for what it is worth, is rent/borrow one if you can before buying. Personally I would eschew the .40 cal gun, but that is just my personal taste. And then whatever you choose, spend your money wisely.

[03Lightningrocks]

I think TAM should get some kind of prize for making the worlds longest post.

[CainA]

I think that the .40 S&W cartridge is harder on pistol frames than either the 9mm or the .45 ACP. Combine that with the fact that .40 caliber pistols tend to use the same frame, slide, trigger group, and other components (except for the actual barrel) designed for their less powerful 9mm siblings; while usually the same pistol design...

If this is the case, then it is an engineering issue and should be addressed by the manufacturer. Some things you can scale up or down linearly, but some things you can't.

Good post TAM.

[SecedeTX]

Dang TAM.

All I have to say is "ditto"

My Kahr is easily considered one of the "higher end" pistols that Kahr makes. I carry it 90% of the time and I personally think the 9mm is enough for what I need it for. I also have the Kahr 380 for my lighter carry instances, but if I can get away with it, why not carry the 9mm.

The only issues with my 9mm was when my wife tried to shoot it. She is 5 foot nothing, and weighs 100lbs, and was limp wristing the pistol. In the hands of a novice shooter I could see there being a problem, and taking into account TAM's exhaustive :) post, a less than solid grip could make the tight spring problem be a bit more magnified.

I purchased a 38 special revolver for my wife and have no "feeding problems" since!