kahr mk9 or mk40
- Thread starter rob i
- Start date
Boris Bush
Moderator
I had to decide between the P3at and p32 a bit ago. My brother has a P3at, and I have fired about 50 or so rounds from it. Being able to PLACE my shot fast is a larger priority than placeing marginaly larger holes (I saw pics of 32 acp and 40sw wounds in flesh, not gello, and the two looked so much alike, there was no noticeable difference) in a bad guy. On the otherhand I have used 9mm and 40sw on varmints the size of blackbirds upto whitetailed deer. I never noticed a difference in how either killed. As time went on I used 40sw less and the economy of 9mm far outweighed "mines bigger than yours" and I sold it, never looked back.
Try and shoot them both if possible, If the extra snap of the 40 makes you feel better, go for it. Otherwise 9mm will be just fine.
Oh, and if it matters, I got the P32. It is soooo small and veeeeeery accurate. I carry it as a backup to one of my carry CZs......
Try and shoot them both if possible, If the extra snap of the 40 makes you feel better, go for it. Otherwise 9mm will be just fine.
Oh, and if it matters, I got the P32. It is soooo small and veeeeeery accurate. I carry it as a backup to one of my carry CZs......
fishmagnet
New member
9 or 40
I'd opt for the 9mm, it'll be more fun to shoot/plink!
The .40 is an awesome round too, though I prefer it in a larger full-frame pistol.
I'd opt for the 9mm, it'll be more fun to shoot/plink!
The .40 is an awesome round too, though I prefer it in a larger full-frame pistol.
Trade-offs
Deiciding which size is all a matter of trade-offs.
9mm pros:
Cheap
Over-penetration is less of a concern
Less recoil
Probably less wear on the pistol
.40 pros:
More powerful
More confidence due to more power
More wear on the pistol
I have shot an MK40. I wouldn't want to go shoot 100 rounds out of it, but it wasn't particularly bad recoil. I definitely would buy the MK series, I would not get the cheaper CW series. I have compared the two side by side, where the MK40 had been shot significantly more rounds, but was in much better shape. Additionally, my friend with the CW40 has broken two magazines in 6 months. Each broke a different piece. At $35 each, that starts to add up. Getting back to the question, if you were a smaller person, I would buy 9mm due to reduced recoil. If you planned to shoot it a lot, I would buy the 9mm to save money. If this was primarily a CCW, I would buy .40 for the superior stopping power of .40. If this was a nightstand gun, strong arguments could be made for either caliber. Kahr makes a good pistol. I have heard some negative things, but the two data points I have seen have been positive (other than breaking magazines)
Deiciding which size is all a matter of trade-offs.
9mm pros:
Cheap
Over-penetration is less of a concern
Less recoil
Probably less wear on the pistol
.40 pros:
More powerful
More confidence due to more power
More wear on the pistol
I have shot an MK40. I wouldn't want to go shoot 100 rounds out of it, but it wasn't particularly bad recoil. I definitely would buy the MK series, I would not get the cheaper CW series. I have compared the two side by side, where the MK40 had been shot significantly more rounds, but was in much better shape. Additionally, my friend with the CW40 has broken two magazines in 6 months. Each broke a different piece. At $35 each, that starts to add up. Getting back to the question, if you were a smaller person, I would buy 9mm due to reduced recoil. If you planned to shoot it a lot, I would buy the 9mm to save money. If this was primarily a CCW, I would buy .40 for the superior stopping power of .40. If this was a nightstand gun, strong arguments could be made for either caliber. Kahr makes a good pistol. I have heard some negative things, but the two data points I have seen have been positive (other than breaking magazines)
thanks!
thank you all for the replies. I just purchased a brand new mk9 elite. Looking forward to it's arrival and will give a complete range report once I get to test it out.
thanks again, i do think that the 9mm will be a lot more enjoyable to shoot than the .40. I have a sig 239 in 40 cal. That has a very controllable kick in my opinion, but in a gun as small as the kahr mk, i think i'd rather it be a 9mm.
thanks again.
Rob
thank you all for the replies. I just purchased a brand new mk9 elite. Looking forward to it's arrival and will give a complete range report once I get to test it out.
thanks again, i do think that the 9mm will be a lot more enjoyable to shoot than the .40. I have a sig 239 in 40 cal. That has a very controllable kick in my opinion, but in a gun as small as the kahr mk, i think i'd rather it be a 9mm.
thanks again.
Rob
mountainclmbr
New member
I have the MK40 and really like the MK series. Mine took more than the average round count to break in. Mine took 300-400 rounds before it functioned perfectly. Good luck!
dirksterg30
New member
congrats on the purchase, rob i. The MK9 is a great little gun; just make sure you break it in first, and don't be surprised if you have some failures early on (for me, the slide didn't return all the way to battery a few times during the first 150 rounds or so.)
Here's mine with a C-TAC:
Here's mine with a C-TAC: