PM40 vs. MK40

[cmichael22]

Which you think is better and why?

[kerby9mm]

I own a mk40 & it is one of my 2 favorite guns. The other being my mk9. The 40 from the get-go is just a little smoother,tighter fitted by just a tad. IMO the only thing better about the pm is it's lighter weight but with the OWB concealment holster I carry it in the extra few ounces is not noticable. I don't own any poly guns because I like the feel of steel and as far as Kahrs go have less problems.

[Joe L]

I have a PM40 and would love to try an MK40, just to see how much more comfortable it is to shoot. I carry a CM9 and occasionally the PM40 but I don't shoot the PM40 much because the recoil is pretty strong. I love the accuracy and the feel of the gun, however. I have two alloy SIG P226s but have bought an all stainless P226 and an X-5 and really like the extra weight of the all stainless guns, thus my interest in an MK40.

I don't think you can go wrong with either, just depends on whether you like/want the additional weight of the MK40.

Joe

[Barth]

Which you think is better and why?

Recoil is subjective and opinions vary.
I 'd rent or borrow both, or similar guns, and make a decision yourself.

Generally speaking, for most folks, the Stainless guns are a little heavy for extended pocket (MK9/MK40)
The Polymer guns are lighter and have more recoil.
But pocket carry better.

Personally I think the light polymer guns are best in 9mm.
More fun to shoot and practice with.

On a belt the stainless guns are great.
And the additional weight soaks up the recoil nicely, even in 40.
I have an MK40 Elite and enjoy shooting it very much with the hottest LE ammo.

Taking my own advice, when interested in a Kahr, I rented a P9, P40 and K40.
That experience was necessary and made my decision easy and clear.

Reading others thoughts and experiences is a good thing.
But will only take you so far.
Not all the way to an answer for you - IMHO.

[O'Dell]

First, I've never owned a PM40, but I have had a PM45, and I do own a PM9 and a MK40. I'm not recoil sensitive and I did shoot a PM40 some years ago, and I don't remember it as a major Problem. The big advantage of the PM40 is that it's a pocket gun which makes it more accessible for carry. The MK40 is not, it's too heavy. I bought the MK40 because I got a great deal on it, and it has proved a reliable and accurate pistol. For me, it's more accurate and easier to shoot than my PM9 because of the extra weight.

Personally, I think the MK is a better looking gun, but that's just my opinion.

[bonjorno2]

Pocket carry pm.... Iwb carry mk

[Barth]

Pocket carry pm.... Iwb carry mk

How come I took a whole page to say that?
Don't answer please.

[cmichael22]

I was thinking that the MK40 would be best for target practice and having the PM40 for carry since its like 8oz lighter but also packs more of a punch.

[Gliderguy]

If there is any difference in barrel length between the PM and the MK, it is not enough for one or the other to "pack more of a punch". Velocity or energy wise, there is no statistical significant difference between the two pistols. I thought the barrel length was the same for both PM and MK, on the PM40 it is 3.07 inches. The first two inches do about 3/4 of the work of speeding up the projectile, the next inch or two only add maybe 100 fps each or so. Once a barrel is out to 5 or 6 inches or so, doubling it MAYBE nets you another 100fps. This is for AUTO pistol calibers like 9mm, 40 S&W, 45 ACP. These calibers run out of steam on a 12 to 16 inch carbine length barrel where the velocities just kind of stagnate and additional barrel only might help by giving you a longer sight radius for better functional accuracy. The magnum revolver calibers like .357, .41, and .44 with correspondingly larger case capacities can really put to use barrels out to 6 or 8 inches before additional barrel length only gives small returns, but are still accelerating and gaining velocity at 18 inches of barrel lenght or more.

[Gliderguy]

It occurred to me that maybe you just meant the PM series has more recoil, and that would be true, if that is what you meant by "packs more of a punch" I really like my PM40, I think the .40 does about as well as any caliber out of a 3 inch barrel with minimal losses, but I think my hand would get tired from the recoil if I was firing more than maybe 100 rounds in a single session. I had drooled over the idea of a MK40, but never ran across one for sale when I had funds to pick up a pistol.

[jocko]

at the range, how cold one notlove the Mk series over any PM series?/ Just two different guns. I love my PM ( but wouldnot have 32K runds oput of a PM40 that is for sure. It is a gun that will save ur life, no doubt but IMO just not a 150-200 round range gun. accept it for that and a PM40 is IMO the way to go. If u want more pleasure in shooting a 40 kahr, get a steel version. If u waste band carry it, then steel is good. Thats why I stick tomy 9's. not alot of decision making needed. a simple gun for a "simple" man. Just sayin

[cmichael22]

Is one better for IWB carry anyone know?

[Gliderguy]

Just the weight difference to recommend the PM. If you want to add a laser, there is a Crimson trace grip version for the MK that doesn't bulk up the gun and will still work with whatever holster you might already have. If you don't care about the laser, then choose the PM for the lighter weight and ease of carry.

I don't have the MK, but I understand at some point there was some kind of change on the frame around the grips and there may be a compatibility issue for fitting the laser grips. I am sure an MK owner will bounce in here and set the details of that point right.

[jeepster09]

Is one better for IWB carry anyone know?

My MK40 is great IWB and my PM40 is also good that way {just lighter :=]}. The MK40 is a better shooter, however both are Magnaported and both shoot well.

[Barth]

If there is any difference in barrel length between the PM and the MK, it is not enough for one or the other to "pack more of a punch".

MK40 03 and PM40 both have 3.0" barrels.
There is no difference.