PM40 or PM9 ?

[HadEmAll]

Got 'em both. Really like 'em both. Some days I appreciate the extra round in the PM9, (3 extra rounds counting the 2 other magazines I carry), and some days I appreciate the extra horsepower of the PM40. Vive la difference. Same shootability for me. The PM40 rubs a raw spot on my trigger finger that the PM9 doesn't, even with the hot Corbon, but that's at the range, and can be prevented by a strategically place bandaid. If I KNEW I'd be shooting somebody, I'd pick the PM40. If I KNEW I'd be running into multiple bad guys, I'd pick the PM9. But you never know, so back to my first sentence.

PM9 - Corbon 115 grain +P JHP - 1222 fps / 383 ft/lbs

PM40 - Winchester Ranger 155 grain JHP - 1131 fps / 443 ft/lbs

[O'Dell]

PM40 all the way. It's closer to a 45.

[John Law]

Duncan,
Welcome to the forum... When comparing these small poly guns you have to take into account their size and weight, the smaller and lighter the gun the more felt recoil. Again, as has been said, recoil is subjective, it bothers some more than others. I agree with Bawanna that there is more snap and felt recoil from the 40 than with the 45. While I have not shot a PM 40 I did shoot an MK40, comparing that to my PM9, follow up shots were faster and recoil was much less with the PM9. If you can find a range that rents them try shooting both, it will help with your choice. One other thing to keep in mind and I may get jammed with this, other than bullet size there is very little difference in performance between 9, 40 and 45, ballistically with todays JHP ammo they are all pretty close.. Pick the gun you are most comfortable with and that you shoot the best, than practice to become proficient. One other thing to consider is that 9mm is cheaper.
If you Google Tnoutdoors9 he has a you tube site where he tests all calibers of ammunition his reviews are very good, also Hickok 45 for gun reviews. JL

[dirty_sanchez]

John Law- John, are you the John Law from Memphis, Harding Academy in the 3rd grade in the mid-70's?

Dirty

[wyntrout]

I would advise shooting a PM40 before buying one. I have a Mag-na-ported P40 and a PM45. The two are somewhat similar in recoil with the 'porting on the .40, but I would think that the PM40 would be no fun for MUCH shooting at the range with full recoil.

Also, +1 on John Law's advice about the Internet videos.

JMHO...YMMV

Wynn

[kahrlover123]

Another vote for PM9.
Here are my reasons:
1) less recoil
2) lighter with loaded
3) lots cheaper ammo
4) more accurate
5) within 5-7 yards encounter, either 9 or 40 will get the same result if you hit dead on spot

[John Law]

dirty sanchez... thats a negative I'm originally from NY, the John Law came from the days when I was on NYPD.

[JFootin]

dirty sanchez... thats a negative I'm originally from NY, the John Law came from the days when I was on NYPD.

John, this is interesting. You need to post it in the "Screen name?" thread, too: http://kahrtalk.com/showthread.php?t...ghlight=screen

[donnyboy108]

If this gun will be used for self defense, I would go with the PM40. Better track record in the field.

[John Law]

JFootin.. Done I used your link, I couldnt find it any other way.

[MO_Soldier]

5. The published results of shooting various media (gelatin, ballistic soap, and water filled jugs) that I recall seeing seem to indicate that the larger .40 S&W round has larger wound channel (even if neither expand). At the same time, .40 S&W usually exhibits greater expansion, and similar penetration, making it the better social use round in the opinion of many police departments and other law enforcement agencies.

I won't argue that the .40S&W isn't a proven round. But terminal ballistics suggest that the temporary AND permanent wound cavities created by the 9mm and .40S&W AND .45ACP to be negligible. They also conclude that the differences DO NOT compensate enough for shot placement.

I for one, don't have any problems shooting some popular .45ACP sub-compact pistols like many of you will probably use to rebute the point I made. BUT, if you can shoot a .45 or .40 accurately, I ask you; How much MORE accurately could you shoot the 9mm? Food for thought.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_De.../index.htm#9mm

[ltxi]

All my Glocks are .40s. All my .40s are Glocks. They do very well in their place. My ultra compact, LW concealed carry arms are .38/.380/9mm/.22mag in standard pressure. That's 'cause it's what I'm comfortable with and know I shoot well from these kind of guns under stress.

Figure out what actually just works for you and go with it. Theory and 500 pages of statistical data obsession suddenly become completely irrelevant when the shtf.

[O'Dell]

Another vote for PM9.
Here are my reasons:
1) less recoil
2) lighter with loaded
3) lots cheaper ammo
4) more accurate
5) within 5-7 yards encounter, either 9 or 40 will get the same result if you hit dead on spot

I think I would also question that a 9mm is more accurate. I know I shoot a 40 better than a 9. Same question about the results at seven yards.

I'll still vote for the 40.

[MO_Soldier]

Figure out what actually just works for you and go with it. Theory and 500 pages of statistical data obsession suddenly become completely irrelevant when the shtf.

That's really what it comes down to, which probably sucks for OP to keep hearing. I know that when I was looking for my 1st pistol, I just wanted a definitive answer as to what was best, because I didn't have access to shooting tons of guns. But that's just the nature of the beast.

[TominCA]

Another vote for the PM9 - (I have never shot the PM40) I got the nine becuase I have a lot of 9's and the practice ammo is cheap and now that I have many rounds through it - for me it is about the most power I would want in a small gun.

The PM9 is such a good gun I don't think you could go wrong with either one!