Kahr MK9 vs MK40

Diggerdawg · January 12, 2009, 07:21 PM

Was thinking of getting the Kahr MK and would prefer to get the .40 but was looking for advice on whether to get the 9 or the .40. I am a little concerned that the .40 will recoil too much to be tolerable for practice vs. the 9mm. I handle recoil pretty well, for example have no problem with 38 +P in a 13 oz. M&P340 snubbie.

What do you say, get the .40 or the 9mm?

This would not be primarily a range gun but would like it to be something that I won't hate practicing with.

Thanks

TacticalDefense1911 · January 12, 2009, 07:54 PM

I whole heartedly recommend the 9mm. With todays ammunition the 9mm is a very effective self defense caliber. That combined with much lighter recoil then the 40 s&w make it a great caliber for small handguns. The extra control you get with the 9mm is well worth it.

JohnPaul · January 12, 2009, 08:15 PM

I have the PM9 so it is a lot lighter than the MK series and the recoil is pretty mild - my daughter shoots it all the time no probs - anywhoo, I would think with the MK you could go either the 9 or the 40, but I would go with the 9 IMHO. Her is a video of me shooting the PM9 if u want to check out the recoil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RafiJ...el_page&fmt=18

BTW - awesome choice on the MK, I will definately add one to my collection one day

Dr_2_B · January 12, 2009, 11:30 PM

I like my MK40. Recoil is fairly snappy. I happen to agree that the new 9mm ammo makes it viable as a defensive round and I wouldn't have said that 5 years ago. If I were buying now I probably would choose the 9, but it'd be the PM9. The PM series gives you the option of pocket carrying whereas the MK series is just a little too heavy and tends to print in a pocket.

That being said, if I have reason to believe a particular day may be a little more dangerous than normal, I'll still reach for a caliber that starts with a 4.

TimNelson · January 13, 2009, 08:04 AM

If your concerned about recoil I would go with the 9. The kahr is so small it has some hard recoil in the .40

Playboypenguin · January 13, 2009, 01:08 PM

If you are a recoil wuss, get the MK9. If not buy a padded shooting glove and get the .40S&W. The extra power is well worth it. This gun is too small to be a range gun that you spend a whole lot of time with anyway so you need to consider it's intended purpose . I am betting that purpose is self defense. Since it is a self defense gun you would want any advantage you can get. Ammo price would not be something that I dwelled on in a self defense gun.

PS: Around here, defensive 9mm ammo has been a distant memory for awhile but you can always find .40S&W.

TacticalDefense1911 · January 13, 2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Around here, defensive 9mm ammo has been a distant memory for awhile but you can always find .40S&W.

Thank goodness for the internet...plenty of self defense 9mm available there

harrydog · January 13, 2009, 08:37 PM

Quote:

get the .40S&W. The extra power is well worth it.

That's a matter of opinion. The difference in "power" is marginal but the difference in recoil is fairly significant in a small gun. Virtually anyone will be able to shoot the MK9 better than they do the MK40. Speed and accuracy trump "power" any day of the week.

Diggerdawg · January 13, 2009, 08:53 PM

Playboy Penguin: I assume you are kidding with the "recoil wuss" comment

...there is a strong argument to be made that the speed and accuracy made possible by the lower recoil of 9mm make the MK9 a more effective self defense tool than the MK40 - as long as you use state of the art ammo such as Speer 124gr 9mm +P.

But that being the case I'm still undecided!

Thanks all for the comments.

Playboypenguin · January 13, 2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Playboy Penguin: I assume you are kidding with the "recoil wuss" comment...there is a strong argument to be made that the speed and accuracy made possible by the lower recoil of 9mm make the MK9 a more effective self defense tool than the MK40 - as long as you use state of the art ammo such as Speer 124gr 9mm +P.

Of couse I am kidding, but I am not kidding about the added penetration being worth the extra recoil. How many defensive shootings do you ever see where rapid follow up shots are needed at long range? Plus, the .40S&W is an extremely controllable round as long as you have strong enough hands to do it. If you follow that "you can shoot them more times more accurately with a 9mm" philosophy shouldn't you just keep following along those lines and carry a .25acp?

Keep in mind I am only choosing the .40S&W over the 9mm, since those are the choices you put forth...and the only calibers in which this gun is chambered. If it was a more open comparison I would choose other calibers.

When you get down to it, the .40S&W can do everything the 9mm can do...but not vice versa.

Diggerdawg · January 13, 2009, 09:39 PM

PBP: that makes sense. Have you ever shot a hot 38 +P (such as buffalo bore) load out of a lightweight snubbie like a M&P 340? How would you compare MK40 recoil to it? I'm guessing it might be somewhat similar - and I have no problem with the recoil of the M&P340.

Playboypenguin · January 13, 2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

PBP: that makes sense. Have you ever shot a hot 38 +P (such as buffalo bore) load out of a lightweight snubbie like a M&P 340? How would you compare MK40 recoil to it? I'm guessing it might be somewhat similar - and I have no problem with the recoil of the M&P340.

I would say that the .40S&W round is less punishing than a .38spl+p such as a Buffalo Bore round. It is definitely less punishing than a .357mag IMHO. You do have to remember that I have only shot .38spl+p rounds out of j-frame revolvers and the .40S&W out of autos. The different grip configurations do play a part in the felt recoil. I prefer the .357sig though. It seems easier to handle to me. I am guessing it has something to do with having less mass shoved out the end of the barrel.

Diggerdawg · January 13, 2009, 10:05 PM

Thanks

TacticalDefense1911 · January 14, 2009, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Of couse I am kidding, but I am not kidding about the added penetration being worth the extra recoil.

Almost all self defense ammunition today is designed to penetrate 12"-14" regardless of caliber so this is a moot point.

dirksterg30 · January 14, 2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Of couse I am kidding, but I am not kidding about the added penetration being worth the extra recoil.

A quality 9mm round will penetrate just as deep as a .40 will. The only thing a .40 has over the 9mm is marginally greater expansion, with a slightly larger wound channel/permanent cavity.

Image below was taken from this page: AR-15 self-defense ammo FAQ

Playboypenguin · January 14, 2009, 01:07 PM

dirksterg30,

That chart has been around for quite awhile, and it is cute and all, but go do some actual testing of your own and you will find it is not all that accurate a representation. Especially against hard barriers.

harrydog · January 14, 2009, 01:20 PM

Hard barriers? That's as much a matter of bullet design as it is caliber from what I've read. Besides, shooting through hard barriers might be something that law enforcement often does but you probably shouldn't be doing that in a self defense situation.

Playboypenguin · January 14, 2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Hard barriers? That's as much a matter of bullet design as it is caliber from what I've read. Besides, shooting through hard barriers might be something that law enforcement often does but you probably shouldn't be doing that in a self defense situation.

So if you are at the mall and a guy comes in and starts shooting you will not shoot back if he is standing behind a trash can? You will say "this is a job for the police" and stand there with your cell phone dialing 911?

Like I said, do your own testing and see what results you get. I will await your results.

harrydog · January 14, 2009, 01:46 PM

I haven't done any testing through trash cans or car windshields. Maybe you can share your controlled, scientific testing with us? I'd love to hear all about it.

Playboypenguin · January 14, 2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

I haven't done any testing through trash cans or car windshields. Maybe you can share your controlled, scientific testing with us? I'd love to hear all about it.

Do a simple thread search. You will find my results. Where can I find yours?

Also, I notice you did not answer the question. Would you not fire back if he was standing behind a trash can. If you say yes, you would probably want the better hard barrier penetrating round.

TacticalDefense1911 · January 14, 2009, 02:06 PM

The mall ehhh...?!?!

MALL NINJA!

Playboypenguin · January 14, 2009, 02:10 PM

Quote:

MALL NINJA!

You can't always count on Mall Ninja to save you. He is only one man. At least I think that is only one man under all that. It might be at least two.

TacticalDefense1911 · January 14, 2009, 02:14 PM

LOL, I just love that picture for some reason. I had to break it out at the mention of the "mall".

dirksterg30 · January 14, 2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

That chart has been around for quite awhile, and it is cute and all, but go do some actual testing of your own and you will find it is not all that accurate a representation. Especially against hard barriers.

So obviously you have done testing yourself, right? Let's see your test results. How about posting a link?

And while you think the chart is "cute and all", have you done any testing that invalidates it? Have you checked out the link I posted?

TacticalDefense1911 · January 14, 2009, 02:36 PM

Personally, I'd take either or but thats just me...it all comes down to what your criteria are for you carry load. Personally, I dont see steel barrier performance as a necessity for my carry load but that is my criteria. Decide for yourself.

(from StoppingPower.net's "test bed")

10% Ballistic Gelatin Tests for:
Corbon 9mm 115gr. +p DPX

Testing Platform:
Glock 19

Barrier:
2 layers of 16 gauge steel

TEST RESULTS:

Round # 1:
Penetration: 7.25"
Recovered Weight: 114.3 gr.
Expansion*: .440cal.
Note: Made it through both layers of steel.

10% Ballistic Gelatin Tests for:
Corbon .40 S&W 140gr. DPX

Testing Platform:
Browning High Power

Barrier:
2 Layers of 16 gauge steel

TEST RESULTS:

Round # 1:
Penetration: 12.50"
Recovered Weight: 139.0 gr.
Expansion*: .507 cal.

January 12, 2009, 07:21 PM	#1
Diggerdawg Member Join Date: April 26, 2008 Posts: 25	Kahr MK9 vs MK40 Was thinking of getting the Kahr MK and would prefer to get the .40 but was looking for advice on whether to get the 9 or the .40. I am a little concerned that the .40 will recoil too much to be tolerable for practice vs. the 9mm. I handle recoil pretty well, for example have no problem with 38 +P in a 13 oz. M&P340 snubbie. What do you say, get the .40 or the 9mm? This would not be primarily a range gun but would like it to be something that I won't hate practicing with. Thanks

January 12, 2009, 08:15 PM	#3
JohnPaul Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2008 Location: UTAH Posts: 218	MK series - AWESOME ! I have the PM9 so it is a lot lighter than the MK series and the recoil is pretty mild - my daughter shoots it all the time no probs - anywhoo, I would think with the MK you could go either the 9 or the 40, but I would go with the 9 IMHO. Her is a video of me shooting the PM9 if u want to check out the recoil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RafiJ...el_page&fmt=18 BTW - awesome choice on the MK, I will definately add one to my collection one day __________________ Infidel ? - Who, me??

January 13, 2009, 08:53 PM	#9
Diggerdawg Member Join Date: April 26, 2008 Posts: 25	Playboy Penguin: I assume you are kidding with the "recoil wuss" comment...there is a strong argument to be made that the speed and accuracy made possible by the lower recoil of 9mm make the MK9 a more effective self defense tool than the MK40 - as long as you use state of the art ammo such as Speer 124gr 9mm +P. But that being the case I'm still undecided! Thanks all for the comments.

January 12, 2009, 07:54 PM	#2
TacticalDefense1911 Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,277	I whole heartedly recommend the 9mm. With todays ammunition the 9mm is a very effective self defense caliber. That combined with much lighter recoil then the 40 s&w make it a great caliber for small handguns. The extra control you get with the 9mm is well worth it.

January 13, 2009, 08:04 AM	#5
TimNelson Senior Member Join Date: December 8, 2008 Posts: 304	If your concerned about recoil I would go with the 9. The kahr is so small it has some hard recoil in the .40

January 13, 2009, 01:08 PM	#6
Playboypenguin Junior member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: Great Pacific Northwest Posts: 11,515	If you are a recoil wuss, get the MK9. If not buy a padded shooting glove and get the .40S&W. The extra power is well worth it. This gun is too small to be a range gun that you spend a whole lot of time with anyway so you need to consider it's intended purpose . I am betting that purpose is self defense. Since it is a self defense gun you would want any advantage you can get. Ammo price would not be something that I dwelled on in a self defense gun. PS: Around here, defensive 9mm ammo has been a distant memory for awhile but you can always find .40S&W.

January 13, 2009, 09:39 PM	#11
Diggerdawg Member Join Date: April 26, 2008 Posts: 25	PBP: that makes sense. Have you ever shot a hot 38 +P (such as buffalo bore) load out of a lightweight snubbie like a M&P 340? How would you compare MK40 recoil to it? I'm guessing it might be somewhat similar - and I have no problem with the recoil of the M&P340.

January 13, 2009, 10:05 PM	#13
Diggerdawg Member Join Date: April 26, 2008 Posts: 25	Thanks

January 14, 2009, 01:07 PM	#16
Playboypenguin Junior member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: Great Pacific Northwest Posts: 11,515	dirksterg30, That chart has been around for quite awhile, and it is cute and all, but go do some actual testing of your own and you will find it is not all that accurate a representation. Especially against hard barriers.

January 14, 2009, 01:20 PM	#17
harrydog Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2000 Posts: 283	Hard barriers? That's as much a matter of bullet design as it is caliber from what I've read. Besides, shooting through hard barriers might be something that law enforcement often does but you probably shouldn't be doing that in a self defense situation.

January 14, 2009, 01:46 PM	#19
harrydog Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2000 Posts: 283	I haven't done any testing through trash cans or car windshields. Maybe you can share your controlled, scientific testing with us? I'd love to hear all about it.

January 14, 2009, 02:06 PM	#21
TacticalDefense1911 Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,277	The mall ehhh...?!?! MALL NINJA!

January 14, 2009, 02:14 PM	#23
TacticalDefense1911 Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,277	LOL, I just love that picture for some reason. I had to break it out at the mention of the "mall".

January 14, 2009, 02:36 PM	#25
TacticalDefense1911 Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,277	Personally, I'd take either or but thats just me...it all comes down to what your criteria are for you carry load. Personally, I dont see steel barrier performance as a necessity for my carry load but that is my criteria. Decide for yourself. (from StoppingPower.net's "test bed") 10% Ballistic Gelatin Tests for: Corbon 9mm 115gr. +p DPX Testing Platform: Glock 19 Barrier: 2 layers of 16 gauge steel TEST RESULTS: Round # 1: Penetration: 7.25" Recovered Weight: 114.3 gr. Expansion: .440cal. Note: Made it through both layers of steel. 10% Ballistic Gelatin Tests for: Corbon .40 S&W 140gr. DPX Testing Platform: Browning High Power Barrier: 2 Layers of 16 gauge steel TEST RESULTS: Round # 1: Penetration: 12.50" Recovered Weight: 139.0 gr. Expansion: .507 cal.