Aaronhome27
Sharpshooter
I know there is a plethora of reviews and comparisons on firearms. I am looking for hands on comparisons on what YOU own and know. You hear a lot of "I know a guy who has" or "I read that if" ...... and so on. You can read a lot of reviews and bad publicity also. I know when I wanted to buy my S&W 329 PD I hit the interweb to see what people we saying. The thing that always popped up was that of a catastrophic failure. After reading about these failures on nearly every thread it boiled down to one single highly talked about failure. Yes it was a bad failure that is still not 100% known on the cause. But as I read through these chats I saw hundreds of very satisfied owners.
I am not doing a review per say, just a simple comparison of two .40 S&W pistols that I have and own. I prefer smaller carry pistols to the larger high capacity ones. This is just my personal preference as everyone has. My preferred caliber is .40 S&W for the power that it has but yet the ability to have somewhat of a small package and good capacity. I am going to do a comparison on a Glock 27 and a Kahr PM40. Both great guns in their own right and both very reliable, well at least the ones I have. Both of mine have been 100% with a mixed bag of all kinds of ammo.
First off lets talk about gun control and accuracy. Let me start out by saying that I do not have large hands. That is why you can see a minor grip reduction in the Glock. Simply put, a stock Glock just does not fit me well or point correctly. With a few minor modifications I made mine fit and it now does it very well. The Kahr on the hand is a bit small. I hate to say it but if you have large hands it more than likely will not fit you. Yes you can add a grip do dad to make the grip larger but personally I wont add one because it makes it harder to conceal and draw because of the "sticky" nature of rubber when rubbed against clothing. The Kahr still fits me pretty well even though it is on the smaller side and points VERY well for me naturally in its stock form. Now, with both firearms that fit it is time for accuracy. Both can be very accurate. For me the Kahr has superior accuracy when it comes to punching holes in paper. I am not saying Glocks are not accurate but for me the Kahr is exceptional. At 25 yards I can place nearly 3 mags of ammo in a 2"-2 1/2" circle with many touching. The Glock on the other hand is about twice that if not a tad more. Both guns are easily controlled in recoil also, IF you train with them and they fit you correctly. Although recoil is a little sharp you can still do quite well with proper grip and form. I do not think I would recommend either one to a new gun owner or first time shooter though. As you can see in the video below my 16 year old son has trained a bit and is extremely accurate with the Kahr.
[ame]http://youtu.be/ZxH032Tx7-g[/ame]
Both pistols are very well made for the class of arms they are in. The Kahr is a more expensive pistol of the two and it shows. The feed ramp is very nicely polished and this gun is very tight. I have yet to get the gun super dirty and tried to do a torture test. Really I have no real interest in doing so. On the other hand the Glock is a bit looser in fit. But this does not seem to affect anything in the control of the gun. As many have seen they can take the torture and dirty environments do not seem to bother a good old glock. I personally think the looser tolerances have a lot to do with this. Could a Kahr handle the torture test that I have seen done to the Glock?? I dont know and don't want to beat mine to death to find out but with the tighter tolerances in it I am inclined to not think so.
When it comes to size, conceal-ability, and point of use both guns have a role in my carry routine. The glock on paper looks close in size to the Kahr. If you try to conceal carry each of them you will see there IS a big difference those little numbers don't show. In conceal carry I notice every little bit. The Kahr is so much easier for me to conceal comfortably. I know many CC the Glock every day but for me it is still just to big. The role of my Kahr is to fill this role. The Kahr has a lower capacity also so it is meant for "get me out of here" situations. the Glock on the other hand fills the role for me, with its higher capacity, as outdoor and hiking duty where I am not concerned about having it concealed or printing. When I am hunting I feel very comforted knowing I have 10+1 rounds of .40 S&W sitting on my side with an additional two 9 round mags ready for action. And for night stand duty the Glock also fill the role nicely. My Glock has factory installed night sights. This makes it so easy to find in my dark room at night when I want to grab something and go. If I hear something I can look on the night stand and see where my Glock is sitting and grab it easily.
Now for a few poorly taken rookie comparison photos
I know the pistols are a bit dirty but they spent some time on the range today.
This thread is to get personal experience and comparison input to share with others. I did not start it to get into a caliber war or this gun is better than that gun kind of debate. There are plenty of threads to argue that out or to read second hand information that has spread on the net.
I am not doing a review per say, just a simple comparison of two .40 S&W pistols that I have and own. I prefer smaller carry pistols to the larger high capacity ones. This is just my personal preference as everyone has. My preferred caliber is .40 S&W for the power that it has but yet the ability to have somewhat of a small package and good capacity. I am going to do a comparison on a Glock 27 and a Kahr PM40. Both great guns in their own right and both very reliable, well at least the ones I have. Both of mine have been 100% with a mixed bag of all kinds of ammo.
First off lets talk about gun control and accuracy. Let me start out by saying that I do not have large hands. That is why you can see a minor grip reduction in the Glock. Simply put, a stock Glock just does not fit me well or point correctly. With a few minor modifications I made mine fit and it now does it very well. The Kahr on the hand is a bit small. I hate to say it but if you have large hands it more than likely will not fit you. Yes you can add a grip do dad to make the grip larger but personally I wont add one because it makes it harder to conceal and draw because of the "sticky" nature of rubber when rubbed against clothing. The Kahr still fits me pretty well even though it is on the smaller side and points VERY well for me naturally in its stock form. Now, with both firearms that fit it is time for accuracy. Both can be very accurate. For me the Kahr has superior accuracy when it comes to punching holes in paper. I am not saying Glocks are not accurate but for me the Kahr is exceptional. At 25 yards I can place nearly 3 mags of ammo in a 2"-2 1/2" circle with many touching. The Glock on the other hand is about twice that if not a tad more. Both guns are easily controlled in recoil also, IF you train with them and they fit you correctly. Although recoil is a little sharp you can still do quite well with proper grip and form. I do not think I would recommend either one to a new gun owner or first time shooter though. As you can see in the video below my 16 year old son has trained a bit and is extremely accurate with the Kahr.
[ame]http://youtu.be/ZxH032Tx7-g[/ame]
Both pistols are very well made for the class of arms they are in. The Kahr is a more expensive pistol of the two and it shows. The feed ramp is very nicely polished and this gun is very tight. I have yet to get the gun super dirty and tried to do a torture test. Really I have no real interest in doing so. On the other hand the Glock is a bit looser in fit. But this does not seem to affect anything in the control of the gun. As many have seen they can take the torture and dirty environments do not seem to bother a good old glock. I personally think the looser tolerances have a lot to do with this. Could a Kahr handle the torture test that I have seen done to the Glock?? I dont know and don't want to beat mine to death to find out but with the tighter tolerances in it I am inclined to not think so.
When it comes to size, conceal-ability, and point of use both guns have a role in my carry routine. The glock on paper looks close in size to the Kahr. If you try to conceal carry each of them you will see there IS a big difference those little numbers don't show. In conceal carry I notice every little bit. The Kahr is so much easier for me to conceal comfortably. I know many CC the Glock every day but for me it is still just to big. The role of my Kahr is to fill this role. The Kahr has a lower capacity also so it is meant for "get me out of here" situations. the Glock on the other hand fills the role for me, with its higher capacity, as outdoor and hiking duty where I am not concerned about having it concealed or printing. When I am hunting I feel very comforted knowing I have 10+1 rounds of .40 S&W sitting on my side with an additional two 9 round mags ready for action. And for night stand duty the Glock also fill the role nicely. My Glock has factory installed night sights. This makes it so easy to find in my dark room at night when I want to grab something and go. If I hear something I can look on the night stand and see where my Glock is sitting and grab it easily.
Now for a few poorly taken rookie comparison photos
I know the pistols are a bit dirty but they spent some time on the range today.
This thread is to get personal experience and comparison input to share with others. I did not start it to get into a caliber war or this gun is better than that gun kind of debate. There are plenty of threads to argue that out or to read second hand information that has spread on the net.
Last edited: