[tmcneil6]

Mas,
I currently own a Kel-Tec PF-9 as my only self defense handgun. I had a Glock 36 that was too tempermental for me to rely on for a self defense situation. I shot the M&P 40 today for the first time and absolutely loved it. From 7 yards to 25 yards all 50 rounds were in the 8 ring on a B-27 target. I am having a hard time deciding between the Full Size M&P and the compact as well as 9mm vs .40. The caliber decision is based soley on price of ammo. I want to be able to shoot as much as I can to become as proficient as I can. The 9mm would allow more shooting for due to being $19.97 for 100 rounds vs $27.97 for 100 rounds of .40. As far as the full size vs compact, I want to be able to carry the gun comfortably, but also want the gun to be comfortable enough to shoot 200 rounds through at one time. My PF-9 is not fun at all to shoot due to the light weight. I'm sorry for all the rambling but I was wondering what your opinion is on my situation. Full size vs compact, and 9mm vs .40.

[Mas Ayoob]

Welcome to Glock Talk. I think you'll find the 9mm M&P Compact very comfortable to shoot, and the .40 version not much snappier than the full size one you've already enjoyed shooting.

The smaller the caliber, the fewer defense rounds there are you can trust. If you've laid in a good stock of premium 9mm loads, you're fine, and you're right about the practice ammo price advantage. However, when ammo gets hard to come by and you have to load with whatever you can find in the caliber, the .40 starts looking better.

best,
Mas

[tmcneil6]

Thank you very much for the quick reply. I think I will probably go with the M&P 40c just for ease of carry. I do like carrying the PF-9 but I would feel much more comfortable with the M&P due to better accuracy and increased round count. Thanks again Mas for your input. I feel very privileged to have you respond to my question, and thank you for offering your time on here.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine