close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

J frame 38p vs Kahr PM9, size n shootability?

Discussion in 'The Snubbie Club' started by sharpshooter, Sep 28, 2010.

  1. sharpshooter

    sharpshooter Member Millennium Member

    1,847
    20
    Dec 25, 1999
    NV
    Trying to decide between a J frame or LCR 38+p or a Kahr PM9 for pocket carry. Anyone have both? Comparison pics?
     
  2. Jdog

    Jdog

    954
    0
    Sep 10, 2007
    wasatch range
    a jframe that can shoot .357 would be the only one i'd consider like the 340pd.
    The pm9 is pretty flat and can hold more rounds. I wear mine in an IWB holster @4:30.
    I think it's to heavy for front pocket of most of my pants. To much flopping around for me
     


  3. G19aps

    G19aps

    378
    3
    Aug 2, 2009
    I've had both. The Kahr PM9 was more accurate, far easier to shoot and had better performance (vs 38+P). Sights were much better but consistent drawing from the pocket was more problematic than with the Centennial J. Unfortunately mine just wasn't reliable for me and that means everything. Sold it to a friend who never had my problems shooting it. I think if you want "more" than a J frame the next step up should be the G26/27.
     
  4. JK-linux

    JK-linux

    3,635
    0
    Mar 5, 2009
    I have a 642 and a PM9. I like them both but favor the J-Frame simply because I like revolvers. It's a bit bulkier than I'd like sometimes, which is why I purchased the PM9. The PM9 I actually forget I have on in an IWB. The PM9 is like concealing a Droid X cell phone - nothing to it.
     
  5. MSgt Dotson

    MSgt Dotson

    3,268
    8
    Sep 30, 2006
    The KelTec PF9 is plenty controllable, easier to shoot than j-Frame IMO...
     
  6. the perfesser

    the perfesser

    368
    0
    Jun 24, 2007
    My experiences exactly. And -- unlike G19aps's experiences -- my PM9 is both reliable and easy to draw from my pocket. That said -- and I carry very infrequently -- I slightly prefer the S&W Airweight 442 in my pocket, despite its bulkiness vs. the PM9 and the greater difficulty of shooting it well. But I know that it will always go bang (no misfeeds) and -- with its heavier trigger pill -- it is less susceptible to an involuntary discharge upon pocket draw or under stress.

    Let me make it easy for you. First get the snubbie, then later get the PM9. When the latter is a good one, it is very good. If it's not, well......
     
  7. Berto

    Berto woo woo

    24,177
    2,128
    Sep 15, 2003
    WA
    The Pm9 would be ideal if it worked all the time and carried more naturally, but small autos are a crapshoot.
    The J frame is more organic in shape, palms quicker from the pocket and shoots 158gr bullets at velocities the 9mm can't.
    ..and it works all the time.
     
  8. Chuck54

    Chuck54

    620
    0
    Nov 8, 2007
    I like my PM9 a lot.

    Can't remember the last time I carried my model 60.
     
  9. rk246

    rk246 Firewalker

    221
    0
    Dec 14, 2006
    Oregon
    I have a pm40 which is similar in size to the pm9 and a j frame that has the titanium cylinder. The J frame is definitely lighter, I put it on my wifes kitchen scale, the j frame is just over 14 oz loaded the pm40 is 1lb, 5 3/4 oz loaded. The J frame holds 5 +p the pm40 6. So round count is very similar. I have had a lot of reliability issues with my pm40. More with the extended mags, but it is very finicky, so much so that I don't trust it completely. I really like my J frame and it always goes boom when I pull the trigger. 38 +P is a very effective round, I have found my j frame to be very comfortable for in the pocket and ankle holster carry, it is usually my BUG.
     
  10. I can only attest to the J frame S&W, as I do not own an LCR or a Kahr. I pocket carry a 640 (38spl) routinely as a BUG and I just love it. As hokey as it sounds, I like the idea of a revolver for pocket carry. I can actually fire it from my pocket, if need be and in theory, I can get off 5 rounds, as oppose to a semi-auto, where I would only get off one round before it malfunctioned. I also don't have to worry about it being out of battery for deployment at contact distances, where all those expanding gases will assist in stopping the treat. Whatever you choose, just practice A LOT as if you're life depends on it, cause it just might.......Again, this is just my .02.....
     
  11. just hope the cylinder doesn't grab any pocket material (like inside pants pocket) that could lock up the cylinder...
    Bill
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2010
  12. Point well taken....The odds of actually having to fire live rounds through a jacket pocket at an adversary are pretty slim..but it can happen, depending on the circumstances....I'm not sure I'd like to try in through pants pockets. Again, I just like the idea of not having to worry about a revolver going out of battery at contact distances.
     
  13. oldtexan

    oldtexan

    113
    0
    Jul 15, 2005
    Texas
    This closely tracks with my experience. I still have my PM9 but I don't carry it anymore. My PM9 would snag the rear of the slide on the inside of the mouth of the pocket as I tried to draw it. My 642 draws easily and smoothly.
     
  14. nuclear g17

    nuclear g17

    192
    0
    Nov 30, 2005
    nc
    I had a PM9 and for several months it was reliable and it was very accurate. I had some problems with the trigger pin walking out and the bullet noses sitting down in the magazines. I traded it in on a Ruger LCR with big dot sight and boot grip. Good trade, revolvers are reliable.
     
  15. Steve 48

    Steve 48

    52
    0
    Apr 19, 2006
    St. John, Kansas
    I would rather carry my M60 in 357 than an semi auto.