Kahr PM9 Vs J-frame
- Thread starter ..
- Start date
- Status
Preacherman
Member
Greetings, O double-dotted one! 
I have both of them, and find the PM9 (mine is the Covert version, with a barrel about ½" longer than the standard PM9) fits into my trouser pockets as easily as does the 642. However, I find that the PM9 really needs a pocket holster to stay properly aligned for a quick draw if necessary. The 642 can be sort of "wedged" in the right position, even without a holster.
I have both of them, and find the PM9 (mine is the Covert version, with a barrel about ½" longer than the standard PM9) fits into my trouser pockets as easily as does the 642. However, I find that the PM9 really needs a pocket holster to stay properly aligned for a quick draw if necessary. The 642 can be sort of "wedged" in the right position, even without a holster.starfuryzeta
Member
The covert is P series in length, but with a shortened PM series grip.
P-series:
http://www.kahr.com/pistols_KP9093.html
PM-series:
http://www.kahr.com/pistols_PM9093.html
Covert:
http://www.kahr.com/pistols_KPS9093.html
P-series:
http://www.kahr.com/pistols_KP9093.html
PM-series:
http://www.kahr.com/pistols_PM9093.html
Covert:
http://www.kahr.com/pistols_KPS9093.html
In my hands, my PM9 is more accurate, easier to shoot, and more fun to shoot than my wife's Centennial.
It also conceals easier in my pocket.
Right at the 1000 rd mark now, and with Winchester White Box, or Personal Defense jhp, or +P Gold Dots, it doesn't miss a beat.
Edited to add:
Personally, I would consider the Kahr to be the equal of the Smith in quality and workmanship.
It also conceals easier in my pocket.
Right at the 1000 rd mark now, and with Winchester White Box, or Personal Defense jhp, or +P Gold Dots, it doesn't miss a beat.
Edited to add:
Personally, I would consider the Kahr to be the equal of the Smith in quality and workmanship.
SapperLeader
Member
I have a jframe s&w 642 as a pocket bug. I love it, its a reasonably powerful round for close range encounters. I wear it as a house gun everyday, and slip it into a pants pocket as a backup to my full size pistol of the day every time I venture out into the world. That said, Im saving up for a Kahr PM9 with nightsights. I want something I can shoot out to farther distances that can be worn as a always gun with dress clothes, casual clothes, or while running. I just can shoot the j-frames out to the farther distances. I figure for dress occasions, the pm9 in the pocket, and the j-frame on the ankle should cover any situation I might encounter.
Kentucky Rifle
Member In Memoriam
You guys think there's anything in a PM9 which can rust?
My PM9 is the all black model. Right now, I'm using a "Nemesis" for pocket carry. Eventually, it will end up in a Hedley Pocket Holster. It isn't "wet" when I take it out at night, but it's warm. Body temp, I reckon. When I clean, I don't see any places that might rust, but I'd like to read some thoughts on the subject. (I've had my Glock 27 since about 1998 and I haven't seen any rust on it's "innards".) I've seen some weird stuff happen with pocket carry. Back when I bought my "first" carry pistol, a Colt Mustang Pocketlite, my gunshop owner started carrying the same type pistol in his pocket. For some reason, HIS developes a brown crusty crud on the aluminum frame. It's not rust or dirt or anything else I know of. My Mustang doesn't do this. He has to clean this crapola off with a dental pick! Weird.
KR
My PM9 is the all black model. Right now, I'm using a "Nemesis" for pocket carry. Eventually, it will end up in a Hedley Pocket Holster. It isn't "wet" when I take it out at night, but it's warm. Body temp, I reckon. When I clean, I don't see any places that might rust, but I'd like to read some thoughts on the subject. (I've had my Glock 27 since about 1998 and I haven't seen any rust on it's "innards".) I've seen some weird stuff happen with pocket carry. Back when I bought my "first" carry pistol, a Colt Mustang Pocketlite, my gunshop owner started carrying the same type pistol in his pocket. For some reason, HIS developes a brown crusty crud on the aluminum frame. It's not rust or dirt or anything else I know of. My Mustang doesn't do this. He has to clean this crapola off with a dental pick! Weird.
KR
I've got both.
The PM9 is much easier to shoot well, both by me and everyone who's tried both (and the 642 has a nice trigger job).
The PM9 has less felt recoil, even with +p rounds. The 642 is a bit of a beast with +p - not uncontrollable, but not exactly comfortable. A steel J-frame would be easier on the hand, harder on the pocket.
The PM9 arguably fires a better round, carries more of them, and is quicker to reload.
Both have been stellar in the reliability department - the PM9 isn't terribly fond of aluminium cases, but I don't use 'em except at the range, and then rarely.
The PM9 requires good hand strength to rack and strip, but only the extremely weak or arthritic would have problems.
I like both, but would highly recommend the Kahr.
The PM9 is much easier to shoot well, both by me and everyone who's tried both (and the 642 has a nice trigger job).
The PM9 has less felt recoil, even with +p rounds. The 642 is a bit of a beast with +p - not uncontrollable, but not exactly comfortable. A steel J-frame would be easier on the hand, harder on the pocket.
The PM9 arguably fires a better round, carries more of them, and is quicker to reload.
Both have been stellar in the reliability department - the PM9 isn't terribly fond of aluminium cases, but I don't use 'em except at the range, and then rarely.
The PM9 requires good hand strength to rack and strip, but only the extremely weak or arthritic would have problems.
I like both, but would highly recommend the Kahr.
fastbolt
Member
Depends ...
I know you specifically asked how the PM9 "carries", compared to the 642 ... but I can't answer that from personal experience, because I haven't "carried" a PM9. I carry a 642-1 quite a bit, however, as you appear to have also done ... and I like it a lot.
If you'll excuse the slight deviation from your topic, thought, I'd like to offer a brief opinion based upon my experience handling and shooting a PM9 ...
You really MUST shoot both, preferably side-by-side, using realistic defensive ammunition ... and decide for yourself if you like the way the PM9 shoots.
I'm sure it would "pocket" nicely for lawful CCW, simply based upon my handling of it.
I've handled and shot a PM9 belonging to another instructor at work ... and both he & I agreed that we both shoot our J-frames "better", meaning more accurately and faster ... than we do the PM9.
I can experience "better" recoil recovery and controllability with both my 642-1 and my CS9, even using +P ammunition in my 642-1 and +P+ ammunition in my CS9, than I can with standard pressure ammunition in the PM9. But THAT'S JUST ME ...
Of course, he's a bit annoyed that his PM9 is exhibiting some annoying functioning issues ... extraction, ejection and feeding malfunctions ... while the same pistol functioned just fine when I was using it, using Winchester 147gr JHP ammunition (USA9JHP2) from the same bulk order. The head armorer simply told him to shoot a couple boxes of +P+ ammunition through his PM9 to "break in" some of the sharp edges in the barrel hood & slide ... and see how it functions afterward.
Other folks, as you've noticed, have had very favorable experiences with the PM9. I've read some not-so-favorable ones, though ...
Well, that's what Warranties are for ...
When it comes to anecdotal personal experiences and opinions about both the J-frame 642 and the PM9 ... both pro & con ... EVERYBODY'S RIGHT!!!
For them, that is ...
I should mention that while I like DAO for my 642, I generally dislike DAO pistols ... which doesn't mean anything for anyone else.
IF I was going to buy a Kahr, however, I'd buy a K40. I've experienced reliable functioning and acceptable accuracy from both a K40 and a MK40 I've handled and shot. The MK40 shot a bit over 150 rounds, right out of the box, without any problems using Remington Express 180gr JHP's ... It's just that I felt the perceived recoil & controllability with the shorter gripped MK40 was less preferable to the K40 I borrowed and used. Both are probably a bit heavy for pocket-carry, though, for most of us ...
Sorry if I strayed too far off topic ...
I know you specifically asked how the PM9 "carries", compared to the 642 ... but I can't answer that from personal experience, because I haven't "carried" a PM9. I carry a 642-1 quite a bit, however, as you appear to have also done ... and I like it a lot.
If you'll excuse the slight deviation from your topic, thought, I'd like to offer a brief opinion based upon my experience handling and shooting a PM9 ...
You really MUST shoot both, preferably side-by-side, using realistic defensive ammunition ... and decide for yourself if you like the way the PM9 shoots.
I'm sure it would "pocket" nicely for lawful CCW, simply based upon my handling of it.
I've handled and shot a PM9 belonging to another instructor at work ... and both he & I agreed that we both shoot our J-frames "better", meaning more accurately and faster ... than we do the PM9.
I can experience "better" recoil recovery and controllability with both my 642-1 and my CS9, even using +P ammunition in my 642-1 and +P+ ammunition in my CS9, than I can with standard pressure ammunition in the PM9. But THAT'S JUST ME ...
Of course, he's a bit annoyed that his PM9 is exhibiting some annoying functioning issues ... extraction, ejection and feeding malfunctions ... while the same pistol functioned just fine when I was using it, using Winchester 147gr JHP ammunition (USA9JHP2) from the same bulk order. The head armorer simply told him to shoot a couple boxes of +P+ ammunition through his PM9 to "break in" some of the sharp edges in the barrel hood & slide ... and see how it functions afterward.
Other folks, as you've noticed, have had very favorable experiences with the PM9. I've read some not-so-favorable ones, though ...
Well, that's what Warranties are for ...
When it comes to anecdotal personal experiences and opinions about both the J-frame 642 and the PM9 ... both pro & con ... EVERYBODY'S RIGHT!!!
For them, that is ...
I should mention that while I like DAO for my 642, I generally dislike DAO pistols ... which doesn't mean anything for anyone else.
IF I was going to buy a Kahr, however, I'd buy a K40. I've experienced reliable functioning and acceptable accuracy from both a K40 and a MK40 I've handled and shot. The MK40 shot a bit over 150 rounds, right out of the box, without any problems using Remington Express 180gr JHP's ... It's just that I felt the perceived recoil & controllability with the shorter gripped MK40 was less preferable to the K40 I borrowed and used. Both are probably a bit heavy for pocket-carry, though, for most of us ...
Sorry if I strayed too far off topic ...
Last edited:
Thanks for all the info. Came home from the fun show with my new PM9, field stripped and cleaned/lubed with Eezox. Anxiously awaiting shooting her tomorrow, I'm gonna go ahead and get those 200 break in rounds out of the way. Then another 50 for good measure.
Then another 50 for good measure.cratz2
Member
KR, different people have different body chemistries... Back when I played guitar a lot, I could play on a set of strings for three months... unless my one buddy played it. If he even touched the strings for two minutes and they weren't wiped down pretty much immediately, they would be coated in something that felt very much like rust... some type of oxidation.
fastbolt
Member
DoubleDot ...
If you decide to make another trip to the range with your Kahr, you might try another lubricant other than Eezox, and see how things go ...
I used to use Exzox many years ago, and quit using it because it just didn't provide the same level of lubricity in some pistols that I enjoyed with some other lubricants. I think it makes for a great protectant, in some instances, though ...
Of course, the recoil impulse of the 9mm cartridge being somewhat less than the .40 S&W, and the tendency of some Kahr pistols to exhibit a certain "tightness" in tolerance between the slide & barrel, may very well contribute to the fact that there's a recommendation that Kahr pistols be "broken in" for at least 200 rounds.
Aside from the rather robust recoil spring used in the PM9, what was your impression of the recoil recovery & management, and overall controllability of the pistol, with the ammunition you used?
I'm always interested in folk's impressions and perceptions ...
fb
If you decide to make another trip to the range with your Kahr, you might try another lubricant other than Eezox, and see how things go ...
I used to use Exzox many years ago, and quit using it because it just didn't provide the same level of lubricity in some pistols that I enjoyed with some other lubricants. I think it makes for a great protectant, in some instances, though ...
Of course, the recoil impulse of the 9mm cartridge being somewhat less than the .40 S&W, and the tendency of some Kahr pistols to exhibit a certain "tightness" in tolerance between the slide & barrel, may very well contribute to the fact that there's a recommendation that Kahr pistols be "broken in" for at least 200 rounds.
Aside from the rather robust recoil spring used in the PM9, what was your impression of the recoil recovery & management, and overall controllability of the pistol, with the ammunition you used?
I'm always interested in folk's impressions and perceptions ...
fb
Funny you mentioned that, when I came home I cleaned and lubed with FP10. I'll use Eezox for long term storage and I'll keep using FP10 for my lube.
Also funny you mention the recoil spring, it seems a tad heavy to me too. I think some breakin rounds are the critical thing here, and better lube.
I was using Blazer ammo. I noticed somebody post that his Kahr didn't like the aluminum cases FWIW.
Recoil was a bit stiff being a small extremely light pistol but alot better than I was expecting.
This is a really neat little gun. I was admiring the detailed milling in the slide and trigger action after cleaning. I started to have second thoughts about selling but I can't really afford to keep this and add another J-frame.
Also funny you mention the recoil spring, it seems a tad heavy to me too. I think some breakin rounds are the critical thing here, and better lube.
I was using Blazer ammo. I noticed somebody post that his Kahr didn't like the aluminum cases FWIW.
Recoil was a bit stiff being a small extremely light pistol but alot better than I was expecting.
This is a really neat little gun. I was admiring the detailed milling in the slide and trigger action after cleaning. I started to have second thoughts about selling but I can't really afford to keep this and add another J-frame.
JNewell
Member
Well, FWIW, I think pocket carry works a lot better with the J-frame but the MKx (I assume the PMx is similar, but I don't know) is easier to shoot well. Better grip and sights on the MK. However, the blocky MK prints more in a pocket, for me at least, and more seriously I can't get a good grip on it while it's in the pocket, which I can do with a J-frame. Current BUG choice is a J-frame 9x19 with several loaded clips aboard.
starfuryzeta
Member
How was your grip with the extended magazine versus flush?
I guess most importantly, how did it conceal/draw as a pocket gun?
I guess most importantly, how did it conceal/draw as a pocket gun?
Kentucky Rifle
Member In Memoriam
Cratz2
That's weird--but I know it's true. I've seen the same thing. Some people can just rust things.<shrug> I'm not going to worry much about it 'till summer. Then I'll keep a REAL close watch on my Kahr's innards.
KR
That's weird--but I know it's true. I've seen the same thing. Some people can just rust things.<shrug> I'm not going to worry much about it 'till summer. Then I'll keep a REAL close watch on my Kahr's innards.
KR
JNewell
Member
Assuming that was directed to me...
It only fits well in my pockets with the flush mag. These are "natural" (that is, loose) fit khakis with pleats, and I'm very thin, so there's a lot of room there.
It doesn't draw well for me because I really can't get a full grip and still draw. It's mostly the angle of the grip. In contrast I can get an almost perfect grip on a J-frame in the pocket.
Concealment -- again, not as good. This is hard to explain because on paper the MK9 is thinner than the J. It seems that the various curves, and the fact that the top of the J-frame is thinner than the blocky MK9, break up the outline much better, even when both are in pocket holsters.
If you were carrying in the back pocket the Kahr would probably be better.
This may vary a lot with how your pants are cut and how they fit, so it's worth trying yourself. Most shops will not object to you dropping a gun into your pocket, but it's good manners to ask first.
fastbolt
Member
I've often considered that while a revolver's cylinder is certainly thick, the rest of the revolver is thinner in many respects. A pistol is pretty much uniformly "thick" overall, even if it's thinner at its "widest" than a revolver's cylinder.
The respects in which a revolver is thinner can be important ones when it comes to some types of lawful concealed carry ... such as pocket-carry.
Then, there's the consideration that our modern revolvers were pretty much designed in the 1800's, as far as overall shape goes ... and the smaller "pocket" revolvers aren't all that much different, with respect to grip-frame design, than those which worked well in the early days of pocket guns.
As long as there's enough room for a hammer spring, the grip can be configured to fit almost any perceived design need ... while the semiauto pistol still needs to have a design which permits the stacking of ammunition, whether the magazine is internal or detached.
The J-frame grip, especially in its rounded design, is pretty much state-of-the-art when it comes to a nice balance of concealment and ergonomics, for both drawing/presentation, even from pockets, as well as shooting.
Well, okay ... it's more a COMPROMISE when it comes to actually SHOOTING these diminutive guns, especially with higher pressure ammunition.
But we carry them MUCH more than we actually need to shoot them, right?
That being said, I'd still rather shoot a lot of +P ammunition in a Sc/Ti gun, instead of a lot of 125gr .357 Magnum ammunition ... and up until I'd fired a Sc/Ti J-frame chambered in .357 Magnum, I thought I LIKED to occasionally experience recoil in some of my revolvers.
I think rust can occur on the slide of the all stainless PM9, just because stainless actually means "stains less".
The black-coated one may not have this problem.
Somebody did a test on one of the boards with nails, water, and a bunch of lubes.
Breakfree was the winner if I recall.
Just a light wipeover after cleaning will keep your gun rust-free.
Regarding your problems with shooting the PM9:
1. Problems with Blazer ammo are not rare at all.
I shoot the Walmart/Winchester value pack ammo in mine, and it's never missed a beat.
2. Failure to go into battery: If this is happening when chambering the first round, just practice your technique.
I shove the pistol quickly away with the right hand, while yanking sharply on the slide with the left. I have to do this with my KelTec P3AT also.
Again, the Blazer ammo will make this problem worse.
Fastbolt:
I admire anybody that can shoot the Airweight pistols accurately. You must have put some rounds down range.
My wife's Centennial is just too punishing to shoot to ever get very accurate with.
I've got nearly 1000 rounds through the PM9, and when I'm shooting it, I actually look like I'm a really good shot!
The black-coated one may not have this problem.
Somebody did a test on one of the boards with nails, water, and a bunch of lubes.
Breakfree was the winner if I recall.
Just a light wipeover after cleaning will keep your gun rust-free.
Regarding your problems with shooting the PM9:
1. Problems with Blazer ammo are not rare at all.
I shoot the Walmart/Winchester value pack ammo in mine, and it's never missed a beat.
2. Failure to go into battery: If this is happening when chambering the first round, just practice your technique.
I shove the pistol quickly away with the right hand, while yanking sharply on the slide with the left. I have to do this with my KelTec P3AT also.
Again, the Blazer ammo will make this problem worse.
Fastbolt:
I admire anybody that can shoot the Airweight pistols accurately. You must have put some rounds down range.
My wife's Centennial is just too punishing to shoot to ever get very accurate with.
I've got nearly 1000 rounds through the PM9, and when I'm shooting it, I actually look like I'm a really good shot!
cratz2
Member
For what it's worth, I've carried my P9 Covert IWB (against my skin for several months) and I've never seen a spot of rust on the slide itself. The Trijocon sights get an itty bit rusty, but nothing a cloth and some FP10 doesn't remove in about three minutes.
I had considered getting the slide and innards hard chromed until I saw that I just wasn't rusting the slide... just the sights.
I do kinda hate to see that you were using Blazer ammo. I've used it in several calibers and have never been thrilled with the 9mm stuff though it worked fine in my Taurus PT99. I don't so much mind the 45ACP stuff, but have had more problems with the 9mm stuff than any brass-cased ammo I can recall.
But... as long as you're happy. The Smith is a good gun. I'm sure it will serve you well. I personally can't shoot a lightweight Smith or Taurus nearly as well and certainly not as 'fast while staying accurate' as my Kahr. Understand with pocket carry, many folks prefer a revolver as it sort of 'fits the contours' of the pants better than many autos larger than the P32/P3AT.
I had considered getting the slide and innards hard chromed until I saw that I just wasn't rusting the slide... just the sights.
I do kinda hate to see that you were using Blazer ammo. I've used it in several calibers and have never been thrilled with the 9mm stuff though it worked fine in my Taurus PT99. I don't so much mind the 45ACP stuff, but have had more problems with the 9mm stuff than any brass-cased ammo I can recall.
But... as long as you're happy. The Smith is a good gun. I'm sure it will serve you well. I personally can't shoot a lightweight Smith or Taurus nearly as well and certainly not as 'fast while staying accurate' as my Kahr. Understand with pocket carry, many folks prefer a revolver as it sort of 'fits the contours' of the pants better than many autos larger than the P32/P3AT.
Kentucky Rifle
Member In Memoriam
My "newest" J-frame is a model 642...
I mean--the sale and all--I "HAD" to buy a new 642. Of course, that particular *excuse didn't fly with my wife. (I need to think of some new "excuses".) Why, the other night she said, "You know, we really OUGHT to put a "cap" on the number of guns we buy". I was astonished! Luckily, that strange thought only stayed in her head 'till she saw a new single six with the case-hardened finish and "bird's head" grips. I wouldn't wish actual DEATH on anyone, but I do kinda wish G.E. or some of the other big places of employment around here would "transfer" enough people to get down to our names on ~"The List"~ for that great private gun club that's out here in the East End of Louisvlle. We're WAY down on THAT list.
KR
I mean--the sale and all--I "HAD" to buy a new 642.
Of course, that particular *excuse didn't fly with my wife. (I need to think of some new "excuses".) Why, the other night she said, "You know, we really OUGHT to put a "cap" on the number of guns we buy". I was astonished! Luckily, that strange thought only stayed in her head 'till she saw a new single six with the case-hardened finish and "bird's head" grips. I wouldn't wish actual DEATH on anyone, but I do kinda wish G.E. or some of the other big places of employment around here would "transfer" enough people to get down to our names on ~"The List"~ for that great private gun club that's out here in the East End of Louisvlle. We're WAY down on THAT list. KR
fastbolt
Member
mini14jac,
Thanks ... and you're right, I've put a lot of rounds downrange with my 642-1 ... a LOT more than I ever did with my older nickeled 3" 36 or my 649 Bodyguard. Of course, that's because I just used to "carry" those as a younger cop, and frankly, after I became a firearms instructor in 1990 I had a lot of "motivation" from the head instructor.
Seriously, J-frame guns, and their like, DO require a lot more dedication and effort in order for most of us to achieve anything more than "adequate" occasional range skills. For me, it's a combination of the little grip frame, the heavier DAO trigger, and the smaller sights with a much shorter sight radius (And these are the IMPROVED iron sights, a lot wider than the older ones) that makes things so "interesting".
Since I ordered the 642 to serve as an off duty weapon for those times when I found myself not feeling like carrying a larger weapon, I just couldn't NOT devote the extra time and effort required to bring my skills with it up to some standard "acceptable" to both myself, and the head instructor ... who owns a couple Ti & Sc/Ti guns himself. He's one of the those "old school" guys that simply requires the best effort of his staff of instructors and armorers ... and he doesn't cut anyone slack in this regard. He's heard of the old saying that "those that can't do, teach", but NOT at HIS range ...
Cranky fellow ... ... and relentless on both his staff, and WHY we're down there, in the first place.
Anyway ...
The grip frame I simply learned to accomodate ... I use the Bantam grips, which help a bit ... and I use some bright neon orange sight paint on the front sight serrations to help me see the front sight. Naturally, which type of sight picture is "better" ... aligned sights, versus sight alignment ... is something that each of us has to determine for ourselves with these little guns.
I started on a program to fire a LOT of rounds, both standard pressure and +P, through the gun. I started with the "basics" of simple range practice at distances of 2-15 yards, and then working out to 25 yards ... and then shooting the pepper poppers at 25-50 yards. Then, after spending time on the stationary CCW course of fire, I moved up to the regular duty weapon courses of fire, which includes all the variable courses of fire we require of our folks with their full size and compact issued weapons. Close combat, multiple targets, moving targets, shooting & moving, shooting while moving, shooting moving to cover, shooting behind cover, failure drills, "precision" shooting at 3-11 yards (Head shots), reloading, reloading, reloading, etc., etc. ... that sort of thing.
I finally reached the point where I can consistently qualify as Master in our various, evolving courses of fire ... but it take a lot more effort with the J-frame ... a lot more .... But it's worth it.
Shooting is a Perishable Skill in L/E, in the best of circumstances, and with diminutive guns it requires even more attention and practice.
Of course, shooting more than 50 rounds of +P ammunition during a timed course of fire can really beat up my trigger finger. That's where the recoil hammers me with these lightweight guns, on the "bottom edge" of the distal joint of my index finger. Oh well ...
When I shoot the PM9, I find the perceived recoil impulse to be "gentler" to my hand, but the combination of the polymer frame and itty bitty overall size (technical jargon) of the pistol combines to allow a "brisk" muzzle rise ... more so than the J-frame with +P loads, for me ... which slows my target reacquisition. This isn't a pistol with which I feel comfortable ... yet, anyway ... performing "hammers" while shooting. Other folks might feel differently ... and that's fine. We all have our strong and "less strong" points when it comes to skills ...
KR, you gotta good woman ...
I wish mine would feel that way about one of those Ruger Sheriff Models I want ... I could accept calling it "cute" if that's what it took.
Thanks ... and you're right, I've put a lot of rounds downrange with my 642-1 ... a LOT more than I ever did with my older nickeled 3" 36 or my 649 Bodyguard. Of course, that's because I just used to "carry" those as a younger cop, and frankly, after I became a firearms instructor in 1990 I had a lot of "motivation" from the head instructor.
Seriously, J-frame guns, and their like, DO require a lot more dedication and effort in order for most of us to achieve anything more than "adequate" occasional range skills. For me, it's a combination of the little grip frame, the heavier DAO trigger, and the smaller sights with a much shorter sight radius (And these are the IMPROVED iron sights, a lot wider than the older ones
) that makes things so "interesting".Since I ordered the 642 to serve as an off duty weapon for those times when I found myself not feeling like carrying a larger weapon, I just couldn't NOT devote the extra time and effort required to bring my skills with it up to some standard "acceptable" to both myself, and the head instructor ... who owns a couple Ti & Sc/Ti guns himself. He's one of the those "old school" guys that simply requires the best effort of his staff of instructors and armorers ... and he doesn't cut anyone slack in this regard.
He's heard of the old saying that "those that can't do, teach", but NOT at HIS range ...Cranky fellow ...
... and relentless on both his staff, and WHY we're down there, in the first place.Anyway ...
The grip frame I simply learned to accomodate ... I use the Bantam grips, which help a bit ... and I use some bright neon orange sight paint on the front sight serrations to help me see the front sight. Naturally, which type of sight picture is "better" ... aligned sights, versus sight alignment ... is something that each of us has to determine for ourselves with these little guns.
I started on a program to fire a LOT of rounds, both standard pressure and +P, through the gun. I started with the "basics" of simple range practice at distances of 2-15 yards, and then working out to 25 yards ... and then shooting the pepper poppers at 25-50 yards. Then, after spending time on the stationary CCW course of fire, I moved up to the regular duty weapon courses of fire, which includes all the variable courses of fire we require of our folks with their full size and compact issued weapons. Close combat, multiple targets, moving targets, shooting & moving, shooting while moving, shooting moving to cover, shooting behind cover, failure drills, "precision" shooting at 3-11 yards (Head shots), reloading, reloading, reloading, etc., etc. ... that sort of thing.
I finally reached the point where I can consistently qualify as Master in our various, evolving courses of fire ... but it take a lot more effort with the J-frame ... a lot more .... But it's worth it.
Shooting is a Perishable Skill in L/E, in the best of circumstances, and with diminutive guns it requires even more attention and practice.
Of course, shooting more than 50 rounds of +P ammunition during a timed course of fire can really beat up my trigger finger.
That's where the recoil hammers me with these lightweight guns, on the "bottom edge" of the distal joint of my index finger. Oh well ...When I shoot the PM9, I find the perceived recoil impulse to be "gentler" to my hand, but the combination of the polymer frame and itty bitty overall size (technical jargon
) of the pistol combines to allow a "brisk" muzzle rise ... more so than the J-frame with +P loads, for me ... which slows my target reacquisition. This isn't a pistol with which I feel comfortable ... yet, anyway ... performing "hammers" while shooting. Other folks might feel differently ... and that's fine. We all have our strong and "less strong" points when it comes to skills ... KR, you gotta good woman ...
I wish mine would feel that way about one of those Ruger Sheriff Models I want ... I could accept calling it "cute" if that's what it took.
- Status
