Kahr PM9 vs. S&W 642 for Pocket Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TarpleyG

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
2,980
I have been wanting both of these guns for quite some time now and finally had the chance to pick them both up for a steal. I like both guns. I routinely pocket carry. Used to carry a P-11 then a P-32. Decided the P-32 just wasn't making me feel comfortable although it is ideal for pocket carry.

I ordered a Mika pocket holster for the PM9. Carries pretty good. Then I get the J frame. It is wider, taller, and longer, yet it fits a front pants pocket better. Why???? Now I am in a quandary. What to carry? Decisions, decisions. Ordered yet another Mika holster for the J frame. We'll see how it fits with a holster. Using the PM9 holster on it, it doesn't quite feel right.

Anyway, I guess I'll just keep Kerrying (get it? flip-flop, waffle) one or the other 'til I make up my mind. Anyone else feel like this sometimes? Don't even get me started on how lonely my poor Pro Carry must feel sitting back in the dark safe all the time.

Greg
 
I carry a PM9 in a Mirka pocket holster.

It's the most, baby.

Though I wouldn't sniff at the 642...so, I feel your pain.

Sawdust
 
I've owned both, but have stayed with the 442/642 for pocket carry. I found that the little Kahr was harder to draw in a hurry, and another plus for the snubby is that it can take Crimson Trace grips, which help a lot in a fast shot from the draw. I'm quite happy that 5 rounds of .38 Special +P should solve most of the problems I'm likely to encounter: and having 7 rounds of 9mm. +P is not that much of a gain. If I want more, I move up to my Glock 27, which is also easily carried in a pocket (it's about the same size overall as my 642) and fits in a DeSantis Nemesis pocket holster.
 
I'm going to be faced with a similar experiment at some point.

Have a 60LS inbound and looking for a nice used MK9.

Perhaps they are going to be a bit too heavy for a true pocket carry gun but I've heard too many negatives associated with the PM9.
 
too many negatives associated with the PM9.
Click to expand...
Don't know what or where you have been reading but I have heard the exact opposite. The PM9 is an outstanding gun for what it is. Not knocking J frames but I'd definitely put my PM9 up against any of them.

Greg
 
Pm9/642

I carry both; PM9 in the pocket, 642 on the ankle. You do carry a backup pistol dont you? BTW my PM9 has been perfect since the break in period was completed. No failures of any kind. My 642 jammed ( couldn't get the cylinder to lock closed due to dirt under the extractor star) during its "test phase". Goes to show you that anything can malfunction. Check your weapons and practice frequently
 
Hi,

I think the shape of the 642 makes it easier to clear a pocket. The back of the hammerless revolver has a smooth taper up to the topstrap, unlike the PM9 where the grip tang and rear of the slide form a more right angle profile making it slightly more difficult for pocket draws. Nonetheless, in roomy pockets, either should be fine.

I have both but don't usually pocket carry. One theoretical advantage of the 642 is that it can be fired through a coat or jacket pocket without jamming whereas the slide of the PM9 would probably not cycle inside a pocket. I did read an article thought where firing through a pocket could set the garment on fire.

Both my 642 and PM9 have been very reliable.

HTH
 
I have always found that a 642/442 prints less in a pocket than an auto of similar proportions.
 
I carry my 642 quite a bit during the summer when I'm wearing shorts and flip-flops. It relegated the Beretta .25s (cool but wimpy caliber) and the Walther PPK (OK, I went through a James Bond phase) to the safe. It takes practice to hit well with it but it's light, carries easily in a pocket, and has decent power (with Silvertips or Hydra-Shoks). Get a couple of Bianchi Speed Strips and you're good to go.

What the heck, carry them both. You've got two pockets, right?
 
Hi Greg,

I probably generalized a bit to much with the statement I made and to make matters worse I spoke based upon knowledge(?) derived in large part from internet research. To be completely honest I have to admit that my only specific experience with the specific models in question is... well... almost none?

However I do have a Kahr K9 (stainless) and have had an opportunity to fire more than a few rounds through a S&W 60.
I have also rented a P9 on a couple of occasions and put around 250/300 rounds of S&B 115 through it.

Where I am coming from on this issue is as follows: I'm also looking for a small handgun that would fall into the size/weight/caliber range that the S&W J frame .357's and the Kahr "M" series (MK9, PM9) fall into.

Pretty much the same situation you are in I think.

My experience is as follows:
K9: I have found to be completely reliable. I am very happy with it. It's a keeper.
J frames: I have also never had so much as a hiccup during my time spent with J frames.
P9: Rented this at the range I belong to. Wasn't the cleanest gun I ever rented; wasn't the dirtiest either. Out of approx 250 rounds had 2 or 3 failures to feed.

As I said: no personal experience at all with the MK9 or the PM9.

I've looked around the internet a bit to find one (or more) forums that are Kahr specific. The closest thing I've found so far are the Kahr forums on www.pistolsmith.com and www.glocktalk.com.

I'm not sure on which of those two forums the question was asked about the relative reliability of the various 9mm Kahr models was.

The answer that was given was (to the best of my recollection, spotty these days I'm afraid...):
In order of most reliable to least reliable:
K9
MK9
P9
PM9

That is anecdotal evidence at best and quoted out of my memory which leaks on occasion. (I'm a software engineer; inside joke)

Also there have been more than a few threads (on glocktalk) directed at the reliability and shortcomings of the 40S&W versions of the poly framed Kahrs. The PM9 hasn't received as much bad press but I would be very hesitant to trust a "P" version 40S&W Kahr unless I had extensive experience with that particular gun. I would be a little less concerned with a PM9 but...

So based upon my limited experience with the full sized poly Kahr and the fair amount of negative press (from the Kahr forum on glocktalk) associated with the PM40 compared with my glitch free experience with the J frame: If I had the opportunity to pick my daily carry for the next week from the two options: J frame or MK9, neither of which I had ever had the chance to handle, I would feel safer picking up the J frame. Granted I may be comparing apples to oranges a bit here due the fact that most of the bad press is with respect to the PM40.

The bottom line is I'd put the K9 up against any revolver when it comes to reliability> However I don't have the same faith (yet) with the MK9. I will be buying an MK9 in the near future and if it proves out that would be great.

Ok, wow, I think I've rambled enough for one evening. Thanks for listening!
 
TarpleyG said:
... I ordered a Mika pocket holster for the PM9. Carries pretty good. Then I get the J frame. It is wider, taller, and longer, yet it fits a front pants pocket better. Why???? ...
Click to expand...
Greg, you discovered something that I have been saying for a while now and people have been calling me crazy -- a revolver slightly larger than an autoloader actually FEELS slightly smaller.

PS: I had an MK9 and found it to be completely reliable but I had a J-frame sieze up on me during rapid fire at the range.
 
I also have a PM9 and a couple J frames and have noticed the same thing. I read an analogy somewhere that the difference is like carrying a block of wood in your pocket versus carrying a bar of soap.

Scott
 
Reading this thread has confirmed for me that things work differently for different folks . I first had a P-11 and then a 442 , both of which I still have , and then I got a Kahr PM9 . First I tried a Mika Pocket holster ...good value , but eventually I ended up with a PCS Blackbird and I'm convinced it's the perfect solution for me . Other than when I have to wear the Kahr in it's Alessi ankle holster at work :uhoh:. The Kahr lays the flattest in the pocket for me. To the poster who mentioned his G26 in his pocket , I could NEVER hide mine in a pocket in the type of clothes I wear . A Watch Six Dual Talon is great for the Glock 26 but I rarely carry it anymore ...Tom
 
I performed an impromptu comparison exercise when I got home yesterday. I was wearing my usual Dockers Khakis. I had the PM9 in my pocket already so I had a good feel for how it carried. I pulled it out and using the same holster (Mika's pocket holster) I put my 642 in the pocket. What I noticed was a real difference not only in printing but in weight. I was under the impression these two guns weighed about the same loaded so I grabbed my trigger pull scale and weighed each. The PM9 weighed 19 oz. and the J frame was 16 oz. I can't believe 3 oz. would make that much of a difference but it does.

Greg
 
Hi,

One more thing to consider is the balance of the weapon in the pocket. The 652 has a steel bbl and cylinder with a light alloy gripframe so it should balance well with the muzzle down in the pocket.

The PM9 is light too, and the slide is heavy, but a mag full of rounds does shift balance a little to the grip so it may not feel as well balanced in the pocket compared to the snubby.

At least for me.
 
Originally posted by TarpleyG
I was under the impression these two guns weighed about the same loaded so I grabbed my trigger pull scale and weighed each. The PM9 weighed 19 oz. and the J frame was 16 oz. I can't believe 3 oz. would make that much of a difference but it does.
Click to expand...
to be fair, how about re-weighing the pm9 with 4+1 instead of 6+1 so as to be on par with the j
 
Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? I am not going to carry the thing with 5 rounds so why compare it that way. Sure it will weigh less.

Greg
 
if thats your logic you might as well weigh a razor blade and compare its carry weight to the pm9 as well
 
Why don't you explain? Why would I compare the PM9 short two rounds to the J-frame fully loaded? I know they will be the same. I am not going to carry the PM9 with 5 rounds in my pocket therefore it will weigh more when I do carry it with 7 rounds. For me, it is a combination of things, not just the weight. Please read my post before being a smart@ss with these responses of yours. Thank you.

Greg
 
"Why would I compare the PM9 short two rounds to the J-frame fully loaded? I know they will be the same. I am not going to carry the PM9 with 5 rounds in my pocket therefore it will weigh more when I do carry it with 7 rounds. For me, it is a combination of things, not just the weight."

I'm not trying to be a smart*ss, and I don't think the others were either, though I could be wrong. The only other thing you mention is "printing". So its just weight and printing, right? How does either gun "print" through the same holster? The reason I ask is, I just boguht my wife a 642 which she carries in an Uncle Mike's pocket holster. I've experimented with it in my paocket and no printing. I'd rather have the 7 rounds of 9MM, so I'm considering the kahr PM9. True, I wouldn't expect you to download two rounds to equal the weight, but that is a fair comparison.
 
There's a distinct 'block' appearance with the PM9 when in my pocket. I guess the profile of the J-frame is just less conspicuous, probably because it is so much narrower at the end of the barrel. There is a 'bubble' from the cylinder but no one would know what it is. Breaks up very well. One other thing is the profile of the grip--makes it much easier to get in and out of a pocket. Granted, all these things taken seperately are very subtle but put them together and there is a difference worth noting.

Guess we have us a genuine 9mm-vs.-45ACP-style debate here, don't we?

Greg
 
"Guess we have us a genuine 9mm-vs.-45ACP-style debate here, don't we?"

Thanks for the info Greg, that helps. The 642 is one easy carrying little gun. Its almost like not carrying after being used to much heavier and larger pistols like HK P7, Mak and CZ's. The PM9 interests me though as I prefer a semi-auto for carry.
 
Obviously this is a YMMV area. I find the 642/442/342 much easier to conceal in a pocket than an MK9 (based on shape, not weight), and much easier to get a good firing grip on and a faster draw. But, YMMV...
 
Pilot - fire me an e-mail and you can try my PM9 sometime.

I quite like it, but find the 642 riding as backup more often than not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
PM9 vs J-frame for pocket carry ? Why ?
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
1911.45
1
?
  • Locked
Kahr PM9 Vs J-frame
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Kentucky Rifle
K
B
  • Locked
Pocket carry - Snub vs. 9mm auto
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
bigmike45
bigmike45
T
  • Locked
S&W 642 or Kahr PM9
Replies
11
Views
1K
dbracin
dbracin
G
  • Locked
Best Pants for Pocket Carry ??
Replies
23
Views
2K
treeprof
T
Back
Top