Can anybody that carries a PM9 give me some insight into what hollow points they carry in their PM9. I know sometimes HP's can have cycling problems in particular handguns. I'd like to get some decent ammo for it like Gold dots, etc. Anybody have personal experience with a high quality round that cycles flawlessly?
SD ammo for Kahr PM9
- Thread starter cbrgator
- Start date
- Status
I use 124 gr +p Gold Dots in my PM9. It has been 100% reliable, and shoots accurately and consistently. Plus, it can be purchased online in 50 round boxes for a reasonable price.
I've also had good performance with 124 gr +p Golden Sabers. Of course, you will need to test your ammo in your gun to ensure flawless cycling.
I've also had good performance with 124 gr +p Golden Sabers. Of course, you will need to test your ammo in your gun to ensure flawless cycling.
Ringer
Member
In addition to the Gold Dots Federal HST functions well in mine. Those are the two flavors I use. The Federal seems to be a little less expensive lately.
Capp35
Member
Federal HST +P 124gr ran fine in mine.
bestseller92
Member
In a standard pressure round, Federal 115 gr. JHP (9BP) has a good reputation.
MICHAEL T
Member
I agree DPX
RedAlert
Member
I have a PM40 but I think because the design is similar to the PM9, the operating characteristics should be similar as well.
I tried several premium SD rounds with various designs of hollow points. Each of them failed to feed reliably in my PM40. They did an excellent job in my Sig P229, so that's where the left overs from testing went.
I did find the PowerBall ammo from Cor-Bon worked well. No FTF at all. So that is the round I use in my Kahr PM40. It has been 100% reliable in nearly 100 rounds. Too expensive to continue the testing much further.
I tried several premium SD rounds with various designs of hollow points. Each of them failed to feed reliably in my PM40. They did an excellent job in my Sig P229, so that's where the left overs from testing went.
I did find the PowerBall ammo from Cor-Bon worked well. No FTF at all. So that is the round I use in my Kahr PM40. It has been 100% reliable in nearly 100 rounds. Too expensive to continue the testing much further.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
I load my PM-9 with Speer Gold Dot 124gr +P.
DAdams
Member
After getting through the break in 200 I selected these three variations for personal carry and put two magazines of each through my PM9. They all ran without issue so I am confident that any one of these in the future I could trust. There are many more out there but these work in mine.
I recently added a Crimson Trace laser so maybe I'll get a box or two of something else and run em out.
I recently added a Crimson Trace laser so maybe I'll get a box or two of something else and run em out.
Last edited:
Little gun like that, I'd go 147 HST. 147 for the better performance, closer to intended anyway, out of the shorter barrel, and also because it allows for good penetration with good expansion as well, unlike a lighter bullet that is more likely to not penetrate if it expands or gives up expansion so it can penetrate well.
The only one that really does that well is the DPX, and that's because of the copper and relatively small frontal surface area compared to it's expansion width.
The only one that really does that well is the DPX, and that's because of the copper and relatively small frontal surface area compared to it's expansion width.
I don't know what you base that on and it's pretty hard to find gelatin tests from a 3" 9mm but Goldenloki did run gelatin tests from a KelTec PF9 which has a 3.1 barrel and since the the PM9 has a polygonal barrel I expect velocities to be at least as good if not better.
He tested a pretty good variety of ammo and all but 2 of the Lighter (115-124 gr) jhp ammo had excellent penetration and expansion from the short barrel.
http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/9mm/gel9.htm
Skylerbone
Member
I hand loaded Hornady XTPs to 90% of max. per Hornady's manual for my dad's CW9 (3.5" barrel) and they have functioned 100% through 200 rounds in HIS Kahr.
You'll have to run your own testing on your specific pistol but the XTP ran fine.
You'll have to run your own testing on your specific pistol but the XTP ran fine.
That can vary from gun to gun and just because a particular round works in one gun doesn't mean it will work in another.
With that said I have yet to have any brand fail to function in either my PM9 or my K9.
DAdams
Member
My PM9 was sitting in the safe playing out its role as safe prince. I haven't been able to get excited about it for pocket carry. I recently decided I would bring it to daylight and make it a home PD backup, or maybe car/truck carry item.
Added a CT laser, and Pearce magazine extender. Taking it to the range next week to calibrate and work with the CT.
I have a few new 9mm rounds that I haven't run through it yet and I think I'll try them out and see if I can stump it.
Added a CT laser, and Pearce magazine extender. Taking it to the range next week to calibrate and work with the CT.
I have a few new 9mm rounds that I haven't run through it yet and I think I'll try them out and see if I can stump it.
Does that mean you based it on gelatin tests?
A more massive projectile has more inertia, it therefore has more dwell time in the barrel, giving the powder more time to burn. Powder that burns outside the barrel does nothing for bullet velocity.
A heavier bullet will loose a lower percentage of its intended velocity in a short barrel.
SCIENCE
lol
I shoot 147gr +P HST's out of my Taurus 709 (3.2" barrel) they chrono'd about 960fps (I had crappy indoor lighting and those numbers may very well be off, take them with a grain of salt)
I would say 960fps is WELL within that bullets ideal operating parameters.
A heavier bullet will loose a lower percentage of its intended velocity in a short barrel.
SCIENCE
lol
I shoot 147gr +P HST's out of my Taurus 709 (3.2" barrel) they chrono'd about 960fps (I had crappy indoor lighting and those numbers may very well be off, take them with a grain of salt)
I would say 960fps is WELL within that bullets ideal operating parameters.
Last edited:
Ok, since I'm a proponent of of the lighter and faster bullet I thought maybe I was missing something and maybe using the wrong cartridge, but gelatin tests say I'm ok so I'll stick with the lighter and faster bullet.A more massive projectile has more inertia, it therefore has more dwell time in the barrel, giving the powder more time to burn. Powder that burns outside the barrel does nothing for bullet velocity.
A heavier bullet will loose a lower percentage of its intended velocity in a short barrel.
SCIENCE
lol
I shoot 147gr +P HST's out of my Taurus 709 (3.2" barrel) they chrono'd about 960fps (I had crappy indoor lighting and those numbers may very well be off, take them with a grain of salt)
I would say 960fps is WELL within that bullets ideal operating parameters.
I figure that the shorter the barrel the more velocity is needed to get expansion and the goldenloki gel tests indicate I'm ok with that.
Skylerbone
Member
Let's all just hope that none of us will ever need forensics to determine if our best laid plans worked as intended. To the OP, select a carry round that you can afford to shoot and that you believe in then run it through your pistol. Use every magazine you intend to carry and see how it performs. Limp wrist it. Shoot it at a cant. Make sure everything works every time. If not, it's back to the drawing board.
Stay vigilant, practice hard and stay safe all.
Stay vigilant, practice hard and stay safe all.
Zerodefect
member
I've noticed that Kahrs like +p. I've seen a few malfs go away by switching to +p.
The goldenloki tests seem to feature a lot of bullets that were in their prime 15-25 years ago. And the poor expansion exhibited by almost all of them proves that too. Thing is, like gofast said, a heavier bullet will lose less of it's velocity potential in a shorter barrel than a light and fast bullet, and they are designed for significantly lower velocities than the lighter, faster bullets.
The lighter bullets need to be able to hold themselves together at higher velocities than the 147s will ever see, which allows the 147 to be designed to respond much better to lower than expected velocities than the lightweights. 147s have higher inherent momentum and higher inherent penetration capability, so they don't need to sacrifice expansion to get the same minimum penetration depth as a lighter, similiarly designed bullet.
I'm talking purely apples to apples, if you have an older (or proven, if you like) bullet design that works well for you, go for it, but the 147s of today are the better bullets. I'm mostly talking about bullets of a like design in various weights.
Most of the Golden Loki tested stuff didn't look very impressive or even really all that up to par to me. Tested a bunch of 1992 vintage stuff, some of which you can't even find anymore outside of a couple of boxes of collector's interest stuff. It's cool that they did the tests, I appreciate the time and information, I just think it's not particularly helpful in 2011.
The lighter bullets need to be able to hold themselves together at higher velocities than the 147s will ever see, which allows the 147 to be designed to respond much better to lower than expected velocities than the lightweights. 147s have higher inherent momentum and higher inherent penetration capability, so they don't need to sacrifice expansion to get the same minimum penetration depth as a lighter, similiarly designed bullet.
I'm talking purely apples to apples, if you have an older (or proven, if you like) bullet design that works well for you, go for it, but the 147s of today are the better bullets. I'm mostly talking about bullets of a like design in various weights.
Most of the Golden Loki tested stuff didn't look very impressive or even really all that up to par to me. Tested a bunch of 1992 vintage stuff, some of which you can't even find anymore outside of a couple of boxes of collector's interest stuff. It's cool that they did the tests, I appreciate the time and information, I just think it's not particularly helpful in 2011.
- Status
