Don't know about which is better, but a PM-40 would be a handful. Gun makers cannot repeal the laws of physics thru advertising claims, and a full power .40 round thru a small, lightweight pistol is pushing the envelope a bit. I had a Kahr CW-40, and while I didn't find it as punishing as Internet lore made it out to be, it was still a handful. The same round in an even smaller, lighter pistol...well, I don't think I'd want to try it. The Shield in 9mm, on the other hand, is generally thought to be a relatively mild shooting combination.
Can't speak for the .40, but my wife has a CM9. A good friend has the MP9c. The Kahr has a DA trigger. It is smooth and loooong. The mp has a "safe action" style trigger. To me that is the biggest difference in the guns as far as shooting. As for carrying, the Kahr is a slim single stack gun whereas the mp is a wider double stack. The mp is also a bit heavier.
Definatly get out and shoot both before buying. They shoot very differently...not bad, but distinctively different.
Definatly get out and shoot both before buying. They shoot very differently...not bad, but distinctively different.
I had a PM9 and my wife currently has a Shield. I do not want the PM9 back, but I want to steal her Shield! 
Proper grip will negate a lot of perceived recoil. I've used my CW-40 in lots of competitions, designed for guns of this size.
The internet lore your talking about are folks that are gun owner, not really shooters. Limp wrists make bad recoil.
I've shot both .40's and 9mm in the guns you've mentioned, and while I shoot the .40 about as accurately as the 9mm, the recoil is more of an issue with the .40, especially with factory ammo.
I shoot competitively, run tens of thousands of handloads through my pistols, and shoot .22 through .44 magnum.
Recovering from the recoil of your first shot might be an issue with .40, and it's not uncommon for people to have problems anticipating recoil with a .40.
Both pistols are well built...I own a Kahr PM 9 and two M&P's.
I shoot competitively, run tens of thousands of handloads through my pistols, and shoot .22 through .44 magnum.
Recovering from the recoil of your first shot might be an issue with .40, and it's not uncommon for people to have problems anticipating recoil with a .40.
Both pistols are well built...I own a Kahr PM 9 and two M&P's.
PM40 has ALLOT of snap, it has a long, but smooth, trigger pull, and more than not, they take a few hundred rounds before they can be considered reliable (Kahr states the break-in period in their manual).
Shield has a nice short crisp trigger pull, and short reset. Every pistol that will be a CCW piece needs to have some live fire to verify reliability, but the shields I have shot have been spot on from the box. The Shield 9 has some recoil, but nothing compared to the PM40.
Shield has a nice short crisp trigger pull, and short reset. Every pistol that will be a CCW piece needs to have some live fire to verify reliability, but the shields I have shot have been spot on from the box. The Shield 9 has some recoil, but nothing compared to the PM40.
I have shot all of the Kahr 40s with the exception of the the TP which is on its way to me right now. I have also shot the Shield in 9mm and 40. I find the stories about the recoil of the 40 to be overstated. Shooting the CW40 I am a little bit slower for the second and third shot but not by much. I would go with which everone fits your hand better. Both are great guns and will do what you need them to do.
CW/P40 will have a little less recoil than the CM/PM40 due to the longer barrel. For about 4 years I carried the P9 Covert. It had the P9 slide with the PM frame. Great carry gun.
Similar threads
