Better projectiles for the 9mm, maybe, but they make a 38+P 135gr Gold Dot load designed for snubbies, so maybe not. I'd say it comes down to whichever one you shoot the best and feel competent with. I know I wish I hadn't traded my Colt Agent off, miss that gun. I could shoot the [bleep] out of it too.
If I were going out with a pocket full of cash, I'd probably get the Kahr, but I'd never feel less armed with a J fre or my Colt Cobra.
until the day comes, as it did for me a couple of days ago, when you are setting by some blm signs leading into the desert, and the signs say be aware of your surrounding, high illegal/drug trafficing area. And a guy running a ranch nearby had just told you that the area was under the firm control of the sinalola narco cartel. Al of a second that little revolver doesn't look so good anymore.
in that scenario, there still is no meaningful difference between the Kahr and the J Frame. With either, you would be woefully undergunned. I'd reach for the AR180B in the back seat, and grab several 30 round magazines.
About 8 or 9 years ago I was doing some chronographing and playing around with different options. I'm missing some data, but test vehicles were: a S&W 360 1 7/8" (.357), S&W 360 3" (.357), Rossi 462 2" (.357), a S&W 637 (.38), and a Kahr P9 (9mm), I got the following readings.
I wanted a comfortable shooting load for just playing around with my scandium .357s so I experimented down until it was fun and, using lead bullets out of them got...
125 grain RNFP and 4.0 grains of Unique, 2" 560 fps 125 grain RNFP and 4.0 grains of Unique, 3" 705 fps 148 grain DEWC and 4.0 grains of Unique, 2" 638 fps 148 grain DEWC and 4.0 grains of Unique, 3" 715 fps
And using factory loads (didn't note exact load) in my Kahr P9, Rossi, and S&W 360 got... .38 special Winchester 125 grain JHP, 2" 860 fps 9mm Federal 115 grain FMC, 3" 1050 fps .357 magnum Remington 125 grain JSP, 1 7/8" 1100 fps
Subjectively, and using factory loads, the revolvers had some annoying blast, mostly the barrel/cylinder gap even when using .38's, whereas the 9mm was pretty pleasant. The full-power .357 out of the Rossi... well, I'd hate to have to shoot it at night with no hearing protection in close quarters, but in the scandium guns, the recoil was unreal! (I still regret selling them though.)
I'd always been a revolver guy, but when I objectively looked at the almost 200 fps edge the 9mm got over the .38, albeit with 115 grains vs 125 grains, with seemingly less recoil, while holding a couple more rounds in a flatter package with an easier reload available (swap magazines)... for me, the 9mm made more sense.
Don't get me wrong, I still get nostalgic over snubby revolvers, both in 2 and 3" barrels, and could easily see myself carrying one, but only in a lightweight package. I just can't see the practicality of concealed carrying a 6 shot revolver that weighs in the mid-20 ounce range. If it floats your boat, I'm all for it. Now as a trail gun on the other hand..
Last edited by bhemry; 09/08/13. Reason: meant to say "6 shot revolver"
I am a bit curious how, one could do a one handed magazine replacement as well. Not sure what the reference to one handed reloads is all about? I have both autos and revolvers, and I always use two hands.
One of the first things you learn in a shoothouse with Simmunition ammo is folks get shot in the hands, A LOT. Law enforcement shootouts demonstrate the same phenomenon.
A bit of a complex motor skill, as such if you want to be able to pull it off under duress you'd better have done it many hundreds of times. This is something you should practice when you dry-fire. You do dry-fire, don't you?
I wouldn't even worry about trying to reload a revolver, have a second one. Something like a S&W Bodyguard is a damn fine BACKUP GUN.
In any relevant comparison, the 9mm provides superior terminal ballistics to the .38 Special - that's really not debatable. But that should really come as no surprise since the revolver and the .38 cartridge were developed in the black powder era.
I like revolvers, and I'm very fond of the .38 Special cartridge, but it is NOT a reasonable equivalent to the 9mm cartridge as commonly loaded. Most 9mm's loads best the .38 Special by 200 fps or more. You wouldn't deny the significance of a 20% increase in any other facet of life, would you?
If you really doubt it, do your own chronograph testing like bhemry has done and form your own conclusions.
The uninitiated are always easily impressed. NRA Endowment Member
What's a 9mm subcompact? I'm not sure there is such a thing unless it's the worthless Kel Tec. I certainly wouldn't call a Shield or a Kahr a subcompact.
I use'em both and feel comfy which ever choice I make. I often run a river in a canoe that has a lot of weekend drunks acting like weekend drunks. One time, I'll take the .38 snub and the next time I might take the Kahr 9mm. Or the .45acp...
When you have a good selection, it's alright to mix things up a bit. My snub only carries 5 rounds, while my Kahr CW-9 carries 7 and one. So, I feel a bit more comfy with the Kahr.
My Kahr costs about 400 which isn't terrible. I sold a Keltec PF-9 to get it. Never warmed up to the Keltec and the Kahr is sweet...and accurate. The Keltec was accurate...but definitely not sweet.
Dan
"It's a source of great pride, that when I google my name, I find book titles and not mug shots." Daniel C. Chamberlain
Dan... "Never warmed up to the Keltec and the Kahr is sweet...and accurate. The Keltec was accurate...but definitely not sweet." I've been looking at both of these, can you expound on your statement a little more, curious about your likes/dislikes on them both. Thanks.
"The day I went to work everybody showed up to watch Johnny Luster work. Well, they had a wheelbarrow there, and said I was to push that thing around all day. I looked at it, then turned around and headed for the mountians..."
My 2.25" SP101 only gets 1050 fps with various factory 357 self defense loads with 158gr bullets. IIRC, my G26 gets 900-950 fps with a 147gr bonded Ranger. The 158gr and 147gr seem close enough in the grand scheme of things.
So 100fps advantage to 357. But this is not the 38.
Recoil and blast from the 357 seems like double compared to the G26. I don't have my chrono results for the 38 Especiale... but I recall mid to high 700's with 158gr... 750 to 780fps seems to ring a bell from a S&W 36 (now gone).
My mild 357 reloads run 930 fps with the 158gr. The 9mm from the G26 is still easier to shoot for me.
I sometimes use an 8" gong for practice at 20-25+ yards. In single-action with the SP101 I can hit it regularly, but in double-action I need to cut the distance in half.
With the G26, it's hit after hit after hit. Easy in comparison, with MUCH faster follow-ups. The front site covers the target though. The S&W 36 in 38 was mild, but it took a lot of concentration and effort to shoot just like the SP101 357.
I had a PM9 and it was also very accurate and easy to shoot. Only complaint was that it would get some surface rust from my sweat in summer. G26 is bigger and heavier, but I don't have to baby it as much. Love the G26, but its a little chunky.
I still like the 5-shot revolver though. Had a Taurus 44 Spec Titanium. Great field handgun, but it jammed. I fixed it and sold it. I used to carry my SP101 while hunting... finished my elk with it last year. With 180gr bullets its a definite step up from a 9mm subcompact, but its a handful with full-tilt H110 loads! Worse than my 44 Mag and 45 Colt in terms of torquing out of my hand.
Better projectiles for the 9mm, maybe, but they make a 38+P 135gr Gold Dot load designed for snubbies, so maybe not. I'd say it comes down to whichever one you shoot the best and feel competent with. I know I wish I hadn't traded my Colt Agent off, miss that gun. I could shoot the [bleep] out of it too.
If I were going out with a pocket full of cash, I'd probably get the Kahr, but I'd never feel less armed with a J fre or my Colt Cobra.
Not me. As between those two, I prefer the J Airweight or Colt Cobra. I carried the Kahr P9 for years, but what always bothered me was that, on rare occasion (though often enough for concern) I would accidentally compress the mag release under recoil, thus momentarily disabling the handgun. I've never inadvertently activated the cylinder latch on a double action revolver of any stripe.
Dan... "Never warmed up to the Keltec and the Kahr is sweet...and accurate. The Keltec was accurate...but definitely not sweet." I've been looking at both of these, can you expound on your statement a little more, curious about your likes/dislikes on them both. Thanks.
Maggie
The Keltec is accurate, but it's a tough gun to shoot. It has been engineered to have the absolute minimum amount of metal and material necessary to contain the explosive forces of the cartridge. As such, it simply stings to shoot much. Also, mine exhibited excessive wear in the first 200 rounds, to include peening of the chamber hood against the slide and slide rails that showed unusual wear.
The Kahr CW-9 was 100 dollars more expensive, but worth every penny in difference. The recoil forces are distributed more ergonomically and there isn't a bit of discomfort. The gun is very accurate as well. Given my experience with both guns, I'd elect to buy the Kahr if the price was not the issue.
"It's a source of great pride, that when I google my name, I find book titles and not mug shots." Daniel C. Chamberlain
What's a 9mm subcompact? I'm not sure there is such a thing unless it's the worthless Kel Tec. I certainly wouldn't call a Shield or a Kahr a subcompact.
How about a Kahr PM9?
I've never held the Kahr and Kel Tec in each hand and compared them that closely. Just informally, the Kel Tec seems enough smaller to almost put it in the subcompact category, but I could be mistaken. Just informally, the size in descent seemed to be M&P Compact, Kahr PM9 and Kel Tec single stack 9. I got rid of my Kel Tec both because it wasn't reliable and it didn't seem to be a lot smaller than the M&P Compact. It does seem a bit smaller though.
Dan... "Never warmed up to the Keltec and the Kahr is sweet...and accurate. The Keltec was accurate...but definitely not sweet." I've been looking at both of these, can you expound on your statement a little more, curious about your likes/dislikes on them both. Thanks.
Maggie
The Keltec is accurate, but it's a tough gun to shoot. It has been engineered to have the absolute minimum amount of metal and material necessary to contain the explosive forces of the cartridge. As such, it simply stings to shoot much. Also, mine exhibited excessive wear in the first 200 rounds, to include peening of the chamber hood against the slide and slide rails that showed unusual wear.
The Kahr CW-9 was 100 dollars more expensive, but worth every penny in difference. The recoil forces are distributed more ergonomically and there isn't a bit of discomfort. The gun is very accurate as well. Given my experience with both guns, I'd elect to buy the Kahr if the price was not the issue.
Your experience with the Kel Tec is similar to my own. As an owner of both, did you feel like the Kel Tec gave you a significant advantage, size-wise, over the Kahr?
Better projectiles for the 9mm, maybe, but they make a 38+P 135gr Gold Dot load designed for snubbies, so maybe not. I'd say it comes down to whichever one you shoot the best and feel competent with. I know I wish I hadn't traded my Colt Agent off, miss that gun. I could shoot the [bleep] out of it too.
If I were going out with a pocket full of cash, I'd probably get the Kahr, but I'd never feel less armed with a J fre or my Colt Cobra.
until the day comes, as it did for me a couple of days ago, when you are setting by some blm signs leading into the desert, and the signs say be aware of your surrounding, high illegal/drug trafficing area. And a guy running a ranch nearby had just told you that the area was under the firm control of the sinalola narco cartel. Al of a second that little revolver doesn't look so good anymore.
On that case neither does the damned Kahr. Thats fullsize, full capacity and then as a back up weapon territory. If i were going to be hiking around an area like that i woukd most definately have a long gun with me. Or just say [bleep] it and go somewheres else
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
Let me comment on this as a guy that's carried both the .38 Special snub and a few semi auto pistols for serious purposes. And needed a gun for real a few times BTW. One can carry a larger semi auto with all of it's advantages and have it hide just as well as the .38 snubs. Their extra weight is a real advantage if you really need a gun. Drop a revolver, like your smiths and Colts, on the sidewalk and 50% of the time they won't fire when you pick them up. Never saw an auto put of commisson with the same treatment. Since some have brought up the .44 Special in a small revolver, I will mention the Colt Defender in .45 ACP. Seven vs. five rounds and lots of power. No contest. E
I really think it a personal choice. My Model 60 with full house 357 mags (125g 16ish grains of H110) is a nasty little thing. I can however still keep all five into 3" at 25 yards. Go to wadcutters and it will shrink to 2". I really don't know the LEO manual of arms, my background is military. One handed reloads are not something taught at least in my time. I do not feel at a disadvantage nor under gunned. My background says if you are down to pistol range you're already screwed.
I really don't know the LEO manual of arms, my background is military. One handed reloads are not something taught at least in my time. I do not feel at a disadvantage nor under gunned. My background says if you are down to pistol range you're already screwed.
Handgun shootouts turn into one-handed affairs nearly half the time. Let me assure you that today's military door-kickers get trained on one-handed shooting. "Your already screwed" is really not the proper mindset to have if you expect to prevail.
