New Jovian Thunderbolt: Slim .40

Monday, January 31, 2011

Slim .40

For my 2012 or 2013 pistol...

I'm sorta in the same boat as JayG. (And so many other gunnies for some reason...) He's trying to cover the supposed gap between a pocket revolver in .38 and a regular size carry pistol like a .45 or .357 with something in between. He's looking at the new mini-9mm offerings that are starting to eclipse the mini-.380s

I'm in the same boat. But I don't want a small 9mm because I have no OTHER 9mm and don't want to introduce a new ammo type. So I want a .40. I've discussed this before. A single stack .40. So Kahr, unless the other gun companies catch up soon. I wonder how quickly they will catch up to my line of thinking? They never caught up to .45 carbine ideas. To the point where I see less utility for a pistol carbine.

(Sorry for the sparse comment, but internet connectivity has been sparse since the storm. The storm wasn't abnormal, it's the competency of the various service providers in this country as we slowly slide into 3rd World category when it comes to various utilities. Seriously. Spotty utility service, ordered to boil municipal water in nearby jurisdictions, cholera in Massachusetts, malaria making a comeback locally. This isn't 2011. It's not even 1911.)

8 comments:

ZerCool said...: Not sure how you feel about Taurus; the latest issue of American Rifleman had a full-page ad of their 709 Slim (in 9mm) next to their new 740 Slim ... in, oddly enough, .40. Single-stack.

In my own safe there is a S&W 4053, which is arguably one of the nicest autos they made, IMHO. 8+1 of .40 in a single-stack (but the mags are a BITCH to find), alloy frame, and roughly commander-sized. One of my favorite pistols, particularly nice since it was essentially a spur-of-the-moment purchase.; January 31, 2011 at 8:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Did you get slim grips on your 1911? I am wondering how these new "Slim" guns compare to a single stack, 1911 width.; January 31, 2011 at 9:21 AM
MaddMedic said...: Ahem...
Kahr..
Cw or PM...
Recently saw a CW45 for 379 bucks at local gunshop.

Is embarrassing when wife drags you out by the arm and your screaming and kicking...

Sigh..; January 31, 2011 at 9:45 AM
New Jovian Thunderbolt said...: Slim grips are OTW for my new 1911.

Kahr CW is on the short list.; January 31, 2011 at 10:16 AM
Gunnutmegger said...: The Kahr CW models have some MIM parts in them, and are not built to the same standard as their "regular" models. You only get one magazine with a CW, so the "savings" from buying a CW are an illusion. Buy the regular Kahrs.

Also consider the Walther PPS in .40S&W. And Ruger should have a SR40c model soon.; January 31, 2011 at 11:28 AM
Revolver 223 said...: Until somewhat recently, I was an avowed 40S&W user. I was in the market for a small(ish) CCW pistol, and having fallen in love with my full sized XD(M) in 40, looked at the XD sub-compact in the same caliber.

I found that it, as well as every smaller 40 I looked at, had severe "muzzle flip" versus the 45 (which, IMHO, kicks "straight back") and the 9mm (which really doesn't kick).

On a whim I tried the 9mm XD sub-compact and fell in love.

In fact, I'm in the process of moving entirely to 9mm from 40, partially because after shooting the 9mm equivalents of my 40 guns I really now notice the muzzle flip, but because the 9mm doesn't bother my carpal tunnel nearly as much.

So, long and short: 9mm may be a better way to go.; January 31, 2011 at 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Have you seen the Walther slim .40?; February 1, 2011 at 8:22 AM
Counsel said...: I have yet to find anything better than my Sig P239 in. 40... My full-size is a FNX-9, and do like it too...; February 1, 2011 at 10:30 AM