What is the caliber on the Kahr? 9mm? If so, couldn't you downgrade the ammo on the S&W to .38 Special +P to reduce the recoil pain, but maintain comparable stopping power to the 9mm? A former roomate of mine used to carry a snubby Taurus .357, but loaded it with +P 38s for carry purposes since the recoil was as you describe. buzzard

I've considered the possibility of using .38 Special instead of .357 Magnum rounds. Now I can fully appreciate why some people have done that. But in that case I would prefer to use the Kahr. The 9mm +p+ loads I use are superior to the .38 +p in terms of lethality and the ammo is compatible with a lot of my other weapons. Still though the weight of the S&W gives it certain advantages that keep it viable even if its a monster to shoot. One thing I'm not looking forward to is more training because as a practice I use the same ammo on the range as I would in normal use. So that means a lot more punishing .357 Mag sessions if I intend to keep my routine. I see this weapon as almost entirely defensive against people and possibly dogs within 3 to 7 meters so if at all possible I'd like to launch the most powerful rounds as I can stand with the goal of being able to put at least 2 rounds on target in rapid succession. The bullet needs to reliably be able to penetrate auto glass, car doors, residential doors, forearms and then heavy clothing and still produce an almost immediate incapacitating/lethal wound on persons who may also be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Thats a lot to ask of any "typical" pistol/revolver round IMO and even more so from such a short barrel. .357 Mag is a pretty sure bet though. Also of prime importance was the quickness of drawing the weapon from a concealed carry possition. The S&W is superior in that respect to me. But the recoil...sigh...lol. Just to feel the difference I'll fire some .38 Specials today. http://www.laxrange.com/laxcam.htm

How does your Kahr handle the +P+ ammo? I like the 9x19 for a CCW. Pistols generally suck at making people dead, from what I've seen (granted the pistoleros in my AO tend to be sh!tty marksmen). It seems that being able to make accurate, rapid follow up shots would be more valuable than maybe hitting the dude with the hand cannon once. I would go for the Kahr. Cato

Maybe I'm wrong, and feel free to say so, but I say having a clip with more ammo in a close quarters situation is a better bet, as the first few rapid succession shots may not be exactly on target. Reloading a revolver, or having a few extra shots in that situation? Personally, I take the extra shots, but only because I don't trust the situation to always go as well as on-the-range senarios. I prefer to have a couple of extra shots for the angry friends that happen upon their friend's demise... and me trying to start my car! ;) What you guys think? TJrob

Bullets for self-defense are kind of like stocking a bar when you're expecting company -- I'd rather have too much than too little. My traditional approach has always been one mag in the gun, a second one elsewhere on my person, for around 30 rounds carried +/- a couple rounds depending on the pistol. Since switching to carrying a 1911, I do two back up mags instead of one, for a total of 27+1 (9mm 1911). I suspect the gunfight will be long over or I'll be long dead before I would ever get started on a third 1911 magazine but, again, better to have it and not need it, etc.

The Kahr is great will anything I have used so far and accurate as hell. Even the +p+ ammo. I agree with you about pistols and making dead people. The S&W is really filling a very limited role for me compared to the Kahr.

Back when I had a carry permit, I'd go with a .45 ACP and 2 spare mags for around 22 rounds. I kinda favor the .45 as a carry round, but that's a religous matter. :) buzzard

"Bullets for self-defense are kind of like stocking a bar when you're expecting company -- I'd rather have too much than too little. My traditional approach has always been one mag in the gun, a second one elsewhere on my person, for around 30 rounds carried +/- a couple rounds depending on the pistol. Since switching to carrying a 1911, I do two back up mags instead of one, for a total of 27+1 (9mm 1911). I suspect the gunfight will be long over or I'll be long dead before I would ever get started on a third 1911 magazine but, again, better to have it and not need it, etc." I respect your views but what I have found is this. Most gunfights almost never last long enough to require a reload or even more than 3 or so rounds. So now I just go with an extra mag or speed loader at most.

I think there's some strong statistical research that would agree with you -- I seem to recall something in excess of 90% of self-defense shootings involve less than four rounds fired or something like that. On the other hand, I can carry three 1911 mags as easily as I could ever carry two double-stack mags, so why not do so? I'd hate to be dead because my personal self-defense shooting event did not fall into the 95% confidence interval for someone's statistical research . . .

In the role I am discussing, Concealed Carry , all those extra mags make too much clickety clack unless you put them in a belt holder which almost defeats the point in all but the coldest climates IME. I have found that its not too difficult to get away with a single extra mag in the pocket. But any more and its too much work to be stealthy. Another thing I found out is that most shootings are unplanned. They are usually acts of desperation and/or emotion. Most people acting under such a situation may have a gun, knife or blunt weapon. But they almost never have extra ammo on their person due to the same reasons of concealability and haste. Adding insult to injury they arent usually very well trained either. Even if they have a hi-CAP semi-auto its the rage driven spray and pray that rarely hits the intended target. Throw in the dynamic of shooting back at them and a sustained gunfight requiring reloads is almost an oddity. Now I could see the issue of multiple attackers making reloading a possibility. But what I have found if that most people like what I described above will run in pure terror as soon as you attempt to defend yourself. Especially if you hit one of their party. Good personal SA will almost totally negate the probability of such attacks and is more effective than firearms. Yes there are some scenarios where you could face the remote possibility of a trained attacker(s). But such individuals most often use ambush/suprise such that a lone individual has virtually no chance of a successful defence(i.e. shooting you from behind/blind spot or using overwhelming firepower). A successful defence against this is beyond the scope of personal defense.