Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Glock vs. Kahr: Don't trust manufacture's creative measurments

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by PlayboyPenguin, Jan 3, 2010.

  1. PlayboyPenguin

    PlayboyPenguin Pacific Northwest Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,833
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    I took these pics to prove a point in another thread and thought others might find it interesting.

    The question was from someone looking to pick up a Kahr MK series pistol to replace their sub-compact Glock. They were asking if the MK would be easier to carry and conceal than the Glock. I answered that the Kahr MK series is not that much smaller than the Glock and also heavier. I told them the Kahr PM series would be better if they were looking for an easier to carry gun than the sub-compact Glock.

    Then someone challenged that by stating the Kahr PM series and MK series are the same dimensions. They used the Kahr website as their reference. I told tham the Kahr website was misleading because they only measure the slide and not the frame. On the PM series the frame is polymer and very streamline. In the MK series the frame is stainless and the grips are mounted onto it. That makes the gun much closer to the Glock in width and easy of carry/concealment. This is especially true if you get the wood grips on the MK series gun.

    Here are the pics that show the widths at the grip of each gun. You can see that the Glock and the MK are more similar than the MK and the PM.

    Kahr MK40 w/polymer grips
    MK40Pwide.jpg

    Kahr MK40 w/wood grips
    MK40wide.jpg

    Kahr PM40
    PM40wide.jpg

    Glock 26
    Glock26wide.jpg
     
  2. cyclesarge

    cyclesarge Eugene OR, DUH! We're ALL in the NORTHWEST Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    77
    Hmmm, it would be interesting to see what the difference in total displacement between the guns would be.
     
  3. Gunner3456

    Gunner3456 Salem Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,108
    Likes Received:
    834
    Get a 3 gallon plastic bucket. Put a mark about 2/3 of the way full and fill with water to that mark. Submerge each gun in the water and measure the distance the water level rises in the bucket. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumbup:
     
  4. Wallygator

    Wallygator Albany, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    51

    Or if you really cared, you could use oil
     
  5. Gunner3456

    Gunner3456 Salem Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,108
    Likes Received:
    834
    But I don't care since they aren't my guns. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
     
  6. d1esel

    d1esel Ridgefield WA. Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    2
    What's with the commie calipers PbP? Ain't you got a inch button on that thing? I'll have to hand it to ya though, 25.4 is more impresive than 1.:D
     
  7. PlayboyPenguin

    PlayboyPenguin Pacific Northwest Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,833
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    European
    measurements suck...especially when trying to show precise differences. :)
     
  8. Deavis

    Deavis Mid Willamette Valley Active Member

    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    80
    Not exactly for this thread... on size but on the performance end of things. I have a P40 3.75" barrel I recently chono'ed against my Gen III G-22 Glock 4.49" barrel with Winchester RA40TA 165 grain...... 6 rounds each gun and they BOTH AVERAGED 1139 fps!


    Odd that I thought... .75" barrel difference and NO difference in velocity