TexasCHLforum.com

CompVest wrote:

jbirds1210 wrote:I carry a Glock 26 in a Mika's pocket holster just about every day during the summer. Extra mag in a Desantis magpacker in opposite pocket.

It is slower than IWB carry (About 0.3-0.4 seconds slower to the first shot), but much more comfortable than IWB when wearing a t-shirt.

I realize that we all have opinions on mouse guns in small calibers. I would rather have a sharp knife with some knowledge on how to use it than the gun that many people chose to carry.

Jason

I can understand that considering your height but I would rather have even a tiny .22 then a knife. You almost always get cut in a knife fight and you have to get entirely too close to employ it and would have to be very good with it. Distance is my friend. That said I do carry a knife.

Excaliber wrote:

flintknapper wrote:But, even some “single stacks” can present problems.

This Ultra carry (single stack) with factory grips is as wide as my double stack Para (albeit the grips taper). But, all other dimensions (except barrel/slide length) are approximately the same.

True enough. However, even with the factory grips, I find the Para and similar double stack guns will print more readily than the KUC because of the relatively sharply defined edges on the basically rectangular cross section of the bottom of the grip. Tapering seems to help clothing to "flow" around the grip better on me.YMMV

I sure can't argue with Flint's reasoning on why he carries the larger cap gun - especially since the holes in the barrels pictured indicate that he adheres to the "rule of 4's".

I guess the KUC has now been relegated to mousegun status - you know, what you carry when you're not carrying a "real" gun.

I couldn't argue with that either.

Excaliber wrote:

Mr.72 wrote: PM9 is just about as big as you can get and still be pocketable IMHO. CW9/P9 are just too big for a pocket and would be much better suited to IWB IMHO. I think your typical double-stack 9mm are too fat for IWB and would be better for OWB.

I agree on the PM9. The PM40 is just about exactly the same size as the PM9 (.05 inch longer and same height) in the larger caliber, but pockets just as well as its 9mm cousin. The PM45 is just enough bigger that it takes it out of the pocket category.

I also agree that double stack pistols are generally better suited for OWB carry, although with judicious holster and wardrobe selection they can work IWB. This is generally more practical / comfortable for folks who tend more toward the slender side.

Excaliber wrote:

mr.72 wrote:Flint, PM9 is substantially smaller than a CW9. The CW9 in your pic (or is that a P9?) is indeed not much smaller than some other compact pistols except that it is notably thinner than most.

Mr. 72 is correct. The gun in Flint's picture appears to be a CW9, which is only slightly smaller than the Ultra Carry. The PM9 is about 3/4 inch shorter in height, a 1 1/2 shorter in length, and about 9 ounces lighter than the Ultra Carry.

Here are the dimensions and weights on the Kimber Ultra Carry, the Kahr CW9, and the Kahr PM9 taken from the spec sheets on the manufacturers' web sites:

Ultra Carry CW9 PM9

Height 4.75" 4.5" 4.0"
Length 6.8" 5.9" 5.3"
Weight 25 oz 17.7 oz 15.9 oz

Greybeard wrote:Hmmmmm. Sorry to hear of the probs with PM-9.

I've had one for I-forgot-how-many years now with no problems after a few failures to close completely during the stated break-in period. Although I did not buy if for such, many students have wound up test firing my PM-9 and/or using for the CHL qyalification: no major problems there either ...

To me, "pocket pistol" depends upon the size of the pockets. PM-9 is OK in some of my pants/shorts, but not practical in any of my normal jeans ...