View Full Version : Kel Tec Pf9 Q's
Hello all,
Don't know if my search function isn't working, or if the Pf9 just hasn't been discussed here much. If it has and I missed it, I'm sorry.
I purchased my wife a Kahr Pm9 recently. She likes it and has been practicing regularly. This has prompted my brother to look into a small handgun that his wife would carry (like my wife, she will not carry something as thick as G26 in the summer). However, he has to be a bit more budget conscious than I do, and he would like to avoid paying Kahr prices.
As a result he has been looking at a Kel tec Pf9. Both of our research showed an "if you get a good one" feeling regarding the Kahr. My wife is putting hers through the paces and building confidence in carrying it, however, his general contention is that other than a nicer trigger, the Kahr doesn't seem to offer much "real world benefit" over the Kel Tec that would justify the additional $350 in cost.
I told him I would post here, asking for your thoughts on the reliability/durability etc of the little kel tec, and how its stacks up to the Pm9 my wife is shooting.
Thanks for any and all info. He is looking to include the purchase of ccw piece in his Christmas shopping for his wife, needs to be reign in his budget, but doesn't want to buy something unreliable in an attempt to save some coin.
lethal dose
12-15-10, 18:53
Although it may not seem like it, the kahr is infinitely better then the kel tec. While kel tecs have a niche, kahr is a solid weapon platform.
Agreed. While it's not a favorite of mine, I'd say the Kahr is easily twice as good a pistol, especially in regard to durability.
I believe the Taurus 709 is a much better small CCW for not much more than the Kel Tec. I have shot a few of the 709's and they rock. They, to me, have a much better appearance of quality, plus, you can put some time on them. The gun stores in my county cannot keep them in stock.
As far as comparing the Kel Tec to the Kahr, I don't think you can other than they both shoot 9mm.
I have no direct experience with either but have closely followed the development of the PF9. I do own two other Kel-Tec products, both of which work well, and represent exceptional values for the money spent.
I've read of people with good and bad experience with both Kahr and Kel-Tec. If you get a bad Kel-Tec, their customer service is good.
To avoid getting a bad one: buy it new, and make sure it is recent production (from what I understand, you are unlikely to find anything new that is not recent production in a gun shop). The PF-9 went through a lot of changes since it was first introduced, resulting in considerable improvement. Furthermore, DO NOT perform the "fluff and buff" that you may read about on other forums. It is a good way to turn a pistol that left the factory within specifications into a pistol that is out of specification.
The biggest disadvantage I see with the Kel-Tec is the lack of availability of tritium sights. You can, however, get a Crimson Trace LaserGuard for it.
Make sure your brother's wife understands what she is buying with either the Kahr or Kel-Tec. The recoil of either will likely be more than the gentle recoil of a Glock 26.
lethal dose
12-15-10, 20:56
Harrell- respecfully, I would never trust my life to a Taurus... or a kel tec, for that matter. YMMV.
Had a late-model PM9 that was a "bad one" and replaced it with recently minted PF9. They shoot about the same for me. The KT is rough looking and much less comfortable to shoot, but equally as accurate and reliable for me. Friends noticed the thicker PM9 on my hip moreso than the PF9. At the risk of losing my gun snob status, I'll just say the PF9 is a guilty pleasure of mine.
in the single stack 9mm game, i'd say kahr might be the king.
you can pick up a C-grade P7 for 500 or so, though they're not light. quite thin though. also very easy to shoot.
kel tec apparently has excellent customer service. so that's a plus.
why aren't there more single stack 9's in the world? :confused:
I have had a PF9 for about a year with over 1100 rounds through it. It had a couple minor issues early on that Keltec was great about taking care of. It runs great now and its thinness and lightness make it an easy decision for me. I installed a belt clip on it and it makes carrying extremely easy. As long as you're willing to run it until it meets your expectations for carry (which you should always do) I recommend it.
I essentially traded a Keltec PF9 for a Kahr PM9.
The Keltec is meant to carried a lot and shot not so often. It does this well. It is not enjoyable to shoot.
The Kahr is a superior product... and priced accordingly. Much easier to shoot well.
Neither is good-to-go out of the box in my opinion. Both need a good cleaning and de-burring, if not an outright fluff & buff.
The Kahr absolutely must be fired a minimum of the 200 rounds as recommended by the manufacturer... MUST... and 200 is a MINIMUM.
If you put in the work to get either running correctly, then either will serve. But they are apples and oranges to one another in my book.
Stay safe.
in the single stack 9mm game, i'd say kahr might be the king.
you can pick up a C-grade P7 for 500 or so, though they're not light. quite thin though. also very easy to shoot.
kel tec apparently has excellent customer service. so that's a plus.
why aren't there more single stack 9's in the world? :confused:
There's also the Walther PPS. It's about half an inch longer in the slide than a PM9 but easier to shoot. It's about the same width as my PM9. Both like a lot of lube.
I'm certainly not an engineer but comparing how the PM9 and PPS are put together, I expect the PPS to outlast the PM9. There's a lot more steel-to-steel contact between the frame and slide in the PPS than in the PM9.
Prices I've seen for both are in the same range, about $520-600.
The PPS has a Glock-like trigger, with a short reset, compared to the revolver-like reset of the Kahr. Weights on both triggers are in the 6-7 lb. range.
Kahr CS says to change recoil springs at 1k-1500 rds. I've found them going south on the PM9 and K9 at about 800 rds. Walther America CS says the PPS recoil spring needs changing at about 2500 rds.
The PPS is really my wife's gun, and we've put a bit over 1k rds through it.
Our PM9 had to go back to Kahr at about the 1800 rd mark to fix a barrel peening problem. Kahr replaced the slide, barrel, and some other parts.
There are night sights available now for the PPS, but still no laser from Crimson Trace.
There's also the Kahr CW9. It's about half an inch longer than the PM9 in slide and grip length, same width as PM9, and runs about $410-450 around here. It's a "bargain" Kahr, so to speak. Less machining on the outside of the slide, different rifling, different method of attaching the front sight, and a MIM slide stop vs. milled with other Kahrs. Don't own one, but am hearing good things about them.
There's also the Kahr CW9. It's about half an inch longer than the PM9 in slide and grip length, same width as PM9, and runs about $410-450 around here. It's a "bargain" Kahr, so to speak. Less machining on the outside of the slide, different rifling, different method of attaching the front sight, and a MIM slide stop vs. milled with other Kahrs. Don't own one, but am hearing good things about them.
CW9 front sight isn't dovetailed correct? Does this mean expensive gunsmithing to put night sights etc on? That would be the only real drawback I would think. Lack of Polygonal rifling isn't a big issue to me.
There's also the Walther PPS.
that is supposed to be a nice gun. I looked into them briefly and ended up with a glock 26. Partly due to price. partly because i already owned one 9mm glock. (19)
I just figured it was out of the OP's price range.
CW9 front sight isn't dovetailed correct? Does this mean expensive gunsmithing to put night sights etc on? That would be the only real drawback I would think. Lack of Polygonal rifling isn't a big issue to me.
The CW9's front sight isn't dovetailed. It attaches to the slide in a manner similar to a Glock. But Dawson Precision offers a tritium front sight made to fit the CW9 without any gunsmithing.
The CW9's front sight isn't dovetailed. It attaches to the slide in a manner similar to a Glock. But Dawson Precision offers a tritium front sight made to fit the CW9 without any gunsmithing.
Good info, thanks. As it happens, I was thinking of picking up a Kahr P9. I wanted a double stack 9mm to carry on shorts and t-shirt days, I thought it would be cool to have one like my wifes, but I hate pinky dangle. I had put the CW9 out of mind for two reasons; 1.)I wrote it off as their "cheap" gun, rather than their "inexpensive" gun 2.) I wanted the option to change stock sights.
While shopping a local forum I found a kahr P9 for sale (LNIB 575 with extra mag) and cw9's for 450-500... got me thinking if the P9 was worth the price difference. As I understand it Kahr lowered the price point on the CW by dropping the match-grade polygonal rifling of the p9, going MIM on some parts rather than machining, pinning the front sight rather than dovetailing and sending it out with only on factory mag? Am I missing anything? Maybe I should give the CW more consideration.
As to the PPS, that is originally what my wife wanted. First time rented at the range she liked it over the Pm9. However, over several trips to the range, she found she shot the Kahr more accurately, liked the trigger better and she was having FTF/FTE with the PPS. Likely due to gun club maintenance more than anything, but it put her off of it in the long run.
Thanks to everyone for the info, my brother got to read through the thread this morning, and found it helpful.
Harrell- respecfully, I would never trust my life to a Taurus... or a kel tec, for that matter. YMMV.
Dude, you won't see either one of them in my waist band either, I was just saying out of the two (Kel Tec or 709), I would rather have the Taurus. If I am going to carry a gun as heavy as the Kahr, I'm carrying a Glock.
Our PM9 had to go back to Kahr at about the 1800 rd mark to fix a barrel peening problem. Kahr replaced the slide, barrel, and some other parts.
My PM9 went back to Kahr for the same issue and got the same treatment after only 375 rounds. Kahrs have the appearance of a quality weapon, but all that glitters is not gold.
I never had any issues with either Kahr MK9 I owned, with at least a couple thousand rounds total through them. I've seen too many complaints with the PM9. I don't understand what the fascination is with going plastic other than weight. It's really not that big of a difference for all the whining and moaning that seems to come with it.
And FWIW, the only 2 metal hand guns I own are on their way to getting sold, so I'm definitely not hating on plastic. That particular gun doesn't seem to be their best product in plastic though.
My PM9 went back to Kahr for the same issue and got the same treatment after only 375 rounds. Kahrs have the appearance of a quality weapon, but all that glitters is not gold.
I've noticed that the majority of complaints I see with Kahrs are with the PM9. That may be a function of the popularity of that model, but I believe that the PM9 was/is skating on the ragged edge of how small one can make a 9mm with current technology and still have it work most of the time and hold together reasonably well. I also have a K9 with about 800 rds through it and a TP9 with about the same number. We'll see how they hold up long-term.
I've noticed that the majority of complaints I see with Kahrs are with the PM9. That may be a function of the popularity of that model, but I believe that the PM9 was/is skating on the ragged edge of how small one can make a 9mm with current technology and still have it work most of the time and hold together reasonably well. I also have a K9 with about 800 rds through it and a TP9 with about the same number. We'll see how they hold up long-term.
It may be on the ragged edge in terms of size, but what seems to counter that argument is the whole notion of "if you get a runner, it's solid". That speaks to more of a quality control issue in my opinion. IT will be interesting to see how my wifes holds up, although many comments here make me feel like I should have her go rent the PPS and couple more times!
On a side note, maybe I'll pick up the P9 and cut the grip down. I've read its pretty easy to cut them down to take PM9 mags, giving you a better functioning handgun thats nearly as concealable. Anyone tried this themselves?
Many moons ago I had a Kahr PM9. I had all kinds of trouble with the little guy. Sure, it was nice to carry, but as my only CCW at the time, I was nonplussed. If I had to do the Kahr thing over again, I'd go with the P9 or even the K9.
I've moved on to new and more exciting carry pieces, but I still long for a single stack 9mm. For some damn reason, beyond logic or need, I want a PF9. I've had good luck with other Kel-Tec products, so I'm going to let it ride and hope I get a "good one." We'll see, it might be a waste of a little money, but at least it's hard earned little money! :D
Cheers,
FnB
.
why aren't there more single stack 9's in the world? :confused:
To echo Oldtexan, I really think most mfgs are pushing it with how slim a 9mm can be. I don't know if it's slide weight or what, but there seems to be a threshold of sorts.
The entire profile of a G19 is just about as thin as the slide. I want to believe that if Glock could make a single stack version of the G19/26 and reliably shave even 1/16 off of the width, then they would have done it by now.
We seem to get to a point with 9mm where too small of a gun is just not reliable enough. The SA EMP seemed like a good step forward, but even at that price they don't seem to have them sorted out from a reliability standpoint.
KHARs are tempting, but I think I will continue to struggle with my reduced G19 until something much, much better is at hand.
I picked up a PF9 as a summer carry gun. My 1911 is just too large sometimes.
I took it to the range and fired 400 rounds of varying type through it without any failures. It ate everything I had which was two different types of hollow points and 3 different types of ball ammo. Two boxes of ball were nearly 20 years old as well.
I don't recommend shooting that gun that much in one session because it's got a pretty snappy kick to it.
One issue is that it really isn't quick to change the magazine. It takes a decidedly hard press to seat it.
It was accurate enough that I'm comfortable carrying it for self defense. I won't be hitting anyone at 100 yards with it, but that's not it's design function either.
I do need to shoot it more, but that's the same with all my guns. Need to train and shoot and there's only so much time and money.
To echo Oldtexan, I really think most mfgs are pushing it with how slim a 9mm can be. I don't know if it's slide weight or what, but there seems to be a threshold of sorts.
The entire profile of a G19 is just about as thin as the slide. I want to believe that if Glock could make a single stack version of the G19/26 and reliably shave even 1/16 off of the width, then they would have done it by now.
We seem to get to a point with 9mm where too small of a gun is just not reliable enough. The SA EMP seemed like a good step forward, but even at that price they don't seem to have them sorted out from a reliability standpoint.
KHARs are tempting, but I think I will continue to struggle with my reduced G19 until something much, much better is at hand.
well, my single stack P7 psp is more comfortable and concealable than a glock 19. or glock 26 in most cases. (certainly faster and easier to shoot than a 26. The p7 is also at least as reliable as a glock.
well, my single stack P7 psp is more comfortable and concealable than a glock 19. or glock 26 in most cases. (certainly faster and easier to shoot than a 26. The p7 is also at least as reliable as a glock.
I wasn't trying to champion Glock and I have also heard a lot of great things about the P7, so it seems to be a good option to bring up.
I just haven't seen much in the way of new, ultra small, single-stack 9mms in recent years that have been deemed utterly reliable by anyone whom I would trust.
ETA: I don't know much about P7s, but aren't they a completely different lock work than the "Browning" design of most modern pistols? Maybe that is the key for them being so trim and still functioning.
I have a PF9 in my hand.
I used to have a laser on it. I don't see it now.
I see I have a rubber grip on it.
I have the P11, P32, P357S, P40, P3AT, and PF9.
I got a Patriot 45, little plastic gun designed by Nehemia Sirkis, not really a Kel-Tek, but the KTOG guys were into it like it was.
I usually carry the P3AT in my shirt pocket with a clip.
This PF9 is for more heavy threat situations.
It is slim enough and small enough for the inside jacket pocket, but a little heavy.
This one weighs 18 ounces loaded with 8 rounds of 100 gr +P+.
But the PF9 pushes the 100 gr +P+ factory at 1275 and 124 gr handloads at 1336.
The 11 ounce loaded with 7 rounds P3AT will only push 90 gr Gold Dot handloads at 1100 fps.
F-Trooper05
12-17-10, 02:43
I just haven't seen much in the way of new, ultra small, single-stack 9mms in recent years that have been deemed utterly reliable by anyone whom I would trust.
ETA: I don't know much about P7s, but aren't they a completely different lock work than the "Browning" design of most modern pistols? Maybe that is the key for them being so trim and still functioning.
The P7 uses a gas delayed blow-back design.
As for small 9mm's, SIG is coming out with the P290. But if recent trends are any indication, they'll quickly release a two-tone version, then an Equinox version, then a cute little Blackwater version, and then a pretty little rainbow version... And then after about six months, there will be a massive recall.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.