Kel Tec P11 or S&W 642


PDA






..
December 14, 2006, 02:55 PM
Trying to decide between these two. The 642 would sport laser grips. Only thing that concerns me is the inernal lock, is it possible for it to lock under recoil?

If you enjoyed reading about "Kel Tec P11 or S&W 642" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Brian Williams
December 14, 2006, 03:04 PM
I like both, voted 642 cause that is what I carry most. Yes, under very hard recoil the lock will lock. If I carried an Auto I would carry a P11 or If I could find one a PF-9. One of those is going to be in my safe someday.

romma
December 14, 2006, 03:04 PM
Actually as far as Keltec goes, I would probably at least check out the PF-9 first before getting the P-11

..
December 14, 2006, 03:18 PM
Just got off the phone with my dealer, he got in some PF9's so I scored one. :D

romma
December 14, 2006, 03:56 PM
There you go... Now, please get back to us with a range report ASAP on that new PF-9 please!

ronto
December 14, 2006, 04:15 PM
Me too on the PF-9 range report.

longwatch
December 14, 2006, 06:23 PM
I carried a P11 with night sights for a while, worked fine for me. With a trigger stop it had pretty good accuracy too. I like 13 9mm Hydrashocks over 5 .38 specials.

Seven High
December 14, 2006, 06:47 PM
Are there any verifiable reports of a S&W with the lock actually locking up during a firing session? I sure would like to read about it if there is!:confused:

Drewrw
December 14, 2006, 07:00 PM
I have had a horrible experience with my Kel-tec p11. After 200 rounds through mine the ejector broke. Now it jams every shot. Yes, I am going to send it in when I get around to it. :cuss:

Bobo
December 14, 2006, 10:18 PM
You can also get one of these for the PF9.

http://www.armalaser.com/product_105.htm

kokapelli
December 15, 2006, 01:18 PM
I had the P-11 that was 100%, but could not stand the trigger.

I have a new PF9 and love it.

Srigs
December 15, 2006, 01:28 PM
I have and carry the Kel-tec. It is thinner than the 642 and holds more rounds. Win-win for me. :cool:

kokapelli
December 16, 2006, 09:32 AM
PF-9!

I have only fired about 75 rounds through mine and it was 100% right out of the box with three different brands of ammo.
-
http://www.wtv-zone.com/jnib/images/ktog/PF9_inhand.jpg

PX15
December 16, 2006, 01:55 PM
IMO:

I have a KelTec P11, and I have a CT Lasergripped 638 Airweight Bodyguard.

While my P11 has been extremely reliable, and reasonably accurate at self defense range I would (and do) prefer the J-frame over the KelTec.

The addition of the CT Lasergrip FOR ME moved the little snubby from the "can't hit squat" to the "roll a can" accuracy.. The potential accuracy in the 638 is enhanced because of the excellent "target trigger" that comes on it standard.

If you haven't shot a J-frame with the smooth target trigger you will be amazed. I have two older J-frames (pre40&49) both with the older narrow, serrated triggers, and the difference is big time..

I know it's not fair, or logical, but I keep waiting for my P11 to malfunction... I NEVER have that same concern with the J-frame.

I think for the average non leo type the J-frame snubby wearing a set of Crimson Trace Lasergrips will offer all the protection you would ever need, and require very little maintenance in relation to what any semi would require.

JMOFO

Best Wishes,

JP

MCgunner
December 16, 2006, 06:23 PM
P11! I do like 642s, but prefer a hammer even in a pocket gun. Just me. I know all the arguments for hammerless, I just like a hammer on a revolver. The P11 is, in effect, a little hammerless, flat 11 shot revolver in 9mm+P which puts a 115 grain Hornady XTP out at 1260fps/410 fpe. My .38 can't come close to that, only holds 5 rounds, and isn't as small or as light! NO BRAINER to me for concealed carry. It's 3.5" at 25 yards accurate, too, almost as accurate as my snubby.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=44910&d=1158329912

Definitely like to hear about that new PF9. How accurate is it off the bench? That's my first query. It's a little thinner and lighter than the P11. I don't mind the P11's trigger, but the PF9 is supposed to be better for the DA phobes.

kokapelli
December 16, 2006, 07:35 PM
MCgunner, in the hand, the PF-9 over all feels much thinner than the P-11.

I had a P-11 and hated the trigger.

The trigger on the PF-9 is a big improvment over the P-11. It is much closer to the trigger on a P-32 or P-3AT.

The sights on the PF-9 are better than the P-11 sights too.
I have arthritis in my old joints and this pistol a 12.7 oz is hand full for me, so I have only shot about 75 rounds through the PF-9 and I was mainly testing for reliability with different brands of ammo.

I shot magazines of Gold Dot +p for short barrels, Remington jhp and WWB fmj. All three worked without any problem.

Next time out I will check for accuracy, but from what I see it looks about equal to the P-11. It does have the same barrel as the P-11

MCgunner
December 16, 2006, 08:39 PM
Yeah, in the slide/barrel, it's a P11. I'd expect it to shoot very similar. I don't have a problem with the P11 trigger, but I don't have arthritis either. I could see how that long trigger stroke would be a problem for you. I kinda like a long trigger for safety's sake. But, I don't think I'd dislike the PF9. :D The main thing for me would be the trade off in capacity, but 9 rounds is a lot more'n the five shot revolver I often carry. I think the thinner profile is worth a few rounds in the pocket carry mode. If I get one in the future, it'll be for pocket carry, not to mention it's a few ounces lighter. I'll keep the P11 for IWB and maybe ankle carry back up.

If I didn't have a P11 and I was choosing between the two now, I think I'd go for the PF9 for the slightly more compact profile.

orionengnr
December 16, 2006, 11:04 PM
I keep looking at P3ATs and P11s, and...a P11 is not as small as people try to say. Neither is the PF9.

It "might" be a pocket pistol in the same way my Kimber Ultra Carry is a pocket pistol.

That is, it will fit in my pocket, but is not as small/light/concealable as a 642, or my PM9, and is an order of magnitude larger than the P3AT.

Soybomb
December 16, 2006, 11:43 PM
kokapelli have you tried that with 147gr rounds?

I'd say they're different sizes. If you're going IWB, I'd rather have more rounds of the better caliber. If you're going for pocket carry I think you'd be better served to look at the p3at versus the 642.

kokapelli
December 17, 2006, 12:24 PM
kokapelli have you tried that with 147gr rounds?

I'd say they're different sizes. If you're going IWB, I'd rather have more rounds of the better caliber. If you're going for pocket carry I think you'd be better served to look at the p3at versus the 642.

I saw some information on the internet regarding bullet weight and short barreled pistols.

The gelatin ballistic performance indicated that lighter, premium bullets clearly were better out of short barrels.

I will be carrying the Gold Dot +P for short barrel guns.

I am also considering the DPX round.

I have three P-3AT pistols and expect those will still be my always guns.

The PF-9 really is very flat. It's flatter than the PM9, but it is a little longer.

I won't work to well as a pocket pistol in my light weight shorts that we wear 8 months of the year, but it is just fine in my jeans front pocket.

Ala Dan
December 17, 2006, 01:02 PM
S&W 642 without Crimson Trace Laser Grips; no sense in shoving
the extra cash up a wild hogs rear end~!

MCgunner
December 17, 2006, 03:16 PM
I keep looking at P3ATs and P11s, and...a P11 is not as small as people try to say. Neither is the PF9.

It "might" be a pocket pistol in the same way my Kimber Ultra Carry is a pocket pistol.

That is, it will fit in my pocket, but is not as small/light/concealable as a 642, or my PM9, and is an order of magnitude larger than the P3AT.

My P11 is quite a bit shorter in OAL than my 2" Taurus M85UL which is about the size of a 642. It also don't have that lumpy cylinder and is only 1" thick. It is considerable easier for me to pocket in the front pocket of my Carpenter's jeans or Wrangler cargos than my Revolver. It is also only 14 ounces unloaded, but when topped off with 11 rounds approaches the 19 ounce unloaded weight of the 642. The PF9 is only 12 ounces and holds a couple less rounds than the P11. I like the extra firepower and horsepower of the gun regardless, but it is easier to pocket than any revolver short of a NAA mini. The PF9 has an even thinner profile at .88 inches thick.

I feel quite well armed with a revolver, I just think a compact 9 like the Kel Tecs or the PM9 Kahr are a superior weapon for self defense in a pocket. Add to that they are much faster to reload, no fumbling with speedloaders even if you can use up 11 rounds without effect (a difficult scenario to fathom).

I don't wear shorts. Even in the hottest part of a south Texas summer, I wear jeans, sometimes kevlar reinforced for that possible spill on one of my motorcycles. Shorts are NOT a good thing for motorcycling. I wear ankle covering footwear and usually have an armored summer jacket on while riding unless it's just a short ride to the store or something. I can't afford the skin grafts a pair of shorts would cost me in a fall.

hpg
December 17, 2006, 03:19 PM
Don't know about the lazer grips, but definately the 38 Special.......hpg

ChuckB
December 17, 2006, 05:26 PM
I rented a P-11 today at a local range. As long as I used a smooth, continuous trigger pull (no staging), I shot consistent 2-3 inch groups at 21 feet. I was quite impressed- may buy one soon!

Chuck

10-Ring
December 17, 2006, 11:14 PM
I'd go w/ the Smith (sans CT) :cool:

GunNut
December 17, 2006, 11:35 PM
642 w/or without laser grips depending on your gun budget.

Steve

5Wire
December 18, 2006, 01:41 AM
Brian Williams posted: I like both, voted 642 cause that is what I carry most. Yes, under very hard recoil the lock will lock. If I carried an Auto I would carry a P11 or If I could find one a PF-9. One of those is going to be in my safe someday.

A bit of a leap of (lack of) faith, Brian ;). I will say that "the lock" incites more controversy among the folks at the Smith &Wesson Forum (http://smith-wessonforum.com/groupee/forums/a/frm/f/530103904) than almost any other topic. However, in a concerted effort to get some kind of quantity associated with internal lock failures, one of the administrators may have come up with five or six verifiable lock failures. (See this thread.) (http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/500103904/m/228102718/p/1). In 2004, Smith & Wesson manufactured 146,089 revolvers, all of which, for all practical purposes, included "the lock". Extend that quantity by the number of manufacturing years "the lock" has been included.

Take the number of failures that you can reliably attribute to the internal lock and divide that number by the extended quantity of revolvers with the lock.

The result is an itsy bitsy number even if you assume 5000 instead of 5 lock failures.

5000/ (130,000 revolvers per year x 8 years) is less than half a percent percent.

Compare that itsy bitsy number to failures attributable to ammunition, to clogged ejector stars, worn cylinder stop bolts. That is, compare causes if you can find the data.

The lock is fugly. Yup. Ok. So what.

I have about 50/50 S&Ws with and without locks. Those without the lock look better. No problems with either. My best shooter is a .45 ACP S&W 625-8 with the lock. My every day carry is a 642-1 (no lock).

roo_ster
December 18, 2006, 11:48 AM
Hmmm.

I own the KT P40, the P11's rowdy brother in .40S&W and a Taurus snubbie.

A .38/.357 snubbie is, generally, easier to conceal. I would weigh that in my decision.

I pretty much carry the snubbie and my KT only infrequently, since if I want to carry something bigger than the snubbie, I'll carry a 1911.

MCgunner
December 18, 2006, 12:06 PM
Chuck, with practice, the long DA is easy to master. It does add a bit of safety to carry over something like a Glock with it's very short throw trigger. It may be a LONG trigger, but it's a very smooth trigger after you put a few rounds down range with it. Mine's had in excess of 10K fired, pretty well "fluffed and buffed" itself. :D

To me, the long DA of the P11 is much easier to control than a not so smooth DA like is on a Smith J frame. If I got a J frame, I'd take it to a good revolver smith for a trigger job before I ever carried it. They're pretty rough out of the box. My Taurus M85UL, OTOH, was fantastic out of the box. So, a revolver can have a nice DA trigger. But, think about it, all the P11 trigger has to do is cock and release a hammer, not turning any cylinder or moving anything else. Stands to reason it's going to be smooth. It does stack a bit at the end. When I'm shooting over the chrony or shooting groups from the bench, I'll stack it at the end and then squeeze through. It is almost like a stiff SA and helps me place the shots. But, off hand shooting defensive, I just use a steady squeeze and pull it through.

On the subject of "the lock", one failure is one more than they'd have it if didn't have that danged lock. :rolleyes: With my luck, Mr. Murphy would see to it that it was me it happened to. I carry +P in my revolver. My Taurus has a lock, too, but I've never heard of the Taurus failing. I might grind the danged thing off anyway just because I can. :D It is easier to disable than the frame mounted Smith lock. All you have to do is take the hammer out and fire up the bench grinder.

Dirty Bob
December 18, 2006, 01:03 PM
I like both, but I'll vote P-11 for flatness, capacity, and better sights. I also like the quicker reload, though that's unlikely to be a factor for CCW use.

Regards,
Dirty Bob

LT1coupe
December 24, 2006, 10:27 PM
The P11 carries very well for a 9mm & mine has been very reliable.
Arma lasers are available for ~$100 if you need one & nights sights are $80 installed.

paddling_man
December 25, 2006, 03:49 PM
Is anyone carrying a P11 concealed WITH an Armalaser? I've had my P11 for a few years but I would be concerned the armalaser would make it too bulky.

(The armalaser also looks a bit delicate for CCW, but I have zero first-hand experience.)

MCgunner
December 25, 2006, 05:00 PM
I'd rather have the Tritium night sights, especially on a pocket or IWB carry gun. No batteries or electronics and they don't require anything special in the way of leather. JMHO though.

Buckles
December 27, 2006, 12:47 PM
The underlying theme is that you should try out one of each (if possible) and decide which one feels best to you. I have a Taurus M85 Titanium and a P11 (make that 2 P11's). I go for the extra rounds in a carry weapon. You can't shoot what isn't there!

The Kel Tec line is less substantially expensive but don't think that it lacks in quality. You would be well served if you did a Fluff 'n Buff on it just to remove any 'rough edges' (yes, I found plastic molding flash on my P3AT). Polish the feed ramp, upgrade to a steel follower and add a trigger shoe and trigger stop. Also check out the Kel Tec Owner's Group at KTOG.org for more ideas and suggestions for improvements. Above all, no gun manufacturer (in my opinion) does a better and faster job of owner support than Kel Tec. It is a big company on sales, but a small company when it comes to being attentive, concerned and responsive.

The money saved on the KT will exceed the cost of the additional work.

Dirty Bob
December 28, 2006, 04:51 PM
One thing I also like about both guns is that they have their own "support groups" of satisfied users, with advice on maintenance, modification, etc.

Kudos to Kel-Tec for not voiding an owner's warranty for taking the gun apart or making modifications.

Regards,
Dirty Bob

rhubarb
December 28, 2006, 06:54 PM
I think that for a gun where easy concealment is paramount, the KelTec P11 can't be beat. It is the best combination of size, weight, caliber and capacity (12+1) at any price.

I got rid of the one I had because of multiple parts breakages (including two ejectors as previously mentioned) starting after 2,000 rounds. I will say that it functioned 100% when it wasn't broken.

Take my mixed endorsement for what it's worth.

If you enjoyed reading about "Kel Tec P11 or S&W 642" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!