[marksman13]

I've done some looking and handling and have narrowed my search to four choices. The choices are in no particular order...a Smith & Wesson 642, a Kel-Tec P-3at, a Kel-Tec PF9 and a Ruger LCP. I'll list the pros and cons of each as I see them and then I would like the advice of THR. I really want a pistol that I can pocket carry and am setting 380 ACP as my minimum caliber.

Smith & Wesson 642

Pros:
1. Reliable
2. Smith & Wesson customer service
3. 38 Spc +P capable
4. all metal construction
5. Lots of after-market support

Cons:
1. Only five rounds
2. bulkier than the autos
3. more expensive than other options

Kel-Tec P-3at:

Pros:
1. slim, light-weight design allows easy, comfortable pocket carry
2. very concealable
3. Kel-Tec Customer service (from what I have heard)
4. 6-7 rounds and quick mag change
5. After-market support

Cons:
1. Very rudimentary sights
2. plastic construction (what can I say? I like steel.)
3. 380 ACP leaves something to be desired
4. Pistol feels rough and cheap
5. some reliability issues have been reported

Kel-Tec PF9

Pros:
1. 9mm
2. best sights of the four
3. bigger grip for more control

Cons:
1. Maybe too large for pocket carry
2. Plastic construction
3. Don't know much about this fairly new pistol
4. Not as much after-market support

Ruger LCP

Pros:
1. Same easily carried demensions as P-3at
2. feels much smoother and more refined than the P-3at
3. Doesn't have the cheap feel of the Kel-Tec

Cons:
1. 380 ACP
2. sights are almost non-existant
3. Pistol is new and therefore un-tested
4. Some people have reported issues with Ruger Customer Service in the past

So, there's my choices and the pros and cons as I see them through handling. I'll post a poll to get a general feel. Feel free to add advice and give me more pros and cons from your experience. Thanks in advance.

[C-grunt]

I said the 642 as it is a great gun and chambered for a good cartridge. My only complaint with the 442 I had was the recoil and the trigger pull. It was plenty accurate but hard to shoot past 30 feet, which is probably farther than self defense ranges.

[shep854]

A PF9 is parked in my pocket as I post. I used to carry a snub, but was drawn to the flatter shape and faster reload of the auto. I carried a Kel-Tec P11 (10 rd 9mmP), but found the PF even flatter and with a lighter trigger. The 9mmP cartridge is a big plus over the .380s. It gives me a "Rat Gun" instead of a mere "Mousegun".:D

[.cheese.]

I have owned the P3AT and a Kahr PM9 which is similar to the Keltec PF9... the Ruger LCP is essentially a slightly higher quality Keltec P3AT (slightly the key word). I also owned a Smith & Wesson 340PD.

I have since sold my P3AT, Smith 340PD, and Kahr PM9 and carry a Smith & Wesson 642 more than any other gun that I own.

I highly recommend it.

The only thing that the Kahr PM9 had it beat on was capacity, and accuracy. The PM9 was incredibly accurate for any gun let alone a pocket pistol. The Smith & Wesson 642 is fine though.

btw - you won't notice it in your pocket. It is not bulky at all. I forget it's there after I put it in a Galco horsehide pocket holster and shove the whole thing in a pocket.

[MikeJ]

I heartily recommend the 642. I have the 442 (same basic gun) and love it. I know this opinion is not shared by everyone but when it comes to small concealed weapons I feel much more secure in the reliability of a small J frame over a smallish pistol. Real defensive shooting is not anywhere near the same as range shooting where you have the luxury of a firm grip, good stance etc. etc. and I feel I am much more likely to have a failure with a small pistol given those limitations. Once again, many will disagree with me. I also own a NAA Guardian .32 and it has never failed at the range but I only carry it when I absolutely, positively can't carry my 442. You asked for opinions and those are mine.

[shep854]

Reading the posts after mine, I am reminded that the real "AHA!" moment for me was when I got to shoot a Kahr, and shot much better than I ever did with a snub revolver (a S&W 49 Bodyguard at the time). That started me looking for a Kahr. I found the P11 instead, then the PF9.

Whatever your choice (and a 442 is a fine one), be sure to practice regularly. Small "pocket" guns of any flavor are challenging to shoot well, and need to be worked at. Besides, the challenge can be fun!

[marksman13]

I was already leaning heavily in favor of the 642 and most of you seem to choosing it. I'm not in the market for a Kahr. I don't care for them. Don't know why, but I don't.

This gun must be very concealable. As a restaurant and the last thing I need is a customer freaking out because they saw my firearm. The 642 seems much bulkier in the pocket than the autos because of the cylinder. This may not make much difference in the real world though. Pocket carry is prefered because my shirt will be tucked at all times. Thanks for all the advice so far.

[Guns and more]

If the Kahr PM-9 had been one of the choices, I might have changed my vote.

[FLoppyTOE]

Smith & Wesson 642

I actually find this more comfortable in the front pocket than the small autos.

[glockman19]

No queston the S&W 642/442 is the gun I pocket carry.

[weisse52]

My vote may seem baised since I just picked up a 642 but, my choice has way more to do with the pro's you mentioned.
I like steel and the 642 does ride nicely in a pocket holster.

[ArchAngelCD]

4. Some people have reported issues with Ruger Customer Service in the past
I can't agree with that at all. Ruger and S&W have the best CS of any companies you will ever deal with.

As for a M642 being too bulky to carry, not at all IMO. That 15oz revolver disappears in your pocket and you don't even know it's there if you use a good pocket holster.

[.cheese.]

I like steel and the 642

Most of the 642 actually is NOT steel. It's aluminum.

[shep854]

The trick to pocket carry is to wear loose trousers. Pleated slacks are ideal. If you can slide some "outboard" of you gun, that will help keep it from printing. Printing is mainly a problem when you are sitting, and the trouser material is drawn tighter over the gun. Something like an apron or a chef's jacket will also help cover the gun.

[tinygnat219]

I have owned the PF-9 and P3AT. Both are good, reliable pocket guns that won't do you wrong. As for the LCP, it's a P3AT in all but name. You just pay more for it. As for the 642, I have heard nothing but good things. I think you have 4 good choices here, but I'd go with the 9MM. It's the best round out of this bunch.

[eatont9999]

It is not in your options, but a Makarov is small, cheap, and equivalent to a .380ACP! It takes 9x18 ammo. I know a guy who carries one and will probably die with it next to his side. It is not a itty, bitty little thing you can barely fit your finger through, but it is very compact. I could easily put it in my pocket. I have seen some guns so small they will fall through a hole in your pocket.

[jfh]

I carry a j-frame (M&P 340) daily--and also a P3AT for when I want a vest / sports coat-pocket firearm.

And sometimes I carry the P3AT as a BUG.

But, my preference is strongly for the lightweight j-frames.

Jim H.

[Elvishead]

Non

638 bodyguard

[Mick1812]

IMHO the 642 is your best bet. I carry mine in an Uncle Mike's #3 pocket holster and it disappears. Loaded with speer gold dot 135grn. you cant beat that set up for discreate, comfortable, all day carry.

[ugaarguy]

I really like both my 642 and my P3AT. Since I've gotten the 642 though I only carry the P3AT I can't carry the 642. Now is the time to buy as well with the current batch of no-lock 642s on the market.

[ravencon]

I'm not willing to trust my life to a pocket semi. YMMV.

A snubby may be more difficult to learn to shoot well but I have a lot more confidence in its reliability.

[jad0110]

Small "pocket" guns of any flavor are challenging to shoot well

Very true. And that goes for any pocket gun, revolver or auto. If you can try them out first, that would be the best bet. I shoot snubs much better than small autos, but you might be the other way around.

As other said, the 442 is the same gun as the 642, just in a black/blued finish.

The biggest thing I like about pocket carrying a S&W x42 is that the rounded backstrap makes fast, snag free draws very easy. No hammer or rear slide projection to get hung up on something. And the prominent, yet still concealable grip of the J Frame makes it easier to find and grab onto when in a hurry.

And my 642 has been 100% reliable.

YMMV.

[marksman13]

I think y'all have convinced me to buy a 642.

[Scoutsout2645]

Assuming that you've already handled/shot all these weapons and they all fit your hand well and allow you to accurately land your first round and quickly acquire your 2nd or 3rd shot, you need to look at all the other factors:

-Why are you carrying? Do you work in a job where you carry cash/expensive property in sketchy areas and are anticipating a focused prepared ambush? Do you ride the backwoods where you're going to run into bears? Are you Joe-Civilian who wants to be ready when Al-Quaida hits the local mall?

-Where do you live? Cold weather area where long heavy clothes are typical, or hot areas where you routinely wear shorts and light shirts?

-Where do you frequent? Do most of your activities keep you in urban settings? Suburban settings? The farm/feed store/backwoods? Are you usually on foot/mass transit or do you ride in your car and run in and out of stores?

A bigger revolver is a good choice, unless you're anticipating that prolonged shootout, or it's too warm to conceal it well.

A nice compact .380 works great for those trips into the city where 1 or 2 shots is all you'll need to neutralize or run off a would-be attacker, but it'll just piss off the bear you run into.

A gun you "kind of" see may not cause much excitement if you're in a small town in Texas, but don't try it in San Francisco or suburban New Jersey.

Bottom line, caliber and style are important considerations, but they're not the only ones.

[19-3Ben]

As for the LCP, it's a P3AT in all but name. You just pay more for it.

I disagree.
I just bought the LCP. I was going to go for the P3AT, but when I felt them, they felt really cheap. The LCP was MUCH smoother, and had very very nice fit and finish. Trigger is actually outstanding.

The MSRP for the Ruger is $330. The MSRP for the Keltec is $324. That's a whole LOT of refinement you get for $6. In the end, when you're already paying more than $300, $6 more or less is nothing.

[marksman13]

The LCP was MUCH smoother, and had very very nice fit and finish.

Those were my thoughts exactly. I could get the LCP from my local dealer for $289 out the door. The P-3AT would be $279. The PF-9 would run me about $280. The 642 would be around $400.

Price isn't the biggest issue. I would rather spend money on a firearm that I can pass on to my kids and grandkids than spend a few less dollars on a plastic pistol that is more prone to jamming issues.

[texas bulldog]

i chose the 642 even though i greatly prefer an SP101. pocket carry isn't my thing, i guess, and i prefer a little more weight to the gun if i actually have to fire it.

that said, i chose it because i feel .38+P is the most capable round of the ones listed, though the 9mm is close. i favor carrying the biggest or most powerful round that you can effectively conceal and will always carry. that matters more to me than capacity of said round. and of course, reliability is an absolute must.

with those priorities, the 642 seemed the obvious choice. YMMV.

[marksman13]

that said, i chose it because i feel .38+P is the most capable round of the ones listed, though the 9mm is close. i favor carrying the biggest or most powerful round that you can effectively conceal and will always carry. that matters more to me than capacity of said round. and of course, reliability is an absolute must.

That pretty much sums up my beliefs on concealed carry. Anybody have any experience with the Speer Short Barrel Ammo? I've heard alot of good stuff aobut it.

[Texasred]

I really am looking for a pocket gun right now too. But to be honest with you the pocket gun world has a lotta "ifs". But the Smith 642 seems to be proven, other than that I would go with a Glock 26.(no offense to anyone)

[PuntoQuatroCinco]

In the winter you can pack the snubby in yur coat pocket,(in a pocket holster), and casually have yur hand on the gun whenever you feel the need.
Also you can shoot it from inside there when there is and extremely close threat. Also it wont jam up when pressed against the soft parts of yur attacker.

[1/7GRUNT]

I voted 642 because of reliability. I really dont think it is all that bulky in the pocket either. Recoil isnt that bad in my opinion.

I own the 442 by the way.

[hicksdm]

I have carried a 442 for the past 2 years and simply love it. Easy to operate, reliable, and after some preactice fairly easy to reload. Love mine and it always with me.

[8830]

I voted for the 642 as that is what I have. I've carried a P32, P3AT, Beretta 21a and Kahr MK9 and while the autos are flatter the 642 carries just as well is totally reliable. My major problem with carrying an auto in the pocket was the magazine button being unknowingly released and when drawing one shot would be fired and then click. Always having the check for the mag to be seated is annoying and may give away the fact that I'm carrying.

[WVMountainBoy]

I voted for the Smith. I'm a 38 revolver fan to the bone. Using modern ammo with +P ratings it is a formidable creature. As far as pocket guns go its the choice for me. The 5 round limit is touchy but they don't come more rock solid in reliability. And you already touched on the aftermarket support.

[tblt]

I voted LCP only because you said pocket carry.
I have a taurus mod 85 ultra lite that I carry it's about the same as a 642 in size, but I'm on a waiting list for an LCP because there is times I want to pocket carry and my taurus is too large for that.

[jad0110]

But the Smith 642 seems to be proven, other than that I would go with a Glock 26.(no offense to anyone)

None taken.

But be advised the Glocks are often called "Blocks" for a reason. It may have the same basic deminsions has a J Frame, but there is a lot more to it than that. A Glock is fat all over and has a rather large slide projection to contend with, while other than the cylinder a 642 is very thin and rounded. Some are able to cram a G26 into a pocket, so it is doable. But I think even they'd agree that it is at the very upper limit in size for pocket carry. And it'll probably look like you have a laptop in your pocket. Just test one out before you plunk down the cash.

Next to a Kel-Tech P3AT, a J Frame appears huge. Next to a J Frame, a G26 appears huge :p .

[gastonmellon]

642 . Just picked up a 340 as a replacement. Gave the 642 to wife since she is getting her permit also.

[golden]

I would go with the SMITH & WESSON because mine has proven very reliable. The KEL-TEC I bought has been a jam-o-matic and cannot be considered for any kind of use.
I have not tried the RUGER, so I cannot recommend it.

Jim

[shep854]

Golden, I'm sorry to hear that you have problems with your Kel-Tec. You are right; if the gun doesn't run reliably, DON'T YOU DARE trust it.

That said, have you called Kel-Tec to get help in getting it to work?

Also, consider hopping over to the Kel-Tec Owners' Group http://www.ktog.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl and ask for assistance. One of the purposes of the website is to answer questions about Kel-Tec firearms.

[jfh]

I'll second shep854's about using the KTOG forum. When I got my P3AT, I had feed-and-shucking problems--but got it fixed with help from reading there.

I documented my fixes there in the P3AT forum, as well as an SU-16C buildup--do a search on my forum name ("jfh"), and you might find some help on getting the Kel-Tec running.

Jim H.

[mjrodney]

Another vote for the J-frame, although I chose the 638 for the added ability to cock the hammer for single action use, should that be desireable.

Adding a set of Crimson Trace grips helps immensely when point shooting.

Carried nearly 100% of the time, in a pocket holster, in Cargo shorts/slacks, with 135g Speer Short Barrel +p ammo.


I also own the P3AT for those rare occasions I'm in dress slacks.

Range time is proving the P3AT to be 100% reliable, but I only use/carry FMJ round nose ammo in it. I believe that round nose ammo will provide the best chance of adequate penetration.

[XDGirl]

Out of those choices i would go with the Smith & Wesson 642

[Ala Dan]

Before I vote, I will say it depends on just how much handgun experience
you have~? For instance, if you are a novice I would suggest the Smith
& Wesson 642 hands down; as its simple to operate, has a no-snag type
design, and shoots the time tested .38 Special-even +P's if you can stand
it. The auto-loaders are more sleek and compact, hold more rounds, and
are aft sought after by the female crowd; the latter cuz its cool to them,
I guess~? But, you have to know how to clear a malfunction; better known
as a "jam"~! Often times, this will have too occur in a split second; cuz
your life or death could weigh in the balance. So not knowing your own
requirements (and experience?), I voted for the very fine S&W 642~! :cool:

[KelVarnson]

I'm with mjrodney in encouraging you to look at a 638 if you are already considering a 642. It's challenging to shoot accurately with a snubbie. Having single-action would be helpful, if you ever found yourself in a situation where it was an option. And the 638 is only a little bit bigger than the 642.

I have a 638 and I love it.

[Defensory]

I vote "none of the above".

I would avoid Kel-Wreck entirely.

If you feel the need for a snubbie, spend a little more and get the Smith & Wesson Model 649 Bodyguard.

The hammer is shrouded for pocket carry, but not fully enclosed, making single action shooting possible.

The 649 is STAINLESS STEEL, rather than the less durable aluminum alloy of the 642.

The 649 weighs half a pound more, which is actually a benefit in a snubbie, because the extra weight reduces felt recoil and barrel rise.

[OregonJohnny]

I have shot 3 out of the 4 guns you listed (P-3AT, LCP, and 642) and own the S&W 642. I'd choose it from the list. I'll tell you what I like about it versus the P-3AT and LCP, and what I don't like about it, although those I will justify in parenthesis().

Like:
• It's a S&W revolver - in other words, it WILL go bang with every trigger pull.
• It's a hammerless revolver - you can shoot it from inside a pocket without worry of anything getting in the way of the firing mechanism.
• Caliber - The energy of a .38 special +P round will beat a .380. Plus, it's a proven man-stopper. Research the history of .38 special and police shootings. Yes, .45 is probably better, but you take what you can get.
• Less can go wrong - without a magazine, slide, recoil spring, ejector, etc., there are less parts that can fail.

Don't Like:
• Bulkier than the tiny .380s. (But the barrel and frame are actually thinner than the entire LCP or P-3AT. The cylinder and grip are the only parts that are wider, but the contoured lines are completely snag-free and don't print too bad).
• Only 5 rounds (but I absolutely would take 5 rounds of .38 special +P over 1 more round of .380).
• Recoil (but with every trip to the range, I shoot the 642 better and the recoil becomes less and less of an issue. Plus, in a life or death situation, I'm not worried about felt recoil).

And there you have it. My long-winded way of saying...get the 642!

[sdj]

+1 on the 642.

[rj112275]

Come on, post some pics! Here's my Model 38 Bodyguard

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb64/rj112275/andrews.jpg

I would go for any j-frame first... after that, I think I'll pick up an LCP sometime in the future just for the fun of having a really small .380