If you HAD both, which would you carry? 642 or PF-9?


PDA






soonerboomer
July 18, 2009, 06:01 PM
Lets assume you own both of these guns (so the initial cost is not a factor). Which one would you daily carry, and if needed, use in a life or death situation? Please explain your reasons. Please consider only these two firearms.

For me, these guns are close in weight, size, and "carry-ability" (talking pocket carry). As I see things, here are the deciding pros and cons...

Smith & Wesson 642 (.38+P)
Pros: Solid Reliability - it's simple and it just works. Uses any .38 ammo.
Cons: 3 fewer rounds than Kel-Tec, less powerful cartridge, more difficult to shoot (IMO), ammo is currently harder to find and cost about 50% more

Kel-Tec PF-9 (9mm)
Pros: More firepower (higher capacity/hotter round), easier to shoot, less expensive and easier to find ammo
Cons: Reliability can be spotty. Kel-Tec seems to have its share of breakage and reliability horror stories.

If you enjoyed reading about "If you HAD both, which would you carry? 642 or PF-9?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
C-grunt
July 18, 2009, 06:26 PM
Well it seems you like the 9mm more. If it proves to be reliable Id carry that then.

Where are you that .38 is more expensive and harder to find than 9mm? Its the opposite here in Phoenix.

But either one is a good choice.

hirundo82
July 18, 2009, 08:57 PM
If your PF-9 has proven to be reliable with your chosen self-defense round, I would carry it. If you aren't sure of the reliability of the PF-9 in a self-defense situation, go with the sure thing (the 642).

Doug S
July 18, 2009, 10:03 PM
I'd choose the 642 over the PF-9 based on the reliability issue. Right now I'm going back and forth between the 642, and G26. Both are about as reliable as you can get, but the 642 is a great pocket gun. The G26 tops it in just about every other category though.

rbernie
July 18, 2009, 10:05 PM
The PF9 is so hard for me to shoot well that I'd go with the 642 despite its broader girth.

steveracer
July 18, 2009, 10:14 PM
642. Simply because it's so easy to carry, and there are a blue million holsters for them.

kanewpadle
July 19, 2009, 12:12 AM
Both.

cslinger
July 19, 2009, 12:28 AM
The J Frame without a second thought. (assuming it works, I wouldn't blindly carry ANY gun out of the box without checking it out, function testing it)

Sport45
July 19, 2009, 01:56 AM
I'd carry the 642.

skoro
July 19, 2009, 01:43 PM
I have both. Which one I carry depends mostly on what I'm wearing that day. I have a P-3AT that I carry more often than either of these, though.

jad0110
July 19, 2009, 03:38 PM
The PF9 is so hard for me to shoot well that I'd go with the 642 despite its broader girth.

Same here. I can get my pinky curled up under the butt of the 642 which really helps with shootability for me; not so the Kel-Tec. I can't shoot small autos worth a crud anyway. I shot a Taurus PT745 once and my group at 5 yards looked like a buckshot pattern at 25 :o. Assuming both prove to be reliable, I'd go with the one you shoot best.

tbone3
July 19, 2009, 09:36 PM
I have both and I shoot the 642 better than any of the other guns I own, even fullsize handguns. The PF9 has been reliable but I shoot the 642 better so that is the one I carry. I would say carry the one you shoot better.

oneounceload
July 19, 2009, 10:09 PM
Cons: Reliability can be spotty.

If this is to be your CCW that you're placing your trust in to protect you, that seems to make the decision. Besides, how does a hotter round work out to be easier to shoot?

Benzene
July 19, 2009, 10:09 PM
I surely don't want it to rain on anyone's parade, but is here referenced the 642 WITH THE LOCK? I seem to recall a NUMBER of (now deleted) web pages dealing with reliability in light/darkness of those ugly "holes".

sig40
July 19, 2009, 11:33 PM
bought a pf-9 a few weeks ago and have put 200 rounds of 147 grain through it with no problems. will be my carry weapon when my license comes in hopefully within the next week or two.

MikePaiN
July 20, 2009, 06:31 AM
Long time PF9 owner here....Its my one and only CCW.
I decided for myself that 9mm Luger was the min cal. for defensive use. The PF9 is light and slim, the pistol is a breeze to carry in any season. Mine is 100% reliable and shoots well enough in "defensive" range.
The 642(or any snubby rev.) is too wide for my tastes and expensive vs. the PF9(I don't remember exactly but I believe is was ~$300 w/ the parkerized slide)....and another money saver, you might be interested in. I've recently been converted to a "laser fan" for defensive hand gun use(especially sub-compacts). With some shopping around I was able to snag a NIB CT laser for the PF9 at $160, something for the 642 would cost at least $100 more.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x298/Mikepain_pics/DSC01913.jpg

earlthegoat2
July 20, 2009, 08:06 AM
I surely don't want it to rain on anyone's parade, but is here referenced the 642 WITH THE LOCK? I seem to recall a NUMBER of (now deleted) web pages dealing with reliability in light/darkness of those ugly "holes".

It seems as though you are saying that the Internal Lock on Smith Revolvers reliability has something to do with light and darkness. Maybe but it probably has more to do with heavy loads in light guns.

Your point is valid as I have personally witnessed a lock fail using light loads in a 642. Im not exactly hating on Smith and Wesson but I am not buying any gun with any internal locking mechanism ever after seeing that.

esq_stu
July 20, 2009, 08:30 AM
642 hands down.

I have had 4 Kel-Tecs. They were all reliable until they broke. They are not made for shooting a lot and do not last.

I have had one 642. I shoot it often. Never had a problem with it.

10-Ring
July 20, 2009, 08:54 AM
I've got the blue version of the 642 --the 442 -- and love it. IMO, it's the perfect pocket gun!

oneounceload
July 20, 2009, 09:10 AM
Your point is valid as I have personally witnessed a lock fail using light loads in a 642. Im not exactly hating on Smith and Wesson but I am not buying any gun with any internal locking mechanism ever after seeing that.

the lock can be disabled, reliability may or may not be fixable.

WC145
July 20, 2009, 09:38 AM
I have had both the PF-9 and the 642, no longer have either. My carry gun is a customized 9mm S&W 360J, it's the best of both worlds.

ArmedBear
July 20, 2009, 10:08 AM
642

9mm from a tiny barrel isn't as hot as you think. .38+P is available in snubbie loads that actually perform as spec'd.

I have one advantage: I handload. So some of my .38s are 642 practice loads with low recoil. The thing is actually fun to shoot. I can easily shoot the thing well enough to juice a grapefruit with all 5 at 15 yards, which is about as good as the sights on a snubbie could ever allow. That's good enough for me. And it costs me a fraction of the price of 9mm ammo, to say nothing of .38.

Dry-fire practice helps, and it's free. Once you get the DA trigger wired, it's easy and even fun. I shoot a lot more DA now, even with my guns that have hammers.

I've thought about getting a little Kel-Tec, but I wouldn't trust it anywhere near as far as I could throw it.

Also, the 642 works like any other Smith, so if I've got, say, my .44 trail gun with me, I don't have to re-think the controls.

thesecond
July 20, 2009, 10:41 AM
both. ;)

texas bulldog
July 20, 2009, 02:21 PM
9mm from a tiny barrel isn't as hot as you think. .38+P is available in snubbie loads that actually perform as spec'd.

+1. i'm not sure what numbers you're using to state that 9mm is "more powerful" in the OP, but i think a 158gr .38+p would out perform most 9mm out of those barrels.

goon
July 20, 2009, 04:45 PM
I'd carry the revolver, but only because I have found small revolvers with rubber grips are way more comfortable for me to shoot.

CoRoMo
July 20, 2009, 06:24 PM
I vote for the PF9. I carry a P11 and it is 100% reliable. I don't own either of the others, but my mother packs the 642, so I've shot one plenty.

If I owned both, and the PF9 was as reliable as the P11 that I do own and carry, I'd go with it as the primary and carry the 642 on occasion.

dom1104
July 21, 2009, 08:00 AM
wait, are you seriously telling me you have to think twice between this


http://i.pbase.com/o4/69/477669/1/65058988.4Uu7Iyac.sw642101m.jpg

and this?

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/keltec.jpg


Your chances of ever needing a ccw firearm is exceedingly small. Your chances of admiring the workmanship and quality of your gun is high.

Go with a gun thats actually worthy of the name.

Dont buy some cheap plastic throwaway that looks like its made out of ........ dont get me started.


"DONT BUY CHEAP GUNS" should be a bumper sticker.

tbone3
July 21, 2009, 08:33 AM
Yeah, I guess you shouldn't buy an AK either because those things look like a$$ and I bet they don't hold up in the long haul. . . wait:rolleyes:

Yo Mama
July 21, 2009, 03:50 PM
9mm from a tiny barrel isn't as hot as you think.

You only lose about 50 fps with each inch lost. A 125 grain projectile going 1000 fps is nothing to sneeze at.

Go with a gun thats actually worthy of the name.

Dont buy some cheap plastic throwaway that looks like its made out of ........ dont get me started.


Well now. Let's get started then. I find your comments really lacking in personal experience. Let's start by your problems with a pf9. See I've had one for a few years now, and what do you know, no problems.

It's fine if you have a preference, but to call it a cheap plastic throwaway is wrong. Are Glocks in the same boat?

dom1104
July 21, 2009, 04:03 PM
Kel tecs, are IMHO one step above Hi-Points. Its a big step, but save up for a few months and buy something quality, they are a cheap gun. With a middling reliability history. Not something I would own, unlike the glock which has a good reliability history. I also think the glock is a mass produced pistol with no charecter, certainly not a heirloom, pass down to your kids kind of gun.

What I am saying is, certain guns have beauty and pride of ownership, and for me, a Keltec is one step above a junk gun. and thats obvious just handling one and with cursory dissasembly.

Comparing a Kel Tec to a Smith on the basis of QUALITY is a battle the Smith will win.

I am not going to fight about it, and this is my final post on the matter, but I would encourage you to look at guns from a perspective other than "tacticalness" or "this one is .010 thinner and holds 1 more round" and also appreciate the fact that its an item that will last generations and can be something really really rewarding to own. Not just a means to a self defence end.

MikePaiN
July 21, 2009, 04:34 PM
dom1104....my thinking is opposite of yours. I specifically wanted an inexpensive CCW. I did not care how pretty it was or even so much what it looked like, I wanted a 9mm Luger(or above) that was tough, concealable and went bang every time I squeezed the trigger. All at price that would make me "not worry over" the pistol all that much. The PF9 fit the bill perfectly.
Over the year and a half I've carried the PF9 now it has been through everything, dropped, banged around, hot, cold, sweat, dust, dirt and rain. This $300 gun still does its job each and every time, in fact there's not hardly even finish wear(mine's parkerized). IMO, spending more on something else would have been a waste.

rhinoh
July 21, 2009, 04:36 PM
I'm all for a cheap gun, lets face it, there are times it must be left in the car for most of us. If my PF9 is stolen it hurts way less than one of my Walthers or Sigs or even my S&W snubbie. :neener:

Dogbite
July 22, 2009, 07:27 PM
642, hands down. It is always going to go bang! I carry a 638, and have for years. It is an excellent carry gun, and great in close quarters as well.

Zerodefect
July 22, 2009, 09:57 PM
I'd pick the blue 442 over the 642. Seems some have had issues with the finish on the 642? The 442's seem priced cheaper in my area as well.

But for me: I'd want better XS sights, ION Bond/Tenifer/Melonite for finish, and the ability to use .357 magnum rounds. That would be the M&P 340.

I don't really care to stare at my CCW's too long. Any gun's going to look haggard after a year or two of carry abuse.

9mm compares favorably to .38, but is nothing compared to .357. So long as you can keep the revolver from denting your forehead during recoil.

I'm not too certain about the revolvers reliability. There's plenty that can jam them up as well. Less likely maybe, but I'd rather toss a PM9 down 2 flights of stairs than a J-frame.

http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss290/zerodefect2533/MP340Centenial.jpg

bhp9mm
July 23, 2009, 01:26 AM
the 642

scottishclaymore
July 23, 2009, 10:09 AM
Honestly I'd carry both if I owned both of them. New York reloads are a good idea.

If I only had to pick one and cost isn't an issue? The 642. And a pair of Safariland speedloaders. I don't even have to think about that one.

MCgunner
July 23, 2009, 12:08 PM
Well, okay, I don't have a 642, but I do have a Taurus M85SSUL that I pocket carry. And, okay, I don't have a PF9, but I do have a P11 that I pocket carry. I alternate between them, but find myself carrying the 9 probably 70 percent. Both have advantages and disadvantages and, well, I can never make my mind up and I've always been more of a revolver guy, but the little auto is so perfect for the chore.

One thing, I do like the stainless gun for carry in summer. I got the thing wet just yesterday while fishing, salt water, too. Just cleaned it up when I got home, no damage even though it was submersed. Was unintentional, but it happened. My P11's finish is pretty worn just from 13 years in sweaty pockets. But, I like it a lot. I will NOT sell either gun. They shoot great.

The 642 is a fine weapon and the PF9 is, too. Me, I'd get both.


Dont buy some cheap plastic throwaway that looks like its made out of ........ dont get me started.

Clueless. :rolleyes:

If I only had to pick one and cost isn't an issue? The 642. And a pair of Safariland speedloaders. I don't even have to think about that one.

Long as it ain't a comp 1. I haven't tried the 2 or 3, but the comp one is crap. I'm back to HKS, myself.

iblong
July 23, 2009, 12:09 PM
Thats a personal preference thing have shot both a lot and would prefer the j frame over the PF9,Ive never had any problems with my pf9.I just like j frames better and I just shoot them better,they carry better for me also
Bob.

hardluk1
July 23, 2009, 02:33 PM
If your s&w has ten years on it then carry it . If its new? I see more about revolvers going back for repair in the last couple years than i ever remember read'n about in the past. Two many built to fast with out the control they once had. I have a taurus thats around 15 years old and is solid, never a problem. I have a charterarms ultra lite that after only several hundred rounds is reliable,no porblems. It rides on my ankle. I also have a pf-9 that i have put several hundred different weight practice round through with no problems ,It did show a dislike for Gold dots and a like for hornady critical defence 115gr. Several hundred rounds of that have been shot down range all with some kind of rapid fire,double taps ,limpwristed it. Just goes bang. Pick the one one YOU like YOU have to live with it . The one you can draw and hit your with best is the one you should carry.

bigmike45
July 23, 2009, 03:10 PM
I carry a PF9 daily....why??? Because it has been reliable in over 500 rounds of 124gr Hydrashoks, accurate to a flaw, and extremely easy to carry. If I were going to carry a revolver, it would be my DAO Ruger SP-101 in .357mag. Yeah I know...it's not one of those listed but it is one of my favorite guns and like the Kel-Tec PF9...has never missed a beat.

bigmike45

MICHAEL T
July 24, 2009, 08:05 PM
American Rifleman Aug 09 posted test of Ruger LCR These numbers aren't very impressive
BlackHills 125gr +P 916FPS and 233 ftlbs
Hornady 110gr JHP 903FPS and 199 ftlbs
Federal 130gr FMJ 763FPS and 168ftlbs
Just for kicks
Corbon 90grHP from a 380KelTec did 950FPS and 181ftlbs
I would take the 9mm It will do better than any of the above.
I long ago parked my J frame

MR.G
July 24, 2009, 11:43 PM
Been bouncing back and forth for a couple of years between a S&W J frame and a Kel Tec for concealed carry. The only difference is that my 9MM Kel Tec is a P-11. Both are good for front pocket carry, with the right holster. The Kel Tec with the original magazine holds more rounds than the J frame, and a reload is faster. Also will accept S&W 15 round magazines, for over three times the capacity of the J frame. Never have had a reliability problem with a S&W J frame, and I have owned and shot quite a few of them. My KT P-11 has been fired at least 400 rounds without a failure. At seven yards I shoot them both about the same. The only reason that the Kel Tec isn't my only concealed carry gun is that I don't have complete confidence in it. Mine has been completely reliable, but I have read too many posts from people that have had trigger bar springs pop off and triggers break. For that reason I carry a S&W J frame more than the KT. If I could have only one, it would be a S&W J frame.

JoeShmoe
July 25, 2009, 09:34 AM
Mr. G, I also have a Model 60 J-Frame and a P-11. I find it impossible to pocket carry the P-11. It is just to blocky and uncomfortable in a front pocket. I also find it more difficult to draw from a pocket. I'm using a Desantis Nemesis. What holster are you using?

I shoot the P-11 well, and it' been pretty reliable, but with a J-Frame and a Kel-Tec side by side, the Kel-Tec doesn't seem like a serious self defense weapon. I'll keep the Kel-Tec, but I've pretty much decided to get an M&P 340, for everyday front pocket carry.

MR.G
July 25, 2009, 10:04 AM
JoeShmoe, I use either a Mikas or Uncle Mikes pocket holster for both the
P-11 and J frame. Both work well, but I don't wear tight fitting clothes.

MCgunner
July 25, 2009, 10:38 AM
Clothes are everything, big pockets. I mostly wear carpenter's jeans. I don't do "slacks" and other pansy stuff city boys do. I'm retired and work for myself in my own shop now. :D I do have a part time job delivering papers to machines, 2 times a week, and wear what I want. I have multi hundreds of dollars on me on Tuesdays, collection day, so I carry, but I have to bend over at the machines to load 'em, so I don't like IWB and a T shirt.

American Rifleman Aug 09 posted test of Ruger LCR These numbers aren't very impressive
BlackHills 125gr +P 916FPS and 233 ftlbs
Hornady 110gr JHP 903FPS and 199 ftlbs
Federal 130gr FMJ 763FPS and 168ftlbs
Just for kicks
Corbon 90grHP from a 380KelTec did 950FPS and 181ftlbs
I would take the 9mm It will do better than any of the above.
I long ago parked my J frame

I get 270 ft lbs from a +P 158 grain .38 from a 2" barrel. It's a handload, but it matches other decent +P factory loads. I get 410 ft lbs from a +P 9x19 out of my P11.. Yeah, I like that. BUT, the .38 is packin' 158 grains of lead. It WILL expand and it WILL drill a deep hole, penetrate well and the good ol' FBI load has a great street record. That's the part I don't trust in a .380. Most .380 jello tests I've seen are unimpressive. I might rethink that for the Hornady personal defense stuff, but in general. I'm perfectly happy, though, carrying .38 Special or 9x19.

My P11 is nearly 14 years old now, best guestimate considering how much I used to shoot it on range trips when I was shooting lots of 9 in IDPA, I have over 11,000 rounds fired through it and it's still 3.5" accurate at 25 yards and never bobbles, 100 percent reliable. I'd fire 50 to 100 rounds every range trip through the P11 along with shooting my Ruger that I used for IDPA. Yeah, I have LOTS of confidence in it.

I had to shoot an attacking dog with it a few years back. I drew and fired so instinctively with it, so fast, I amazed myself. All that shooting has gotten a zen thing going with me and that gun. It almost pointed and fired itself in that situation. Now, that's about as close to fighting for my life as I wanna get, man on big, mad dog, but my reactions in that incident told me more than all my IDPA shooting about how I would perform if forced into a fight. I haven't got that sort of confidence in my .38. I think I would do well with it, it points as naturally for me, but nothing like actual experience to get your confidence up. Sorta like a new hunting rifle before you actually bloody it. Once you've made some good shots with it, you know it, you have confidence in it. Makes some difference IMHO.

greenlion
July 27, 2009, 12:32 AM
Smith & Wesson is making a few runs of 642's without the locks right now, if you don't like them. I've seen several around town lately. Same price.

Scott Free
August 4, 2009, 01:40 AM
I have a P11 and a P32. Both have been great. My PF9 was a real disappointment. I tried everything I could in hopes of reliability. (Two handed shooting was mostly fine. One handed gave me fits. After spending more in ammo than I paid for the gun, I gave up. Perhaps the fault is not the gun. Perhaps I was "limp wristing" it. That said, I don't want a gun that requires a perfect grip. I want a gun I can shoot if I'm injured. I want it to shoot if someone is dragging me out of my car by my hair or rolling on the ground with someone on top of me. I sold the PF9 and bought a 642. Having owned both, I can also say the 642 makes a better pocket gun. It's irregular contours looks less like a gun than the PF9.

razorback2003
August 4, 2009, 02:26 AM
I tried a Kel Tec P11 9mm and the 380. I didn't have jamming problems with the 9mm but thought i'd downsize to the 380 and that was a jamomatic, even after sending it off to a gunsmith to be worked on. I was able to trade it with some money for a 642. That gun does not jam. It always goes BANG. I feel like i can trust my life to the 642. I felt uneasy with Kel Tec products. S&W quality goes back a long long time and their revolvers have saved countless good guys. If the feds let off duty guys carry j frames...you know it is quality. I don't think Kel Tecs are on fed agents' approved list.

The j frame, to me, hides better than a small auto because it is less blocky. I use a cheap uncle mikes and it hides great in any pocket...pants...coat pocket...whatever. It's nice that i can shoot through a coat pocket if i need to with no problem of the gun jamming. It is nice to be able to put my hand in my coat or pants pocket when pumping gas at night and knowing i can draw or even shoot fast if I have to. Harder to do that with a small auto. J frames don't jam when limp wristed either. Pull the trigger and it'll go bang.

Bishop.357
August 4, 2009, 05:59 AM
The S&W,no qeastion. As to why...

I've been shootin' S&Ws' since I was 12yrs old,and aside from dud rounds,they've always done me right.
Now Kel-Tecs' on the other hand...

Kel-Tecs' are what my friends and I like to call "Shoot n' Toss" guns. I'll let you the reader fathom the reason as to why they are so called...

Phydeaux642
August 4, 2009, 08:33 PM
I carry a 642 in my Mika pocket holster or a Smartcarry holster most of the time. Sometimes I carry a little P32. I have been looking for a small 9mm without having to pay for a Kahr PM9. I have considered the PF9, but I own the P11 and it was unreliable from the word go. I stopped considering the PF9 and still carry the 642.

weisse52
August 4, 2009, 08:56 PM
I carry a 642 (one of the new non-ILS) Going to add a new M40 soon.

m2steven
August 5, 2009, 12:15 AM
I would carry the 642. I own one and it's my #2 carry gun. I've fired a kel-tec and it's (to me) harder on my hand. it's easier for me to get my 642 back on target in spite of the significant recoil (which is ameliorated by the big soft grip). The Kel-tec is a lot like the LCP and for me is hard to aim and shoot. it's a nice pistol for the money though and if you enjoy shooting it - it will do you right.

Logos
August 5, 2009, 12:23 AM
The 642 without a doubt.....with lock or without.

Lock problems are so rare as to be statistically insignificant.

You couldn't pay me enough to carry a Kel-Tech.

armchairQB
August 5, 2009, 08:50 AM
the 642 only because I prefer revolvers. Better yet it would be a 640 38 special only sans the lock.

easyg
August 5, 2009, 10:45 AM
The 642 without a doubt.

A carry gun must be as reliable as possible, and when it comes to reliability, the revolver trumps the autoloader.

Glasstream15
August 5, 2009, 03:12 PM
I have a P3AT and a PF9. Both are reliable as Sunrise. I like the size and weight of both. Easily slip into a pants pocket or IWB holster. I have a G19 that I carry whenI am wearing a coat, winter time not suit coat. I'm retired and don't get that dressed up. But even when I carry the Glock, the P3AT (P380) slips into a pocket.

If you have a problem with a Kelty, they have a great rep for CS. I can only talk about the rep though, because i have NEVER had a problem with either gun. About 300 rds thru the .380 and about 500 thru the 9mm. After the first 50 in both I have not had a single malfunction.

Kel-Tecs are not intended to be range guns. Take it and shoot it enough to be comfortable, enough to be sure your chosen carry ammo works, and then just shoot a couple mags worth when you go to shoot your fun guns. The Kelties are good for a couple thousand rounds. Used as designed, you will not wear one out. The P3AT, PF9 and P11, throw the P32 in but personally that's too small, .380 is pushing the minimum, are all designed for easy concealed carry. That is what they are VERY good at.

Some people complain that they are to sucepitible (sp) to "limp wristing". I have medium size hands with major osteoarthritis and I do not have any problems with either gun. I actually have more of a problem with my Glock. Of course 50 rounds thru a Kelty and you DO NOT want to pull the trigger again. And I get there with about a hundred thru the G19.

And I can shoot my Stainless Ruger P90, .45 ACP, until I run out of ammo and not get tired. But I am not planning on carrying a 2 1/2 pund pistol when I have the Kelties and I can carry both plus a spare mag for each and have the same weight as the Ruger. And at 10 to 20 feet I'm going to put every round somewhere in the body of an attacker.

Yes, I would and do bet my life on those little "cheap" pistols. They are relly great little guns that do exactly what they were designed to do. Now if I can just find a Sub2000.

Yo Mama
August 5, 2009, 04:52 PM
Kel-Tecs are not intended to be range guns. Take it and shoot it enough to be comfortable, enough to be sure your chosen carry ammo works, and then just shoot a couple mags worth when you go to shoot your fun guns.

I agree with you, but I know someone who purposefully put many rounds through his to try to break them, and has yet to do so. :D

Dr_2_B
August 5, 2009, 10:25 PM
I have both and I went with the pf9 until it began to malfunction. Now I need to send it back to KT.

TXHORNS
August 10, 2009, 03:14 PM
I had both. My 642 IS 100% reliable and my PF9 WAS pretty reliable. One failure in hundreds of practice rounds. Unfortunately that failure came with oneof my favorite Gold Dots. I ended up selling the PF9. Neither are easy to pick up and shoot well, both take alot of practice but with some practice can be very effective. (pretty true with most small pistols)

I shot my buddys new Ruger LCR (not LCP) and to me its the easiest of all to shoot due to better trigger and less felt recoil for me. It does not hide in the pocket as easy as the 642 does because of the grip but can still be worn in a pocket holster. Niether is my main carry gun, just a backup or gun I bring when i cant conceal a 1911.

I think I will trade up for the LCR soon. In my opinion its the best pocket or back up gun for me. Get a lazer and you are really set!

BTW - If you go with the keltec, get the hogue or Pachmayr grip sleeve - it help alot!

orionengnr
August 10, 2009, 10:24 PM
Having owned and carried multiple J-frames, and owned (but not carried, due to recurring reliability issues) four Kel-Tecs, my vote is for:

None Of The Above.

It is no coincidence that I also now own:

None Of The Above.

I do own (and carry) a Kahr PM9, and it's big brother, the P45.

pktrkt
August 12, 2009, 10:17 AM
Don't have the 642 but do have an old model 60, also have the PF9 and shoot them both often. Which ever one you have the most confidence in is the one to carry. If i'm wearing a pull over shirt I might wear my 60 with IWB holster, if I'm wearing a shirt tucked in and docker style pants I might put the PF9 in my front pant pocket. I've got many other small pistols to choose from, tried the Kahr but had bad problems with FTF on the one I had and sold it but it could have been just that individual pistol I'm not against someone carrying or owning it I just had problems and felt uncomfortable with it. I'm sure as people have stated that there's a been lemon in every gun makers history, had a S&W revolver cylinder bind up and not be able to turn after 1 shot but I digress OP said between 642 and PF9, if I could only choose between those two I'd have to go :confused::evil:;)...... probably PF9 because its easier to conceal for me and mine has been reliable with all ammo I've tried and currently have mine loaded with Fed HST 147 gr. Just IMHO ymmv..

stealth
August 26, 2009, 06:12 PM
bump

more (educated) opinions please, you're helping me out. :D

Deanimator
August 26, 2009, 08:43 PM
If it had the lock, I would NEVER carry the Smith 642. I'd never carry ANY Smith revolver with the lock.

riverdog
August 26, 2009, 09:14 PM
Of the two pistols mentioned, the S&W 642 without a doubt.

That said, when I was looking for a small CCW pistol, I ended up with a Glock G-19 and didn't look back.

don
August 27, 2009, 12:05 AM
I just got my Keltec pf9 back from the gunsmith. Broken ejector. Keltec did not charge for the part; gunsmith charged $25 to install. I shot about 300-400 rounds through it prior to the breakage. These were mild loads: less than starting loads according to the Lee manual. 5.6~5.8gr. v-3n37 under a 115gr. jacketed bullet. Gun functions fine now. Anybody interested in a pf9...cheap?

Clipper
August 27, 2009, 07:01 AM
I just got my Keltec pf9 back from the gunsmith. Broken ejector.

Why did you take it to a smith when KT would have fixed it free? They usually throw in a magazine for your trouble...

How cheap?

Norinco982lover
August 27, 2009, 09:08 AM
Duh, the 642! And the Con you put of "more expensive ammo" really can't be used as a Con...because you need less ammo AND the cost of your ammo does not matter in a carry gun...if it was up to cost then I would be carrying a Hipoint not an XD.

~Norinco

don
August 27, 2009, 11:34 AM
Clipper, I purchased the gun from an individual and was under the impression that I had to purchase from an authorized dealer to get warranty service. In short, I was ignorant of Keltec's policies. Thanks for the heads up. When it breaks again, I'll heed your advice.

Ex-MA Hole
August 27, 2009, 01:17 PM
I'd go with the 642 without a doubt.

I'm partial to the inherent reliability of a revolver.

I'm partial to the ease of use.

I'm partial to the feel, the recoil, everything.

Dogbite
August 27, 2009, 01:45 PM
I do carry a 638 Smith. Solid reliability, in a tough little light weight gun. I have carried it for about 5 years in a Uncle Mikes pocket holster, with a speed loader. Carries great, shoots great, and it always gos bang.

LightningJoe
August 27, 2009, 03:07 PM
I find a snubnose to be very concealable, so I'd go with the 642. But I haven't actually tried the PF9. I've pocketed a P11, though, and it wasn't a true pocket gun.

If you enjoyed reading about "If you HAD both, which would you carry? 642 or PF-9?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!