Converting a Kel-Tec PF-9 to "Safe-Action"

[Hypnogator]

I find the PF-9 easy to carry, accurate, and (now) reliable. It isn't, however, easy to shoot accurately, primarily because of the l-o-n-g strong trigger-pull. That got me to thinking (a really dangerous proposition). What if, instead of returning almost completely forward, the hammer were held at 3/4 or 7/8 cock? If the trigger bar had an additional hole drilled in it to the rear of the stock hole, the piece would have the same weight trigger-pull, but only perhaps 1/4" of trigger travel would be required to complete the cocking action and discharge the weapon.

I'm sure that if this were easy, someone would have done it by now. It would seem to me that the weapon would still be almost as safe as before it was modified, in that it would still have a strong trigger-pull, but that the short trigger travel would facilitate accurate shooting. This would be the same type of action as the Glock-type "safe action" except using the hammer to be fully retracted then dropped instead of a striker.

Is anyone aware of such a modification, or am I the only one to think it would make for a much more desirable pistol? The same potential would also exist for the Kel-Tec P-3AT, Ruger LCP, and similar K-T clones.

 

[mgmorden]

Firearms engineering isn't something you want to armchair quarterback. The easiest way to achieve your goal would be to purchase a different weapon .

 

[karlsgunbunker]

Kel-tec Fluff & Buff
http://www.ktog.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?board=2504

http://www.ktog.org/tecwerks.htm

 

[Hypnogator]

Appreciate the replies.

The easiest way to achieve your goal would be to purchase a different weapon.

Would, if I could find one as small, flat, and light as the PF-9. It resides in a wallet-holster in my hip pocket as I type this. My Walther PPS wouldn't even come close to fitting.

Kel-tec Fluff & Buff

Smooths and lightens (somewhat) the trigger-pull. Doesn't do anything about it's length.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

The PF9 trigger isn't that heavy (at least mine isn't). Doubt that it would be safe with that much less travel.

At the very least, you would need to add the trigger "safety" that Glocks have. There is also the issue of having the hammer hanging out the back where a drop could potentially knock it off the sear.

Better answer - make a trigger overtravel stop and leave the fire control alone. This will help stop the pistol shifting in your grip after the trigger breaks.

 

[MAKster]

The PF-9 trigger is much lighter than the P-11. The PF-9 is Kel-Tec's response to what you want. It has a shorter trigger system already.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

The Taurus PT709 appears to have a shorter stroke trigger, to judge (no pun intended) from the Glock-like trigger safety. It is at least close in size to the PF9. It would take extensive re-engineering to put such a trigger mechanism on an existing gun.

 

[Hypnogator]

make a trigger overtravel stop and leave the fire control alone.

Good idea. I'll try that before I go off half-cocked, so-to-speak!

The PF-9 trigger is much lighter than the P-11. The PF-9 is Kel-Tec's response to what you want. It has a shorter trigger system already.

RTFP I have the PF-9 and while it's better than the P-11, it's also too long for quick, accurate shooting.

The Taurus PT709 appears to have a shorter stroke trigger,

It's also a bigger pistol. I have a Walther PPS in .40 S&W, but it won't fit in my hip pocket like the PF-9.

Again, appreciate the responses.

 

[RSVP2RIP]

I don't know how that would be possible. The hammer would be partially coming out of the back and there is no half cock to catch the hammer if it was dropped. I would just say try a F&B to make the pull smoother and more practice. Revolver shooters don't complain about the long double action pull.

 

[Fmjblack]

The PF-9 actually has one of the better trigger pulls of the Kel-Tec guns, not that that is saying much. The main problem I see with the modification that you mention (aside from potential safety issues) is that the Kel-Tec pistols require a FULL trigger reset between every shot and it seems like the modification you speak of would prevent this.

 

[harmon rabb]

It's also a bigger pistol.

I had a PF-9 and a PT709, but later got rid of the PF-9. They're practically the same size in every dimension. I would not call the PT709 "bigger."

This said, the PT709 has a very long trigger pull too, but it's totally different than that of the PF-9. 95% of the PT709's trigger pull is just slack, with virtually no resistance. Only at the very end of the pull is there resistance, which is still much lighter than the PF-9's trigger.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Have you taken a Kel Tek apart??
there would be issues

 

[MICHAEL T]

I like the trigger on my PF-9. I find mine, anyway, feels very light . The pull thru no worst than a DA revolver. . Practice with it.

 

[MachIVshooter]

it's also too long for quick, accurate shooting.

It's not an IPSC gun. It's a 12 ounce CCW. I find it plenty easy to quickly dump a mag into a silhouette at 7 yards. Not as fast as with my 5906 or Baby Eagle FS, but then, I don't want to carry those 2-1/2 pound guns all day long.

I just don't think you're going to find a 9mm close to the size and weight of the PF9 with a shorter trigger. The Kahrs are smoother, but a little heavier and just as long.

Practice more

 

[WinThePennant]

IMHO, you don't want a short trigger pull on a pocket pistol.

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ And it's intended purpose is for up-close-and-personal SD anyway. That stated, I lightened the trigger and firing pin springs in my P11. I do NOT recommend others do the same because these are DAO with NO DROP SAFETY. I feel comfortable with mine because I don't keep a round chambered. This doesn't address the long trigger pull but there are tweaks to slightly improve over-travel and reset position. Again though... the long hard trigger pull is a design feature of these pocket pistols.

 

[mio]

pencil erasers do wonderful things. my buddy fixed his p11 with one. i cant even describe how much better the trigger was after he glued it on.