P. Plainsman
Member
I just started taking Concealed Carry magazine. The Sept/Oct issue includes an interesting review of the .380 ACP Kel-Tec P3AT by THR's own George Hill a.k.a. Mad Ogre. Lots of good and lots of bad.
Some excerpts:
Right off the bat, I wanted to like this little gun. It is so small, skinny and light[.] . . .
In order to get the most accuracy out of your P3AT, you will have to master this trigger. It is a long and heavy double action only pull with lots of stacking, crunching and enough grit to make an angle grinder jealous. . . . Once you master the trigger and get used to the sights, this gun is quite accurate. . . .
There's an interesting follow-up on the trigger issues at the end of the article. Apparently, when Mr. Hill sent the P3AT back to Kel-Tec after testing it, they mistakenly assumed he was sending it in for repairs, fussed with it, and sent it back to him. Turned out they refurbed the heavy, gritty trigger, and apparently made lemonade out of it: 6 pounds, "crisp and clean." "All the problems with the trigger . . . gone." Impressive.
The review continues:
It is flat out not a pleasant gun to shoot. The gun is so light and so skinny that you feel every bit of recoil that the .380ACP can generate, and it can be difficult to hold on to during recoil.
Mr. Hill then turns to the issue on everyone's mind:
[T]his P3AT example was not reliable. I experienced repeated jams. I had a couple failures to feed, but more problematic was the failures to extract. . . . This is perhaps the worst failure you can have in a defensive weapon. [On the Kel-Tec,] it is difficult and slow to clear and almost needs three hands to perform. . . . I had this jam with almost every magazine full i used. Winchester, Federal, Blazer, Cor-Bon... didn't matter.
Because of my experience and those expressed by other owners, I cannot give the P3AT my recommendation. However, I can give it a conditional recommendation. If you are dedicated and serious about carrying a P3AT, these guns CAN be made reliable.
What I would really like to know is whether the jam-prone test sample became reliable after it was worked on and returned to Mr. Hill by Kel-Tec. He notes the drastic improvement produced in the trigger, but his postscript does not mention the unreliability issue. By the usual interpretive rules that govern gun magazine reviews, I am inclined to infer that the gun did still jam after K-T worked on it. But I am not sure about that inference...
Anyhow, an informative perspective on these fascinating and, it seems, frustrating little pistols.
I am an avid, but still fairly new shooter. My reaction to Mr. Hill's review is probably of much less interest to you than hearing about the review itself.
That said: I have handled and fired a P3AT on one occasion. It is an ingenious design. However, I cannot imagine a reasonable CCW scenario that I personally am likely to be in, in which I would not be far better served with a S&W Airweight J-frame revolver in my pants pocket. Cor-Bon 110gr .38 Spl +Ps are rated at 382 ft/lbs. of muzzle energy. That is 80% more energy than a top-flight .380ACP like Cor-Bon's 90gr JHP round. No doubt the margin is somewhat reduced when the .38+Ps are fired from a 2" revolver barrel, but the power gap must still be very large. My relative's S&W 642 has also had several hundred rounds through it, out of the box, without a single stutter or problem. Not one.
Some people, in some situations, really do need a 7.2 oz gun the size of a cigarette pack, and for them, the 15 oz Smith is obviously not an option. Nor is it for someone who can't spring the extra $100 the S&W costs.
But otherwise, it seems to me, the prospect of five heavier, more powerful, and truly reliable rounds from a little pocket J-frame trumps anything the P3AT could bring to the table.
Some excerpts:
Right off the bat, I wanted to like this little gun. It is so small, skinny and light[.] . . .
In order to get the most accuracy out of your P3AT, you will have to master this trigger. It is a long and heavy double action only pull with lots of stacking, crunching and enough grit to make an angle grinder jealous. . . . Once you master the trigger and get used to the sights, this gun is quite accurate. . . .
There's an interesting follow-up on the trigger issues at the end of the article. Apparently, when Mr. Hill sent the P3AT back to Kel-Tec after testing it, they mistakenly assumed he was sending it in for repairs, fussed with it, and sent it back to him. Turned out they refurbed the heavy, gritty trigger, and apparently made lemonade out of it: 6 pounds, "crisp and clean." "All the problems with the trigger . . . gone." Impressive.
The review continues:
It is flat out not a pleasant gun to shoot. The gun is so light and so skinny that you feel every bit of recoil that the .380ACP can generate, and it can be difficult to hold on to during recoil.
Mr. Hill then turns to the issue on everyone's mind:
[T]his P3AT example was not reliable. I experienced repeated jams. I had a couple failures to feed, but more problematic was the failures to extract. . . . This is perhaps the worst failure you can have in a defensive weapon. [On the Kel-Tec,] it is difficult and slow to clear and almost needs three hands to perform. . . . I had this jam with almost every magazine full i used. Winchester, Federal, Blazer, Cor-Bon... didn't matter.
Because of my experience and those expressed by other owners, I cannot give the P3AT my recommendation. However, I can give it a conditional recommendation. If you are dedicated and serious about carrying a P3AT, these guns CAN be made reliable.
What I would really like to know is whether the jam-prone test sample became reliable after it was worked on and returned to Mr. Hill by Kel-Tec. He notes the drastic improvement produced in the trigger, but his postscript does not mention the unreliability issue. By the usual interpretive rules that govern gun magazine reviews, I am inclined to infer that the gun did still jam after K-T worked on it. But I am not sure about that inference...
Anyhow, an informative perspective on these fascinating and, it seems, frustrating little pistols.
I am an avid, but still fairly new shooter. My reaction to Mr. Hill's review is probably of much less interest to you than hearing about the review itself.
That said: I have handled and fired a P3AT on one occasion. It is an ingenious design. However, I cannot imagine a reasonable CCW scenario that I personally am likely to be in, in which I would not be far better served with a S&W Airweight J-frame revolver in my pants pocket. Cor-Bon 110gr .38 Spl +Ps are rated at 382 ft/lbs. of muzzle energy. That is 80% more energy than a top-flight .380ACP like Cor-Bon's 90gr JHP round. No doubt the margin is somewhat reduced when the .38+Ps are fired from a 2" revolver barrel, but the power gap must still be very large. My relative's S&W 642 has also had several hundred rounds through it, out of the box, without a single stutter or problem. Not one.
Some people, in some situations, really do need a 7.2 oz gun the size of a cigarette pack, and for them, the 15 oz Smith is obviously not an option. Nor is it for someone who can't spring the extra $100 the S&W costs.
But otherwise, it seems to me, the prospect of five heavier, more powerful, and truly reliable rounds from a little pocket J-frame trumps anything the P3AT could bring to the table.
