Markbo, once I figured it out regarding the mag catches, I replaced them. No more inadvertently dropped mags and they will drop out freely if I let them. To preserve the catches, I "baby" them by pushing up on the mag and then depressing the catch so it doesn't scrape across the steel. In a SHTF situation, you bet I'm letting them drop free!
I Love Kel-Tecs
- Thread starter Tribal
- Start date
- Status
wickedsprint
Member
I like the feel of the keltecs as well but I have a hard time justifying one for carry over my .357 snubbie which also fits into a pocket.
jfh
Member.
I found that my mags now are like Markbo's--e.g., they don't freely eject. To me, that's all right because if I'm going to be at this point, I will have already fired 11 or 12 rounds. I simply don't count on doing tactical reloads; my grip is tighter, apparently.
The key to preventing the shaved release problem is to NOT slam a magazine home, nor exert undo speed in ejection. I am simply slow and methodical in removal and insertion of magazines.
For some reason or other, I can get real tolerable accuracy from my P3AT--I can shoot 3" groups at 7 yards free hand with no real problem. But like others, I consider it to be a handgun for 7 yards or closer, and I generally shoot 5-second or faster routines with the expectation that 6/7 are in 5" or less.
Markbo: The S&W j-frames with a 2" barrel, of which the 340 and 640 use the magnum-sized (.357) frame, will all fit in a front pocket nicely. Check out the M&P 340 thread in the revolvers forum for a lot more info on them. There is also the 642 thread to look at--some information is pretty common to both of them.
Jim H.
The key to preventing the shaved release problem is to NOT slam a magazine home, nor exert undo speed in ejection. I am simply slow and methodical in removal and insertion of magazines.
For some reason or other, I can get real tolerable accuracy from my P3AT--I can shoot 3" groups at 7 yards free hand with no real problem. But like others, I consider it to be a handgun for 7 yards or closer, and I generally shoot 5-second or faster routines with the expectation that 6/7 are in 5" or less.
Markbo: The S&W j-frames with a 2" barrel, of which the 340 and 640 use the magnum-sized (.357) frame, will all fit in a front pocket nicely. Check out the M&P 340 thread in the revolvers forum for a lot more info on them. There is also the 642 thread to look at--some information is pretty common to both of them.
Jim H.
KBintheSLC
Member
SCOTTD,
Sorry you had troubles with your P3AT. I know the 1st gen ones had some issues that should be worked out in the 2nd gen. I have a 2nd gen P32... 300+ rounds without a single failure. LOVE IT... buying another one in spring.
Sorry you had troubles with your P3AT. I know the 1st gen ones had some issues that should be worked out in the 2nd gen. I have a 2nd gen P32... 300+ rounds without a single failure. LOVE IT... buying another one in spring.
Hi Alamo! <--- epitome of KTOG fanboy. 
And I did reply to M2, but the post seems to have been removed. Alamo, notice how a lot of people here don't like their P3ATs, either? Hmmm? Read any one of a number of forums about the KT and take the negatives back to KTOG, put it in yer pipe and smoke it while enjoying your kool aid.
And, I'll always be on KTOG in some form or another.
And I did reply to M2, but the post seems to have been removed. Alamo, notice how a lot of people here don't like their P3ATs, either? Hmmm? Read any one of a number of forums about the KT and take the negatives back to KTOG, put it in yer pipe and smoke it while enjoying your kool aid.
And, I'll always be on KTOG in some form or another.
KelTecGuy
Member
Been carrying my 32 in rt frnt pocket for 3 months - Love it! Just put on the new Crimson Trace laser - outstanding. And still fits my Nemesis.
Ha! Ha! Love the Ruger diehards bashing KT diehards! I think it's funny!
I'm not a KT diehard and I'd even buy a Ruger 380, if they prove to be better than the P-3AT, that is if I can ever wear out my completely reliable P-3AT.
I'm not a KT diehard and I'd even buy a Ruger 380, if they prove to be better than the P-3AT, that is if I can ever wear out my completely reliable P-3AT.
kc 516
Member
I own or have owned the P-11, P-40, P-32, P-3AT and Sub-9. Two of those firearms had SNs under 150. I met one of the moderators of this site on the old KTOG mailing list way back in '98, IIRC, in pre-TFL days.
You could say I'm a fan.
At the same time, you have to be realistic. The clip on the P-32/3AT doesn't work well. It's innovative, but would have to be considerably larger to really work well. The KT pistols- aside from the P-32- tend to have very stiff recoil. The P-40 is no longer offered because of various problems stemming from trying to use the P-11 platform for the more powerful round. The Sub-2000 carbines have crappy trigger pulls. The LOP on the SU-16 rifles is WAY too long, especially for those in combat CQB stances, with shorter arms, or wearing body armor. Some users have experienced multiple QC issues with their firearms.
But...Kel-Tec has consistently offered an extremely inexpensive line of firearms that have managed to stay out front in terms of innovation. Their sidearms are all extremely size-efficient, and if their RFB is the rifle many shooters hope for, it is literally the holy grail for .308 combat rifle enthusiasts.
You pays your money, and you takes your chances. In general, because of potential QC and control issues, I would not suggest most KTs for new shooters. For more experienced shooters, they can fill a niche nicely.
John
You could say I'm a fan.
At the same time, you have to be realistic. The clip on the P-32/3AT doesn't work well. It's innovative, but would have to be considerably larger to really work well. The KT pistols- aside from the P-32- tend to have very stiff recoil. The P-40 is no longer offered because of various problems stemming from trying to use the P-11 platform for the more powerful round. The Sub-2000 carbines have crappy trigger pulls. The LOP on the SU-16 rifles is WAY too long, especially for those in combat CQB stances, with shorter arms, or wearing body armor. Some users have experienced multiple QC issues with their firearms.
But...Kel-Tec has consistently offered an extremely inexpensive line of firearms that have managed to stay out front in terms of innovation. Their sidearms are all extremely size-efficient, and if their RFB is the rifle many shooters hope for, it is literally the holy grail for .308 combat rifle enthusiasts.
You pays your money, and you takes your chances. In general, because of potential QC and control issues, I would not suggest most KTs for new shooters. For more experienced shooters, they can fill a niche nicely.
John
And you shoot in a MOUT-type stance, facing the target squarely? Or wear body armor?
For reference, my hunting firearms have a 12.5" LOP, and I use those in a more traditional stance, where I need longer LOP. Measure the distance from the trigger to the buttstock on your SU, and get back to me.
(The butt stock on M16A2/3/4 is much too long as well, incidentally. You probably don't know me from Adam's housecat, but try to find what the more respected firearm trainers have to say about LOP on carbines, if you don't believe me. Hell, the owner of SWAT...well, let me find it: "I swear by the Sully stocks (in their shortest possible configuration)". The Sully Stock is only 8". That's not total LOP, of course, but the point is, traditional stocks are too long for defensive carbines. )
John
For reference, my hunting firearms have a 12.5" LOP, and I use those in a more traditional stance, where I need longer LOP. Measure the distance from the trigger to the buttstock on your SU, and get back to me.
(The butt stock on M16A2/3/4 is much too long as well, incidentally. You probably don't know me from Adam's housecat, but try to find what the more respected firearm trainers have to say about LOP on carbines, if you don't believe me. Hell, the owner of SWAT...well, let me find it: "I swear by the Sully stocks (in their shortest possible configuration)". The Sully Stock is only 8". That's not total LOP, of course, but the point is, traditional stocks are too long for defensive carbines. )
John
I own a P3AT. It is a superb little piece of equipment. It takes punishment. I am a little shy about telling everyone what I do to my guns, but to make the story short I tend to make a gun sweat before I carry it. When I mean sweat what I really mean is I actively go out of my way to break it. So far my little mighty mouse .380 is doing very well. Kudos to Kel-tec for designing the perfect little pocket rocket.
The SU16C is made to function with the stock folded, so LOP is a none issue.
Since the 223 recoil is very light, I shoot mine all the time with the stock folded.
The best of both worlds and couldn't be better for confined areas.
romma
Member
I too love Keltecs and their small "carry anywhere don't worry about the finish persona"...
I don't like to directly contradict anyone, but I can't let this stand, because you're giving a very dangerous impression here. Yes, YOU may fire your carbine with the stock folded all the time, but-
BUT! The stock should ALWAYS be used if it can be. It lends additional speed and control, even if one doesn't have time to even actually use the sights. It still allows faster hits, at anything over contact distance range. Don't take my word for it, talk to the experts. In fact, a number of them are mods or members here. Feel free to bring this question up with Jeff White, Art Eatman, Larry Correia, or Zak Smith, to name just a few. Don't hesitate to pop back up and let me (and everyone else) know if any or every one of them suggest shooting with a folded stock if you have the time to unfold it.
John, not an expert, but thousands of rounds fired in Stressfire close-range training.
I don't want to get into an argument over this, but I want to remind you that I actually shoot this gun and am fully aware how it shoots with the stock folded and in my opinion, it shoots very well.
It was designed to shoot that way, should the situations arise.
Everyone should know how they shoot with different guns and base their choices on their personal proficiency, rather than what others say.
I've never been in a shootout with anyone and hope I never am, but personally at my skill level, I'd much rather use a high capacity pistol in close quarters than any long gun. I'm referring to room to room combat.
There is a video on youtube of Todd Jarrett going through one of his demonstrations, where he starts with a short barreled rifle and when out of ammo in the rifle, goes to his pistol. What impressed me most, is he was at least twice as fast with his pistol as he was with the rifle and when I saw that video, it pretty much confirmed my feelings about what works best in very confined conditions.
Zak Smith
Member
Shooting a folded long-gun is actually worse than both shooting a handgun and shooting a long-gun (even an SBR).
For the same shooter skill, a rifle is much, much easier to shoot accurately- for proof, just observe that if you hand a new shooter a .22 rifle, he can plink tin cans at 25-50 yards after a few rounds. Do the same with a pistol and he'll be hard pressed to hit the same soda can at 7 yards, much less 10 or 15. Shooting handguns is a much more complicated set of physical and mental skills; however, a highly skilled shooter (such as Jarrett) will be able to run a pistol the same speed or faster on a close-range course. This is because (1) the pistol is faster to aim because it's smaller, and (2) because the shooter has a gazillion rounds training himself to shoot a "pistol", and the pistol format has been optimized for this kind of use.
Comparing a rifle to a pistol for accuracy crossed with speed, I'd put the rifle 5-10x ahead, however, this may not be realizable at very close-range targets simply because someone with moderate practical handgun skills will not be challenged by the target difficulty.
A rifle or SBR has an advantage is stability because the stock provides a rigid support that keeps the gun's part of the sight picture roughly aligned with the shooter. This is also why those "officers" model pistols from WWI had stocks-- although it was somewhat laughable to dial one to 500 meters, they did get it right that the stock provides additional consistency and stability to the sight picture.
However, a 16" rifle with a folded stock is not a pistol. It has the weight and length of a rifle but none of the support.
I encourage you to do heads-up comparisons between your setup in 3-Gun, IPSC, or IDPA stages and determine the actual relative performance of the different setups.
Another resource for this kind of comparison is the guys from Cavalry Arms. Their "Trooper Class" rules allow use of pistol-caliber carbines to be used interchangeably with pistols for certain targets, and they've gathered some data on what is actually faster and more effective for different types of engagements.
For the same shooter skill, a rifle is much, much easier to shoot accurately- for proof, just observe that if you hand a new shooter a .22 rifle, he can plink tin cans at 25-50 yards after a few rounds. Do the same with a pistol and he'll be hard pressed to hit the same soda can at 7 yards, much less 10 or 15. Shooting handguns is a much more complicated set of physical and mental skills; however, a highly skilled shooter (such as Jarrett) will be able to run a pistol the same speed or faster on a close-range course. This is because (1) the pistol is faster to aim because it's smaller, and (2) because the shooter has a gazillion rounds training himself to shoot a "pistol", and the pistol format has been optimized for this kind of use.
Comparing a rifle to a pistol for accuracy crossed with speed, I'd put the rifle 5-10x ahead, however, this may not be realizable at very close-range targets simply because someone with moderate practical handgun skills will not be challenged by the target difficulty.
A rifle or SBR has an advantage is stability because the stock provides a rigid support that keeps the gun's part of the sight picture roughly aligned with the shooter. This is also why those "officers" model pistols from WWI had stocks-- although it was somewhat laughable to dial one to 500 meters, they did get it right that the stock provides additional consistency and stability to the sight picture.
However, a 16" rifle with a folded stock is not a pistol. It has the weight and length of a rifle but none of the support.
I encourage you to do heads-up comparisons between your setup in 3-Gun, IPSC, or IDPA stages and determine the actual relative performance of the different setups.
Another resource for this kind of comparison is the guys from Cavalry Arms. Their "Trooper Class" rules allow use of pistol-caliber carbines to be used interchangeably with pistols for certain targets, and they've gathered some data on what is actually faster and more effective for different types of engagements.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I guess it was maybe twenty-five or so years back when some guys did a fun-house run, comparing scores between full-auto sub-guns and semi-auto pistols. That was before today's IPSC race guns, and most folks used 1911s.
Scoring was hits per target vs. elapsed time for in the front, out the back. The pistols always won.
Cramped quarters, I can see how a folding stock rifle/carbine can be effective. "Can be", not necessarily "is". My only experience has been with a made-up "paratrooper" M1 Carbine. (Original GI stock, but not on an Inland Carbine.) I didn't really like it. I was more effective with the orginal stock on the Carbine. Same thing with a Mini-14 and with a collapsible stock AR-15. As long as I'm harping on "don't likes", I'll add the GI "Grease Gun" and the MAC 10. A MAC 11 with the wire stock is okay.
The problem for me is in transitioning. I have over sixty years in conventionally-stocked rifles and nearly that long in shotguns. I've tried these folding stock rigs, and they just generally don't show me where they'd ever be better than where I've already found myself to be quite competent.
Short and handy is good, but I want something to hold between bicep and ribs, or against my shoulder. My deal is control, and the stock definitely assists at that. (Which is why I like the old Thompson; greatest social gun ever built.)
Art
Scoring was hits per target vs. elapsed time for in the front, out the back. The pistols always won.
Cramped quarters, I can see how a folding stock rifle/carbine can be effective. "Can be", not necessarily "is". My only experience has been with a made-up "paratrooper" M1 Carbine. (Original GI stock, but not on an Inland Carbine.) I didn't really like it. I was more effective with the orginal stock on the Carbine. Same thing with a Mini-14 and with a collapsible stock AR-15. As long as I'm harping on "don't likes", I'll add the GI "Grease Gun" and the MAC 10. A MAC 11 with the wire stock is okay.
The problem for me is in transitioning. I have over sixty years in conventionally-stocked rifles and nearly that long in shotguns. I've tried these folding stock rigs, and they just generally don't show me where they'd ever be better than where I've already found myself to be quite competent.
Short and handy is good, but I want something to hold between bicep and ribs, or against my shoulder. My deal is control, and the stock definitely assists at that. (Which is why I like the old Thompson; greatest social gun ever built.)
Art
Art, the fun house thing is exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm 75 years old and with a number of health issues, I'm not about to be advancing on a BG.
If I have to use a gun, the BG will be coming to me and I think that puts him at a real disadvantage!
It's a whole different scenario than swat advancing and clearing a house with sub guns.
JMO, but when I see a swat on video, with all the cumbersome stuff they ware and the sub guns sticking way out in front of them, I wonder, what are they thinking?
From my experience shooting my SU16C with the stock folded, I know it can be shot effectively at close range, but as I stated, it's not my first choice.
berkbw
Member
+1 Sd
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked