Kel Tec P11 or S&W 642
- Thread starter ..
- Start date
- Status
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
I like both, voted 642 cause that is what I carry most. Yes, under very hard recoil the lock will lock. If I carried an Auto I would carry a P11 or If I could find one a PF-9. One of those is going to be in my safe someday.
romma
Member
Actually as far as Keltec goes, I would probably at least check out the PF-9 first before getting the P-11
romma
Member
There you go... Now, please get back to us with a range report ASAP on that new PF-9 please!
ronto
Member
Me too on the PF-9 range report.
longwatch
Member
P11
I carried a P11 with night sights for a while, worked fine for me. With a trigger stop it had pretty good accuracy too. I like 13 9mm Hydrashocks over 5 .38 specials.
I carried a P11 with night sights for a while, worked fine for me. With a trigger stop it had pretty good accuracy too. I like 13 9mm Hydrashocks over 5 .38 specials.
Seven High
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 755
Are there any verifiable reports of a S&W with the lock actually locking up during a firing session? I sure would like to read about it if there is!
Bobo
Member
PX15
Member
IMO:
I have a KelTec P11, and I have a CT Lasergripped 638 Airweight Bodyguard.
While my P11 has been extremely reliable, and reasonably accurate at self defense range I would (and do) prefer the J-frame over the KelTec.
The addition of the CT Lasergrip FOR ME moved the little snubby from the "can't hit squat" to the "roll a can" accuracy.. The potential accuracy in the 638 is enhanced because of the excellent "target trigger" that comes on it standard.
If you haven't shot a J-frame with the smooth target trigger you will be amazed. I have two older J-frames (pre40&49) both with the older narrow, serrated triggers, and the difference is big time..
I know it's not fair, or logical, but I keep waiting for my P11 to malfunction... I NEVER have that same concern with the J-frame.
I think for the average non leo type the J-frame snubby wearing a set of Crimson Trace Lasergrips will offer all the protection you would ever need, and require very little maintenance in relation to what any semi would require.
JMOFO
Best Wishes,
JP
I have a KelTec P11, and I have a CT Lasergripped 638 Airweight Bodyguard.
While my P11 has been extremely reliable, and reasonably accurate at self defense range I would (and do) prefer the J-frame over the KelTec.
The addition of the CT Lasergrip FOR ME moved the little snubby from the "can't hit squat" to the "roll a can" accuracy.. The potential accuracy in the 638 is enhanced because of the excellent "target trigger" that comes on it standard.
If you haven't shot a J-frame with the smooth target trigger you will be amazed. I have two older J-frames (pre40&49) both with the older narrow, serrated triggers, and the difference is big time..
I know it's not fair, or logical, but I keep waiting for my P11 to malfunction... I NEVER have that same concern with the J-frame.
I think for the average non leo type the J-frame snubby wearing a set of Crimson Trace Lasergrips will offer all the protection you would ever need, and require very little maintenance in relation to what any semi would require.
JMOFO
Best Wishes,
JP
MCgunner
Member
P11! I do like 642s, but prefer a hammer even in a pocket gun. Just me. I know all the arguments for hammerless, I just like a hammer on a revolver. The P11 is, in effect, a little hammerless, flat 11 shot revolver in 9mm+P which puts a 115 grain Hornady XTP out at 1260fps/410 fpe. My .38 can't come close to that, only holds 5 rounds, and isn't as small or as light! NO BRAINER to me for concealed carry. It's 3.5" at 25 yards accurate, too, almost as accurate as my snubby.
Definitely like to hear about that new PF9. How accurate is it off the bench? That's my first query. It's a little thinner and lighter than the P11. I don't mind the P11's trigger, but the PF9 is supposed to be better for the DA phobes.
Definitely like to hear about that new PF9. How accurate is it off the bench? That's my first query. It's a little thinner and lighter than the P11. I don't mind the P11's trigger, but the PF9 is supposed to be better for the DA phobes.
MCgunner, in the hand, the PF-9 over all feels much thinner than the P-11.
I had a P-11 and hated the trigger.
The trigger on the PF-9 is a big improvment over the P-11. It is much closer to the trigger on a P-32 or P-3AT.
The sights on the PF-9 are better than the P-11 sights too.
I have arthritis in my old joints and this pistol a 12.7 oz is hand full for me, so I have only shot about 75 rounds through the PF-9 and I was mainly testing for reliability with different brands of ammo.
I shot magazines of Gold Dot +p for short barrels, Remington jhp and WWB fmj. All three worked without any problem.
Next time out I will check for accuracy, but from what I see it looks about equal to the P-11. It does have the same barrel as the P-11
I had a P-11 and hated the trigger.
The trigger on the PF-9 is a big improvment over the P-11. It is much closer to the trigger on a P-32 or P-3AT.
The sights on the PF-9 are better than the P-11 sights too.
I have arthritis in my old joints and this pistol a 12.7 oz is hand full for me, so I have only shot about 75 rounds through the PF-9 and I was mainly testing for reliability with different brands of ammo.
I shot magazines of Gold Dot +p for short barrels, Remington jhp and WWB fmj. All three worked without any problem.
Next time out I will check for accuracy, but from what I see it looks about equal to the P-11. It does have the same barrel as the P-11
MCgunner
Member
Yeah, in the slide/barrel, it's a P11. I'd expect it to shoot very similar. I don't have a problem with the P11 trigger, but I don't have arthritis either. I could see how that long trigger stroke would be a problem for you. I kinda like a long trigger for safety's sake. But, I don't think I'd dislike the PF9. The main thing for me would be the trade off in capacity, but 9 rounds is a lot more'n the five shot revolver I often carry. I think the thinner profile is worth a few rounds in the pocket carry mode. If I get one in the future, it'll be for pocket carry, not to mention it's a few ounces lighter. I'll keep the P11 for IWB and maybe ankle carry back up.
If I didn't have a P11 and I was choosing between the two now, I think I'd go for the PF9 for the slightly more compact profile.
The main thing for me would be the trade off in capacity, but 9 rounds is a lot more'n the five shot revolver I often carry. I think the thinner profile is worth a few rounds in the pocket carry mode. If I get one in the future, it'll be for pocket carry, not to mention it's a few ounces lighter. I'll keep the P11 for IWB and maybe ankle carry back up.If I didn't have a P11 and I was choosing between the two now, I think I'd go for the PF9 for the slightly more compact profile.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,716
I keep looking at P3ATs and P11s, and...a P11 is not as small as people try to say. Neither is the PF9.
It "might" be a pocket pistol in the same way my Kimber Ultra Carry is a pocket pistol.
That is, it will fit in my pocket, but is not as small/light/concealable as a 642, or my PM9, and is an order of magnitude larger than the P3AT.
It "might" be a pocket pistol in the same way my Kimber Ultra Carry is a pocket pistol.
That is, it will fit in my pocket, but is not as small/light/concealable as a 642, or my PM9, and is an order of magnitude larger than the P3AT.
kokapelli have you tried that with 147gr rounds?
I'd say they're different sizes. If you're going IWB, I'd rather have more rounds of the better caliber. If you're going for pocket carry I think you'd be better served to look at the p3at versus the 642.
I'd say they're different sizes. If you're going IWB, I'd rather have more rounds of the better caliber. If you're going for pocket carry I think you'd be better served to look at the p3at versus the 642.
I saw some information on the internet regarding bullet weight and short barreled pistols.
The gelatin ballistic performance indicated that lighter, premium bullets clearly were better out of short barrels.
I will be carrying the Gold Dot +P for short barrel guns.
I am also considering the DPX round.
I have three P-3AT pistols and expect those will still be my always guns.
The PF-9 really is very flat. It's flatter than the PM9, but it is a little longer.
I won't work to well as a pocket pistol in my light weight shorts that we wear 8 months of the year, but it is just fine in my jeans front pocket.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
S&W 642 without Crimson Trace Laser Grips; no sense in shoving
the extra cash up a wild hogs rear end~!
the extra cash up a wild hogs rear end~!
MCgunner
Member
My P11 is quite a bit shorter in OAL than my 2" Taurus M85UL which is about the size of a 642. It also don't have that lumpy cylinder and is only 1" thick. It is considerable easier for me to pocket in the front pocket of my Carpenter's jeans or Wrangler cargos than my Revolver. It is also only 14 ounces unloaded, but when topped off with 11 rounds approaches the 19 ounce unloaded weight of the 642. The PF9 is only 12 ounces and holds a couple less rounds than the P11. I like the extra firepower and horsepower of the gun regardless, but it is easier to pocket than any revolver short of a NAA mini. The PF9 has an even thinner profile at .88 inches thick.
I feel quite well armed with a revolver, I just think a compact 9 like the Kel Tecs or the PM9 Kahr are a superior weapon for self defense in a pocket. Add to that they are much faster to reload, no fumbling with speedloaders even if you can use up 11 rounds without effect (a difficult scenario to fathom).
I don't wear shorts. Even in the hottest part of a south Texas summer, I wear jeans, sometimes kevlar reinforced for that possible spill on one of my motorcycles. Shorts are NOT a good thing for motorcycling. I wear ankle covering footwear and usually have an armored summer jacket on while riding unless it's just a short ride to the store or something. I can't afford the skin grafts a pair of shorts would cost me in a fall.
hpg
Member
Don't know about the lazer grips, but definately the 38 Special.......hpg
ChuckB
Member
I rented a P-11 today at a local range. As long as I used a smooth, continuous trigger pull (no staging), I shot consistent 2-3 inch groups at 21 feet. I was quite impressed- may buy one soon!
Chuck
Chuck
10-Ring
Member
I'd go w/ the Smith (sans CT)
- Status
