Kel tec pf9 or ruger lc9

[chaddy]

I'm looking at these two guns for iwb. What's the better one is the ruger worth the extra 100$?

 

[wgaynor]

I never handled the Ruger, but had a PF9. Small, slim, goes bang every time. The trigger pull is looong. Pistol was easy to carry and I forgot about it being on my hip most of the time.

I initially cared IWB, but later went to a fobus paddle holster for comfort. It was fun to shoot, but took practice to be good due to the muzzle flip.

 

[jrdolall]

Not worth the price difference in my experience. Both are what they are. Unless you practice a LOT you are never going to be accurate outside a few yards with either weapon but they aren't really designed for anything more. I own both and both are very similar in size and weight. There is always the off chance that you will get a problem gun from any company(I have had more with Ruger than KT personally).

 

[okc-zee]

I've owned both and still own a Ruger LC9..From my experience I think the LC9 is just a bit better made..My PF9 was a dog...endless mag drops,2 broken slides a broken extractor and a cracked frame..Kel Tec CS bent over backwards to remedy things but enough was enough..Several hundred trouble free rounds thru the LC9...Just my experience...

 

[Zerodefect]

Both stink compared to the Kahr Pm9, P9, K9, Mk9 in my opinion.

 

[Mike1234567]

I owned both (at different times) and much prefer the Ruger... the feel and quality were much better (to me). Also, I REALLY prefer the thumb safety!!

 

[JR24]

If you're OK with a thumb safety, I would urge you to also take a look at the SR9c.

Its really not that much thicker than the LC9 and you get significantly more ammo possible (10 in the compact mag, plus a 17 round mag backup).

Edit: in my opinion the SR9c has a better trigger as well, YMMV naturally.

 

[Mike1234567]

If you're OK with a thumb safety, I would urge you to also take a look at the SR9c.

Its really not that much thicker than the LC9 and you get significantly more ammo possible (10 in the compact mag, plus a 17 round mag backup).

Edit: in my opinion the SR9c has a better trigger as well, YMMV naturally.

The SR9c is a fine pistol... I own one. But they serve a slightly different purpose than the LC9.

 

[kokapelli]

Had a PF9 until I purchased a PM9. The PM9 is so much better I got rid of the PF9.

Recently purchased an LC9 and like it almost as much as the PM9.

IMO the LC9 is a much better shooter than the PF9.

If you have any doubts about the shootability Of the LC9 check out these two videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeLxP6Kywzk&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enRpnUtzV5g

 

[Hometeached1]

I vote LC9, but I like a thumb safety. Also have you thought about a Walther PPS?

 

[JR24]

The SR9c is a fine pistol... I own one. But they serve a slightly different purpose than the LC9.

OP indicated the choice was for IWB, I can't see what purpose a LC9 would serve, IWB, that a SR9c couldn't with a good holster.

Pocket carry (if you can pocket an LC9) would be a different story.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I have 6 Kel Tecs but not the PF9.

I do have three LC9 pistols. Pocket carry one.

One has about 2,000 trouble free rounds.



The second one I started shooting yesterday and has 80 trouble free rounds. It's the NRA Camo model.

The Ruger LC9 is a good gun and fairly accurate out to 52 yards. Well worth the money.








I also have several SR9C and SR40C pistols.
Good guns but a good bit larger than the LC9.

 

[Mike1234567]

OP indicated the choice was for IWB, I can't see what purpose a LC9 would serve, IWB, that a SR9c couldn't with a good holster.

Pocket carry (if you can pocket an LC9) would be a different story.

The LC9 is much smaller so it's more comfortable to carry... because the IWB holster is smaller too.

 

[MedWheeler]

Wow. Thread lasted for three whole responses before going outside the OP's question...

I carry the PF9. I haven't handled the Ruger much but, for belt carry (IWB or OWB), weight becomes less of a factor. The Ruger is likely better fit and finished, and its slightly thicker grip might make it a softer shooter.

But, these are defense guns, not range toys. It depends on how well you think you'll be able to handle them. To me, it wasn't worth the difference in price to go with the Ruger. I handle the KT pretty well, and it hasn't malfunctioned once in the 500-550 rounds I've run through it.

 

[jrdolall]

I am the exact opposite in that I don't want any external safety on these pocket pistols. The long trigger pull functions much like a revolver and acts as the safety for me. I have three in 380 and 9mm that DO have the safety and I usually wind up back carrying the guns without.

 

[hogcowboy]

I personally can not stand the trigger or any trigger like that one on the SR9C.

 

[hardluk1]

I had a pf-9 and bought a kahr cm9 and it is worth an extra 100bucks.

 

[Kayaker 1960]

LC9

I haven't handled a Kel Tec. I have an LC9, I've only had it to the range once. The trigger is indeed long but smooth, very much like shooting a DA revolver. I found the accuracy to be surprisingly good for a little gun. I fired 100 FMJ and 25 Hornady 135 gr. hollow points, no issues. My wife and her female friend didn't like the recoil, no problem for me.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

Get the Ruger. It's a better made gun and worth the extra money.

 

[chaddy]

I'm wanting to carry this gun iwb. I have a tcp 380 for pocket carry. I don't really like carrying in my pocket. These nothing wrong with it.

 

[primalmu]

I just picked up a Ruger LC9, and I've shot a Keltec PF9. Get the Ruger. It is a noticeably softer shooter and the fit and finish is superior. There are a few things about it that I don't like, namely the magazine disconnect, however I do like having the option of a manual safety. With the long trigger pull I don't see any reason why you would need to worry about any accidental discharges, especially when holstered.

 

[cocojo]

I know the PF9's I had one was a problem. Never owned a LC9 and for my personal reasons. First I'm a lefty and I hate the fact it has a safety and only on one side, completely no need for a safety. Safeties cause issues, they are too small when your fine motor skills depart. I know you don't need to use it, but what if it engages and you don't know it, your done. Second issue is the magazine safety. The gun will not shoot without the magazine in place. Why the hell would Ruger put this device in this gun when all their other guns do not have this device. I chose the Beretta Nano a much better built gun without all the nonsense, but that's my choice. There are no levers or safeties to deal with or anything else for that matter. Very clean pistol and absolutely nothing to get snagged on. Now if these are your only two choices and nothing else, I would chose the PF9 just for the facts of what I stated above. Kel-Tec's are hit or miss but they have gotten better.

 

[Kiln]

Go with Kel Tec. Maybe they'll use the money to keep creating new products instead of redesigning everyone else's.

 

[khegglie]

WHAT???

 

[Gary A]

Forgive me for exceeding the parameters of the question, but I have been window shopping for a small 9mm, preferably hammer-fired and looked at both the LC9 and PF9. I've been leaning toward Ruger until another, a bit more expensive pistol caught my attention. Consider the Sig Sauer P290RS. Costs a bit more in the mid 4's I understand but come with two magazines, a six and an eight round. Is hammer fired, real DAO, with re-strike capability, no magazine disconnect, no internal lock, no huge LCI, has night sights, stainless slide (either natural or nitron finished). The inserts in the polymer frame are steel, not aluminum, which does make the pistol a bit heavier at 20 ounces or so but arguably stronger, IMO. It is shorter than the Ruger in height and length but is a tad thicker.

I have not been able to examine one yet but I'm not going to buy any small 9mm "pocket pistol" until I can. And I am a long time Ruger fan.