New Kel-Tec 9MM

[RonC]

The new 9 looks good to me. I would have to compare it to my Kahr MK9 before I would buy it. The MK9 (all steel) is about 23 oz so is more than 50% heavier than the new Kel-Tec, but it is the same size as the PM9.

My Kel-Tec P3AT gave me some problems the first time I used it. The gun range manager came over and tried it. It was perfect! I was limp wristing. After that experience, I've put about 400 rounds through it with zero failures.

Ron

 

[Alan Fud]

Looking at this photo of the P-3AT next to the PF-9 ...

... and this photo comparing the Rohrbaugh R9 to the P-3AT ...

... the Rohrbaugh R9 still appears to be the smallest 9mm in current production despite the claims that the PF-9 is lighter and thinner.

 

[alamo]

Looking at this photo of the P-3AT next to the PF-9 ...

... the Rohrbaugh R9 still appears to be the smallest 9mm in current production despite the claims that the PF-9 is lighter and thinner.

Yep, the Rohrbaugh is smaller in height & length but the PF-9 being lighter and thinner is not a contradiction. It is lighter and thinner.

 

[KONY]

Is it just me or did Kel-tec add a working "slide release" onto the PF-9? To me, it looks like they did. Anyone verify?

 

[Alan Fud]

Yep, the Rohrbaugh is smaller in height & length but the PF-9 being lighter and thinner is not a contradiction. It is lighter and thinner.

The PF-9 is not thinner. It's width is 0.88 inches while the R9 is 0.812 inches (Source) and while the PF-9 is 0.1 ounces lighter, that amount is almost impossible for a human to tell without some form in measuring instrument. The bottomline is that the PF-9 is a bit large for pocket carry while the R9 is not.

I would have preferred to see Kel-Tec introduce a 9mm in the size of the P-3AT or close to it.

 

[kokapelli]

Wilson, are the pictures of both of those pistols from the same scale?

From the dimensions I have seen, I did not think there was that much difference in size!

I guess Wilson isn't going to answer the question!

I'm sure that, those pictures posted by him were not to the same scale and the PF-9 is not as big as his picture indicates.

According to the dimensions, the PF-9 is less than 1/2" longer than the P-3AT.

In Wilson's picture the PF-9 looks like it's at least an inch longer.

 

[Geno]

Bought my Kel Teck when I got tired of the weight.

While I still love to carry a full-sized 1911 in .45ACP, in the summer, they are just so darned difficult to conceal.

I spent months debating the Kel Tec .380 (green w/ hard chrome) because I had heard of reliability issues. I now have about 300 rounds through it with 0 failures of any kind. Given the modest sights, I don't even try beyond about 15 feet. But, at that distance it actually groups well.

My niece bought the older style Kel Tec 9MM last summer. For my likes, I would probably stay with the current 9MM for the extra rounds. Also, as stated by a previous person, "Why the accessory rail on a pocket pistol?" I guess I will have to see them side-by-side. Thanks for the post and the info. It will prove interesting.

Doc2005

 

[alamo]

The PF-9 is not thinner. It's width is 0.88 inches while the R9 is 0.812 inches and while the PF-9 is 0.1 ounces lighter, that amount is almost impossible for a human to tell without some form in measuring instrument. The bottomline is that the PF-9 is a bit large for pocket carry while the R9 is not.

I would have preferred to see Kel-Tec introduce a 9mm in the size of the P-3AT or close to it.

The .812 is slide width of the Rohrbaugh. Like the Kahr's, if you measure at the widest point on the grips, the PF-9 is supposed to be thinner. For whatever it's worth.

http://www.rohrbaughfirearms.com/product/prod_set.html

 

[Steelharp]

I would say (flexing my photo chops here) that the photo from Wilson is not a composite; it is a single photo taken at the same time of both guns. However, it is not taken from the perspective of straight down; the 9mm is closer to the lens laying on the table. Assuming it was taken with a bit of a wide angle lens (not knowing the camera used, but most amateur cameras lean toward a wide angle), this has a tendency to make things closer to it look larger and things farther away look smaller. (Take a photo of a person close up with a wide lens; the nose appears huge.) That's probably what makes the 9mm appear to be a bit larger and out of proportion.

 

[3rdpig]

I've only had the chance to hold a Rorbaugh once, but if memory serves the grip panels made the grip area wider than the slide. With the .812 number being the slide with of the Rorbaugh, and the .88 being the width of the widest part of the KT, that might be enough to make it thinner, if only marginally. I see no reason for KT to lie about something they'd be easily called on.

But for me the difference is in price. For those of you that are willing to spend $900 for a pocket pistol all I can say is more power to you. While I suppose I could spend that, I won't. I'll wait for the KT for one third the cost or pick up a used Kahr for half. The Rorbaugh is a nice little gun, but I'm a big guy who wears relaxed fit pants, the difference in size won't prevent me from pocket carrying the PF-9.

 

[denfoote]

Soooooo.
How many years are we gunna hafta wait for this little gem to filter down to the local level??

I envision seeing "allocated" next to the name when I look for it on the Davidson's web site.

It took nearly a year for the P3AT to hit Arizona!! I got mine used only because some guy bought it, decided he didn't like it, and traded it in on something else!!

I didn't see another one for months afterword!!

I hope KT isn't going to release the gun until they have enough stock built up!!

 

[Wilson 17&26]

Is this a better view?

 

[Wilson 17&26]

How about this! The P-3AT has a plus one magazine extension in it making the grip look longer. The PF-9 also could to have a magazine in it but not the P-11. I assume this was to compare width, not height. If you check the URL on the photo you will see they are from the Kel-Tec web site, so they are not my photos.

 

[kraigster414]

this puppy comes out, I will get rid of my PM-9. I like my Kahr, but this looks more ideal for my wants and needs.

Just curious why. I have a Kahr PM9 and wouldn't think to get rid of it, certainly not for the new Keltec pf9 that is only a few ounces lighter. Don't get me wrong I love my Keltec P3AT but I see no reason to get their new PF9 when I already have a PM9.

 

[Wilson 17&26]

I see no reason to get their new PF9 when I already have a PM9.

That certainly makes sense. But what if you didn’t own that Kahr PM9 and you had a choice between buying a Kahr PM9 or both the PF-9 and a P-3AT for the same dollars? You might go for the two Kel-Tec pistols rather than the one Kahr PM9.

 

[kraigster414]

That certainly makes sense. But what if you didn’t own that Kahr PM9 and you had a choice between buying a Kahr PM9 or both the PF-9 and a P-3AT for the same dollars? You might go for the two Kel-Tec pistols rather than the one Kahr PM9.

If I didn't already have the Kahr PM9 and the PF9 was the same price (which it isn't by a long shot), I would still opt for the Kahr PM9. I carry it daily and it has never failed me - flawless right out of the box - something Keltecs are not always known for. Hopefully, the PF9 will prove as reliable as the PM9.

The big plus behind the PF9 is the selling price - about 2 bills less than the PM9. That is what is going to drive sales. However, it must prove reliable, durable, and reasonably accurate too. If it fails - particularly in the first two categories, price alone won't be enough. The PF9 unlike the P32 and the P3AT is not a ground breaker in terms of size and weight - specs (weight and dimensions) are very close the PM9. I was much more exictied when the P3AT was introduced. Filled a true niche in terms of size, weight, firepower, and price.

Just my two centavos.

 

[kokapelli]

If I didn't already have the Kahr PM9 and the PF9 was the same price (which it isn't by a long shot), I would still opt for the Kahr PM9. I carry it daily and it has never failed me - flawless right out of the box - something Keltecs are not always known for. Hopefully, the PF9 will prove as reliable as the PM9.

The big plus behind the PF9 is the selling price - about 2 bills less than the PM9. That is what is going to drive sales. However, it must prove reliable, durable, and reasonably accurate too. If it fails - particularly in the first two categories, price alone won't be enough. The PF9 unlike the P32 and the P3AT is not a ground breaker in terms of size and weight - specs (weight and dimensions) are very close the PM9. I was much more exictied when the P3AT was introduced. Filled a true niche in terms of size, weight, firepower, and price.

Just my two centavos.

I have to agree with you.
I have an early Kahr K9 that has thousands of rounds through it without any issues of any kind and although I really like my KelTecs, the Kahr is in a different class with a much better trigger and quality I only wish KelTec had.

 

[Wilson 17&26]

The big plus behind the PF9 is the selling price - about 2 bills less than the PM9. That is what is going to drive sales.

I agree. I personally suspect that the target was Kahr PM9 and other featherweight single stack 9s. Kel-Tec has a cash cow with the P-3AT, producing over a 1,000 per week. With the low volume and high price of the Rohabaugh, Kel-Tec has little to fear from them. When sales of the P-3AT decline they may go for the Tiny 9 but chances are the CFO will resist it until then.

 

[kraigster414]

I have to agree with you.
I have an early Kahr K9 that has thousands of rounds through it without any issues of any kind and although I really like my KelTecs, the Kahr is in a different class with a much better trigger and quality I only wish KelTec had.

Couldn't say it better myself. We're comparing (if prior Keltecs are any measure) a Chevy GEO with a tried and true Volvo. Both will get you there but which would you rather have? Had the Kahr PM9 not already been introduced, the PF9 would make quite a splash. I enjoy and carry my P3ATs but they all required a certain amount of tweaking to render them reliable in a worst case scenario. I don't want another gun to tweak regardless of price. We'll see what kind of out-of-the-box gun the PF9 is soon enough.

 

[Ascot500]

I want to preface my remark by saying that I have owned a P-11 since they were fairly new (1997?), and mine has been utterly reliable.
The new Kel-Tec is appealing to me since the chubby grip of the P-11 is something I have adapted to, though never liked.
However, just recently the trigger broke on my P-11. The factory has fixed it at no charge, but I still don't have a warm fuzzy feeling for it.
The steel trigger on the Kahr is appealing enough to me that I am considering shelling out the significant money difference to upgrade.
If the new Kel-Tec had a steel trigger, I would definitely get it instead.

For now, I carry a revolver.

 

[Wilson 17&26]

The steel trigger on the Kahr is appealing enough to me that I am considering shelling out the significant money difference to upgrade.
If the new Kel-Tec had a steel trigger, I would definitely get it instead.

Have you considered ordering one of the after market P-11 Nickel-Chromium triggers? Beach on the KTOG Bulletin Board is doing them in addition to Nickel-Chromium triggers and magazine releases for the mouseguns.

 

[gt3944]

me likes, gotta have one...

 

[Ascot500]

Wilson,

Thanks for the info.
I saw some posts by Beach but not about the trigger.
How do you reach him?

 

[Wilson 17&26]

Sorry, it won't let me edit.

 

[Wilson 17&26]

I saw some posts by Beach but not about the trigger.
How do you reach him?

Go to the KTOG.org bulletin board, search the member list and click on “Send this member a private message.”

PS I think he includes installation instructions.