Pocket 380acp, Ruger or Keltec?
- Thread starter Wildbillz
- Start date
- Status
I am a Ruger Fanboy that owns a Kel Tec P3AT and I couldn't agree more. Along witht the recoil and trigger, the Taurus has better egros and a slide lock back on the last round. Add that to the fact that they are very commanly found for $199 new, they are the cheapest. I also shoot mine more accurately than my P3AT.
Mine has been flawless through somewhre around 750 rounds. Not a single FTE or FTF.
The only thing the Ruger and Kel Tec have over thr Taurus is their customer service are 2 of the best while Taurus is hit or miss. That is a valid point to consider though
helitack32f1
Member
Between the two you mention, I would go with the Ruger. Why buy the original when you can buy the much improved and better looking version? That being said, I just sold my LCP. Were I looking for another pocket .380 I would look elsewhere. Probably the Taurus TCP or the Smith Bodyguard. Or if I was rich I would go for the Sig p238. Or the new Colt .380.
76shuvlinoff
Member
Never had the KT so I can't openly disparage that weapon but I can say I am pleasantly surprised by the accuracy of my "belly gun" LCP at 7 paces.
I stretched a piece of bicycle inner tube around the grip and use the mags with a finger extension, works fine.
.
I stretched a piece of bicycle inner tube around the grip and use the mags with a finger extension, works fine.
.
Last edited:
Taurus 617 CCW
Member
I have previously owned the Kel Tec P-32 and P3AT. I currently own a Ruger LCP. I really liked the Kel Tec pistols at first but I found a couple of things that they should have addressed before production.
The magazine catch is made of plastic and will shear off if you aggressively slam the magazine into the pistol. I don't do this very often but if I ever needed to do a reload during a defense situation, I am certainly not going to carefully push the mag button until the catch slot clears the button.
The extractor on the new style Kel Tec pistols is held in place by a button head screw. If it isn't loctited, it can work its way out during operation and loosen the tension of the extractor causing a failure to extract.
Other than those two issues, I didn't mind the Kel Tec pistols. I like the ergonomics of the Ruger LCP better. It has a metal guide rod and magazine catch. The frame is made of glass filled nylon which seems to be stronger than the Kel Tec frame (my opinion). Accuracy was good with both guns.
The magazine catch is made of plastic and will shear off if you aggressively slam the magazine into the pistol. I don't do this very often but if I ever needed to do a reload during a defense situation, I am certainly not going to carefully push the mag button until the catch slot clears the button.
The extractor on the new style Kel Tec pistols is held in place by a button head screw. If it isn't loctited, it can work its way out during operation and loosen the tension of the extractor causing a failure to extract.
Other than those two issues, I didn't mind the Kel Tec pistols. I like the ergonomics of the Ruger LCP better. It has a metal guide rod and magazine catch. The frame is made of glass filled nylon which seems to be stronger than the Kel Tec frame (my opinion). Accuracy was good with both guns.
Prince Yamato
Member
They're the same gun. Buy the least costly of the two.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Tney're BASICALLY the same gun, but the Ruger version has some enhancements, like how the firing pin is retained, that are different. I like that Ruger difference better.
wild cat mccane
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 977
2 points:
1. Kel Tec owner also owned a business before and shut it down then opened Kel Tec? That wasn't too nice.
2. Kel Tec started the pocket pistol revolution? Huh Better tell that to L.W. Seecamp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seecamp
1. Kel Tec owner also owned a business before and shut it down then opened Kel Tec? That wasn't too nice.
2. Kel Tec started the pocket pistol revolution? Huh Better tell that to L.W. Seecamp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seecamp
Walt Sherrill
Member
wilde cat mccane said:
I disagree.
Seecamp introduced a very expensive small gun, but there was no revolution associated with that introduction. [Relatively few of them were made, and their relative rareness suggests that they are more of a novelty than anything.]
K-T introduced small guns that worked at least as well as the Seecamp using a wider variety of ammo, and sold them for roughly 1/3 the Seecamp price. Kel-Tec has sold many, many, many more pocket guns than Seecamp and has had much more impact on the marketplace than did Seecamp. I'd argue that KT's presence and low cost alternative is what opened up the market and started the revolution, not the existence of the much more expensive "semi-custom" Seecamps. It was the PRICE POINT that created the revolution -- and Seecamp didn't have much effect, there.
Are the Seecamps better guns? In terms of craftsmanship and refinement, probably; but in terms of functionality, not really. Comparing a Kel-Tec to Seecamp is like comparing a good quartz Timex to a mechanical Rolex; the Rolex is a marvel of craftsmanship and it will be a work of art, beautifuly made -- but the Timex will generally be more accurate.
No bragging rights come with owning a Timex; they do with the Rolex. Same holds true when comparing the KT to the Seecamp.
I've shot a .32 Seecamp, and it was much less pleasant to shoot than the Kel-Tec in the same caliber.
Last edited:
I don't know if you noticed but he mentioned seecamp in his post. I read it to mean that kel tec was the first pocket pistol designed in a way that would be successful enough to be copied. Kinda of similar to glock starting the poly revolution. They were not the first but they put it on the map. Not sure that even seecamp could be considered the first pocket pistol, but is was without a doubt the p3at that started the "craze" which has given us a abundance of pocket 380s
Also I do not know much about Grendel firearms. What did he do that was not nice? I assumes he was like a lot of business owners and innovators and had one company go under and took that experience and turned it into kel tec, which is the 3rd largest us firearms maker. What happened at Grendel that would lable him as a bad guy?
**forgive any spelling and grammar mistakes, sent from my wife's cell phone and I am not familiar with it
I have to agree with Walt. Seecamp made a small pistol first but it was Kelgren that made it affordable for the masses thus kicking off the trend that Seecamp didn't. There are probably 1000 Keltecs sold for every Seecamp.
CORRECTION: In 2010 Keltec manufactured 40,638 pistols in 380 acp and 14831 pistols in 32 acp. LWS Seecamp made 966 32s and 502 380s. That is about 37:1. I would, however, love to have a Seecamp 32.
CORRECTION: In 2010 Keltec manufactured 40,638 pistols in 380 acp and 14831 pistols in 32 acp. LWS Seecamp made 966 32s and 502 380s. That is about 37:1. I would, however, love to have a Seecamp 32.
Last edited:
wild cat mccane
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 977
The LSW380 was copied 
Heard of the NAA Guardian?
Yes, the P3AT is pocketable, but the LSW380 is also 25%+ smaller than the P3AT and the LSW380 came first.
Calm down. I am on my 5th kel tec, and a P3AT is my everyday.
Heard of the NAA Guardian?Yes, the P3AT is pocketable, but the LSW380 is also 25%+ smaller than the P3AT and the LSW380 came first.
Calm down. I am on my 5th kel tec, and a P3AT is my everyday.
wild cat mccane
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 977
And I am sure you could quantify "the revolution" by reintroducing the auto pocket pistol couldn't we?
"revolution" isn't a quantifiable measure. Sorry.
"revolution" isn't a quantifiable measure. Sorry.
Jon Coppenbarger
Member
my choice is the lcp for the money and if with the laser I like the s&w bodyguard.
MCgunner
Member
Actually, the P10 with fixed magazine was first, but the P12 worked a lot better.
For a pocket gun, I LOVE the P12s heal type magazine catch, very ergonomic to use and no chance it'll release in my back pocket while holstered.
Last edited:
MachIVshooter
Member
It is when, within 8 years of it's introduction, you have a dozen+ imitations.
AFAIK, KT was also the first to intoduce such a tiny gun with a tilting barrel short recoil system that made such featherweights tolerable to shoot. Other companies followed suit in short order.
I bought the Ruger for the following reasons:
1. Build quality and fit and finish: I bought my LCP from a friends gun shop. He had two LCPs and a dozen or so P3ATs in stock. He let get out every gun, strip them, and give them all a pretty thorough one over. Both of the LCPs had better fit and finish and simply appeared to be better built than any of the Kel Tecs.
It is far from scientific but it seems I have much less discussion of the need to "fluff and buff" the LCP versus the KT. It wasn't the biggest sample size but comparing guns in the shop that day (and based on the other Ruger and Kel tec products I own/ have owned) I can see why.
2. Slide stop: While it does not hold the slide open after the last round is fired this is nevertheless a feature that sets the LCP apart. If one needs to clear a double feed the first thing one does, after identifying the malfunction, is to lock the slide to relieve pressure so one can strip the magazine and then clear the chamber. Locking the slide back is much harder with no slide stop. In sum, clearing a double feed may be easier with the Ruger. The slide stop is nice to have for other reasons as well.
Either one could probably fill the role they are built to fill. However, I believe the Ruger, being priced fairly close to the P3AT, is the better buy.
I will suggest, based on my experience with my LCP and my KTs, that either way you get the chrome slide. My LCP which has been in my pocket nearly every day for a number of years started to have wear marks on the slide after a couple years. I will say that I have put in a lot of practice draws from my pocket holster, more than most people I'd imagine. However, it is many fewer than with my other carry guns, which don't show the same wear. I have also experienced wear marks on the bluing of my KTs after relatively little use. If I could go back I'd get the hard chrome slide, apart from that I am very happy with my LCP.
I believe it would be more accurate to say: They are basically the same design. How well that design is executed when it is actually built makes a difference.
1. Build quality and fit and finish: I bought my LCP from a friends gun shop. He had two LCPs and a dozen or so P3ATs in stock. He let get out every gun, strip them, and give them all a pretty thorough one over. Both of the LCPs had better fit and finish and simply appeared to be better built than any of the Kel Tecs.
It is far from scientific but it seems I have much less discussion of the need to "fluff and buff" the LCP versus the KT. It wasn't the biggest sample size but comparing guns in the shop that day (and based on the other Ruger and Kel tec products I own/ have owned) I can see why.
2. Slide stop: While it does not hold the slide open after the last round is fired this is nevertheless a feature that sets the LCP apart. If one needs to clear a double feed the first thing one does, after identifying the malfunction, is to lock the slide to relieve pressure so one can strip the magazine and then clear the chamber. Locking the slide back is much harder with no slide stop. In sum, clearing a double feed may be easier with the Ruger. The slide stop is nice to have for other reasons as well.
Either one could probably fill the role they are built to fill. However, I believe the Ruger, being priced fairly close to the P3AT, is the better buy.
I will suggest, based on my experience with my LCP and my KTs, that either way you get the chrome slide. My LCP which has been in my pocket nearly every day for a number of years started to have wear marks on the slide after a couple years. I will say that I have put in a lot of practice draws from my pocket holster, more than most people I'd imagine. However, it is many fewer than with my other carry guns, which don't show the same wear. I have also experienced wear marks on the bluing of my KTs after relatively little use. If I could go back I'd get the hard chrome slide, apart from that I am very happy with my LCP.
I believe it would be more accurate to say: They are basically the same design. How well that design is executed when it is actually built makes a difference.
tryshoot
Member
Had problems with 1st gen p3at, Ruger lcp works great.
pockets
Member
I've had no problems at all with Kel-Tec. I own; a 1st Gen P32, a 2nd Gen P32, two 2nd Gen P3AT's, and a PF9.
None of them required a fluff'n'buff, they've all been reliable out of the box.
I own dozens of carry pistols to choose from, but I usually have a Kel-Tec on me.
YMMV
.
None of them required a fluff'n'buff, they've all been reliable out of the box.
I own dozens of carry pistols to choose from, but I usually have a Kel-Tec on me.
YMMV
.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Re: revolution...
If that's the case, the SEECAMP certainly DID NOT start a revolution -- as nobody copied it (i.e., a small, almost-handcrafted all steel mini-gun that was very picky about ammo and very expensive.) Most of the small .32 and .380, especially the ones that sold a LOT (a better sign of a "revolution"), were much less costly and some had some polymer in their makeup if not in their frames. Early on, the NAA guns were popular, but they just sort of faded away.
I had a Grendel P-12. Kind of bulky, ugly trigger, but a true breakthrough in size and function. I think it was just as revolutionary as the Seecamp, but it didn't really start a Revolution, either.
If that's the case, the SEECAMP certainly DID NOT start a revolution -- as nobody copied it (i.e., a small, almost-handcrafted all steel mini-gun that was very picky about ammo and very expensive.) Most of the small .32 and .380, especially the ones that sold a LOT (a better sign of a "revolution"), were much less costly and some had some polymer in their makeup if not in their frames. Early on, the NAA guns were popular, but they just sort of faded away.
I had a Grendel P-12. Kind of bulky, ugly trigger, but a true breakthrough in size and function. I think it was just as revolutionary as the Seecamp, but it didn't really start a Revolution, either.
Last edited:
I would define it as a revolution when after its release they began to sell them by the tens of thousands, making it much more mainstream, rather than as an oddity that a few people owned.
BTW, aren't the NAA pistol and the MPA pretty much copies of the Seecamp?
BTW, aren't the NAA pistol and the MPA pretty much copies of the Seecamp?
momano
Member
Wildbillz: I've owned both and love my LCP. I had to get rid of the P3at because it aggravated my arthritis. The heavier LCP is easier on my joints, I quit limpwristing because of the recoil, and my LCP is more reliable for me-- YMMV. Good luck, brother.
dogrunner
Member
Yeah they are, Jon. Frankly, having used and owned both I'd opt for NAA's product anytime. At the very least, the NAA's WILL shoot what you load 'em with, something you can't say for Seecamp.
The NAA's craftsmanship is nothing to sneer at either and from an appearance perspective they're neck and neck.
Far as the KT products go in comparison to Ruger nearly every comment I've seen herein was pretty reflective of my experience. I was given an old P3AT by a friend that resembled marsupial roadkill......but roadkill that was still functional. I ran no less than four boxes of mixed ammo thru the thing without a hitch....HP/FMJ...from old tarnished crap to the cheap white box stuff from WallyWorld.......it ALL shot and accurately as well.
I took that gun to KT personally, forked over 70 bucks for a hard chrome slide and left for home......that was at about 10 am...........I live 70 odd miles North and by the time I got home two hours later my phone rang from KT telling me that my gun was ready!
I've repaired Ruger's product for a friend that mis-assembled his, and while it sure is a better finished product, I really see no inherent advantage. Having dealt with Ruger's customer service in the past tho, I KNOW KT is the winner in that department.
By the way, not only did KT replace that slide and rebuild the gun internally, they also replaced the BBL...........hard as hell to beat that kinda service!!!
The NAA's craftsmanship is nothing to sneer at either and from an appearance perspective they're neck and neck.
Far as the KT products go in comparison to Ruger nearly every comment I've seen herein was pretty reflective of my experience. I was given an old P3AT by a friend that resembled marsupial roadkill......but roadkill that was still functional. I ran no less than four boxes of mixed ammo thru the thing without a hitch....HP/FMJ...from old tarnished crap to the cheap white box stuff from WallyWorld.......it ALL shot and accurately as well.
I took that gun to KT personally, forked over 70 bucks for a hard chrome slide and left for home......that was at about 10 am...........I live 70 odd miles North and by the time I got home two hours later my phone rang from KT telling me that my gun was ready!
I've repaired Ruger's product for a friend that mis-assembled his, and while it sure is a better finished product, I really see no inherent advantage. Having dealt with Ruger's customer service in the past tho, I KNOW KT is the winner in that department.
By the way, not only did KT replace that slide and rebuild the gun internally, they also replaced the BBL...........hard as hell to beat that kinda service!!!
Cornhusker77
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 636
I've shot them both and own the P3AT
I like the looks of the Ruger, but as others have mentioned, the Kel Tec is much easier to hang on to.
Mine is plenty accurate shooting at 25 ft.
I like the looks of the Ruger, but as others have mentioned, the Kel Tec is much easier to hang on to.
Mine is plenty accurate shooting at 25 ft.
- Status
