TexasCHLforum.com

So far, perfect for me.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Isn't competition and free enterprise great?
And FWIW, what holds for guns applies to pretty much everything else in life too.....I don't want to jack the thread, but just apply the same principles to education and health care. It's an eye opener.

That hijack is okay, because you are totally right. The principle applies to pretty much everything...well said.

I should probably mention that after I replaced the hammer spring in the Kel-Tec, I still have the same FTE rate; about 3%-4%. The Ruger has been flawless. Plus, it feels better to hold and is darn nice to look at.

As far as LCP availablity, the manufacturing simply has to catch up with the demand. I know that Ruger has been spreading these out to dealers in small numbers (rather than sending them all to big dealers), which is the fair thing to do. It does make it hard to get one when your dealer does, which is why you should get on his list if he has one! I got mine early after release because I had some minor problems with another gun I bought from a nice dealer, so he saved one for me at a great price just for my trouble. Otherwise, I'd probably still be waiting too, or paying above MSRP at the gun show. Anyway, after the production line catches up with demand, the prices at gun shows will settle down to be equal with what Kel-Tec is now. (probably $265 or a little less, but who knows how long this will take to occur). Anyway, I've got some predictions that I'll bet the farm on:

1. Look for the under 10-ounce .380 market to see some more additions over the next few years. Concealed carry is becoming much bigger these days than most people think. I've heard from several CHL instructors that their classes are stuffed full these days. Kahr is launching their .380 right in June, which is a half-ounce heavier than the LCP and about an ounce heavier than the Kel-Tec. More choices are always good.
2. I would look for Ruger to probably take the main market share here for a while after supply catches up. With better name recognition, better marketing, and a better gun, they will grab up a good chunk of the P3-AT market. As other brands add their models to the pile, the market shares of the manufacturers will become a bit more defined.
3. Kel-Tec will either drop prices, spiff up the P3-AT looks and reliability, or do both in response. Either way, they have some changes to make or things will start sliding for them.
4. People wanting the Kahr .380 will buy it anyway. While more expensive, it will bring one more solid choice to the mix.
5. Look for Ruger (and probably others) to go after the small 9mm market next, starting with something similiar to the PF-9/PM9 in dimensions and weight. Expect it to be more solid, attractive, and reliable (on a broad scale, I'm not talking individual experiences here) than Kel-Tec, for about the same price. Expect people to say Ruger ripped off Kel-Tec again. Expect a repeat of #2 and #3. Then possibly look for several small double stack 9mms, similiar to the PF-11 to start hitting the market. Of course, it's possible to see the double stack hit first, who knows? Either way, expect a repeat of #2 and #3 again.
6. Hats off to Kel-Tec for being so ahead in innovation up until now... But, the quality simply isn't there on a mass scale (and I am truly happy for satisfied Kel-Tec owners, I am not bashing), but it's something you have to maintain or you'll lose it. Kel-Tec needs to upgrade their marketing too...when you look at their ads compared to other gun makers, they look like they were done by a college itern on an old computer.

Here's an update..I called Tel-Tec about my broken hammer spring. This is the third time I've called them since I've owned the gun. This is also the third time I've encountered a pleasant, helpful guy on the other end. I explained my problem with the broken hammer spring, and asked if it was necessary to send it in or if a part could be mailed to me. He said that it was not a hard replacement, and that he would mail me a part that day.

Two days later, the part arrived. It was not only a hammer spring, but a hammer. Included was a small instruction sheet that said "for qualified gunsmiths only". I found this rather humorous, as I am not, despite my tendency to tinker. I found the first three of the thirteen or so instruction steps helpful; after that I wondered if I could figure it out or send it in. Long story short, I figured it out.

Had I needed help, I have not doubt Kel-Tec would have taken care of it. Hats off to their great customer service. However, I did find the hammer spring replacement challenging; a repair that is not for everybody. I would prefer not to do it again.

Can't wait to try out the Kel-Tec again!

Well, I suppose I was rather presumptious. You never know these days; I have talked with a lot of people who have lost a sibling or child in the line of duty with the current conflicts going on.

My original statement doesn't matter...therefore, THANK YOU for giving two decades of your life in service to our country. My father was a drill sgt. in the army, although I never enlisted. However, if the need arose, I'd shave my head in a second and be in front of the line to sign up. This country is what it is because people like you said "yes". I applaud you and all others who have served and are currently serving. Thank you from all of us.

Tom, I'm totally off topic and may be presuming a lot here, but I just noticed the image on your tag line. I assume this person died in service to our country at a young age; if this is the case, we all offer that person a big "thank you".

As far as trigger pull, there's not a big difference that I could see. Both are double action, and I would estimate within a pound of each other. Ruger was probably a little smoother, but not enough for me to notice, so I can't beat up the Kel-Tec here. I don't have a way to measure the trigger pull without rigging something up, and I'm not sure it matters that much to me anyway. I would say that both guns are around 7-8 pounds. The Ruger's trigger has smoother plastic and feels nice on the finger, like on my Beretta Px4.

In case anybody wonders why I'm not overly concerned about trigger pull (but I don't fault anyone who is), here's why:
1. I don't find the trigger pull to be excessive with either gun. If I were looking at a match grade 1911, that would be a different story. With these pocket guns, you have to remember that the trigger pull is the ONLY mechanical safety you've got, assuming that it's designed not to go off when you drop it. Therefore, I actually LIKE the triggers.
2. I also find it no problem to rapid fire either one. So, where should we focus? I have an opinion on this, and again, it's only my opinion. These are very small light guns. Although it's "just" a .380, there's a decent amount of recoil to deal with. These little things may jerk your hand as much as a .45 would. It's all about weight, the power going out of it, and what the gun doesn't absorb. I have a 2" .357 snubbie that weighs 24 oz, and it will eat the skin off your hand after 10 rounds. Would a three pound .357 do that? No, you can shoot those all day long. What I think we should focus on is how we handle and fire the gun, management of the recoil, and reacquisition of the target. With these guns, that takes training to maximize the effectiveness. If the trigger pull were three pounds, you still have to deal with that recoil and get it back on target. Having a light trigger might result in errant follow up shots too. It would make for a nice first shot, I'll give you that.
3. These are BUGs or primary carry for those who'd rather carry light than carry a knife. Practice with them, and get good with them. They are different by nature than our full-sized guns, and are supposed to be. I think we should adapt ourselves to them as such. It's a fair question, though.

FYI everybody....I expanded the review with pictures of my targets and added another paragraph or two. It starts just below the picture of the gun sights.

It's been hard to find more than a handful of reviews about the LCP. Jeff Quinn did one, and a few others. Alot of people have really wondered, "how does it stack up against the P3-AT?"
Well, I've had a P3-AT for nearly a year, and picked up the Ruger this past weekend. Took them both to the range this weekend; had a few surprises. Look for this comparison to heat up as the Ruger becomes more available. Unfortunately, I won't be able to post a full review, because the hammer spring in my Kel-Tec broke halfway through my test. As for the Ruger, I took it straight from the gun show to the range and shot it right out of the box. Here they are, growling at each other:


Let me say this: I was interested in the Ruger only because I never had total faith in the Kel-Tec. I bought mine at the same time as two other friends. One friend has had to send his back to the factory. I have had two minor issues that I was able to fix. Although I'm not a gunsmith, I like to tinker and can figure some things out. The third friend has only put 100 rounds through his, and has had no problems. My Kel-Tec had about 500-600 rounds through it at the time of the test, and averaged a 3-4% FTE rate, regardless of the ammo used. Now you know why I never had total faith in it. All that aside, let me give you some quick observations that I was able to make with the small head-to-head test I was able to perform. Some of these categories are trivial, and these are only my opinions.

Let's start with dimensions. You can find dimensions everywhere, and I have run across different numbers in different places. I used two different digital scales to determine the weight of the guns, and they read the same. If it's off by a hundredth of an ounce, nobody will care. As for dimensions, I used my digital calipers on the widest and longest points I could find. My calipers are accurate; the only thing that can affect the measurement is if the calipers aren't placed exactly on the longest and widest points. That requires good eyeballing, and I doubt anybody will care if my reading is a hundredth of an inch off. Let's take a look at what they look like on top of each other:




Kel-Tec P3-AT Dimensions
Weight, no mag: 7.90 oz.
Weight, with empty mag: 8.97 oz.
Loaded Weight, 7 rounds Speer gold-dot HP: 11.36 oz.
Width: .826 in.
Length: 5.137 in.
Height: 3.599 in.

Ruger LCP Dimensions
Weight, no mag: 8.41 oz.
Weight, with empty mag: 9.56 oz.
Loaded Weight, 7 rounds Speer gold-dot HP: 11.95 oz.
Width: .813 in.
Length: 5.167 in.
Height: 3.640 in.

Now for my brief opinion of which one is better in the following categories. Keep in mind that the test was halted halway through when the Kel-Tec broke:

Appearance: The Ruger is sexy, the Kel-Tec looks cheap. Even if you're one of those that think Ruger ripped off Kel-Tec, you'd have to limit that on dimensions and the assembly diagram. They sure didn't steal the looks.

Fit & Finish: The Ruger is tight, solid, and feels well-made. The Kel-Tec has a wider gap between the slide, a rougher finish, and feels much less solid. Just look at the finish of the plastic, your hand with thank you when it goes bang:


Handling: gotta give this one to Ruger. It's less harsh on the hand while firing, as it absorbs recoil better. The Kel-Tec has rough checkering and doesn't feel nearly as good in the hand. The Ruger is smoothed out well and has a nice quality feel to it.

Accuracy: I found the Kel-Tec to be slightly more accurate. This may be due to my experience with it, and having none with the Ruger. My hunch is that this is not the case. The Ruger shot a little low, and I have read this elsewhere also. With some practice, I think the average person would be able to achieve 3-inch groups at 5 yards and 4-inch groups at seven yards. More practice would equal better grouping, of course. These are short-range guns, so either one is effective within self-defense range. This round goes to the Kel-Tec. Here's a pic of the near identical sights. While the KT's sights are better in my opinion, this really shows the difference in the Ruger finish. By the way, I borrowed by buddy's KT for the pics; I though it was only fair to compare a fairly-new KT to the Ruger on camera. Ruger on the left, KT on the right.



Okay, now for the targets. In the first two pictures, there are 10 rounds from each gun at 5 yards. In my opinion, anyone using these guns are likely to shoot at this distance or less. I fired approximately one round per second. Now, before you say I'm a bad shot, I would ask you if you've fired one of these guns before. The sights are just little nubs, and if you don't have a very smooth trigger pull, it will easily yank it off course. Plus, I didn't want to make this overly scientific by taking 30-seconds between shots, but no rapid-fire either. So, I compromised. I may not be Jerry Miculek, but if you try these two drills exactly as I did, you'll see what I mean. These are not guns with 4-inch barrels, so you don't expect that kind of accuracy. Plus, sighting those black sights against a black target isn't as easy as it sounds. Anyway, first the Ruger, then the Kel-Tec at 15 feet:




The Ruger seemed to walk on me a bit, perhaps I was trying to compensate, which would be a mistake for the test. Keep in mind these were the first rounds fired, right out of the box. I don't really have an explanation. As you can see all shots from both guns are within 2 inches of the center of the bullseye, except for the one flyer from the Kel-Tec. Chalk that flyer up to me, like I said, you gotta watch the trigger pull on these little guns.

The second targets are from 21 feet. This is really the outer range for these guns, especially when adrenaline hits and you're no longer Mr. Bullseye. I did the same drill...shots were one second apart. The Ruger target is on top, Kel-Tec on the bottom. The Ruger target has two more shots in it, because the Kel-Tec broke while shooting this target.




These targets don't have measurements on them, but the outside line of the inner orange circle is 2.5 incles from the center of the bullseye; the outside edge of the outer ring is five inches. As you can see, the Ruger shot a tighter group, but a little low. The Kel-Tec, while more scattered, had 3 bullseyes and its rounds were centered more around the target. So, at 21 feet, both guns put every round within three inches of the center of the bullseye at a semi-brisk shooting pace. I think most of us would agree that the Kel-Tec held the edge here.

Reliability: This remains to be seen, as the Ruger is new. After the Kel-Tec broke, I kept shooting the Ruger. After 200 rounds, it was flawless. While only time will tell about the LCP's reliability, it looks promising. I also found it ironic that the Kel-Tec broke during the test. I wouldn't even have the Ruger if I had peace of mind with the Kel-Tec to begin with.

Concealability: This is a toss-up. the guns are basically identical in dimensions and weight. I have read that the Ruger is 1.5 oz. heaver, put I don't know where that comes from. I used two different scales and could not find any difference beyond .59 oz. I would consider them equals in this category, but I will say that the Kel-Tec belt clip is a really nice accessory that Ruger hasn't come out with yet. Since it's not interchanable, Ruger needs to hurry up with that.

So, there you go. My quick opinion on a half-test. Although I may be premature to say this, I would recommend the LCP highly. If you have a Kel-Tec and it hasn't given you any problem, great. Keep it if you have faith in it. I will say that the LCP will be a thorn in the side of Kel-Tec, even if it turns out initial impressions were too generous.

I plan to repair my KT, and run about 200 rounds through it. If it doesn't have any problems, I'll give it a good cleaning, another fluff and buff, and sell it. And yes, I'll disclose to the buyer about its history.

p.s. I cartainly don't want to sound like a KT basher...I know there are many satisfied Kel-Tec customers out there, so I've tried to be as objective and fair as possible.