That's important for me too, but I was just trying to describe why I'm not a fan of that company. And sure, S&W had teething problems with the Shield, as did Springfield with the XDS, but both companies were well enough funded to address the issues they had. I don't think Kel-Tec is well enough funded to do that....and so in a sense, self defense is bit of a business proposition. It is easier for Kel-Tec to continue to produce guns that crack their slides and just replace the slide when customers complain than it is for them to fix the problem at the source and either change the design or the metallurgy to stop cracks from happening in the first place. That is what makes a business proposition into a self-defense issue. The former solution costs less than the best solution. If KT were able to get that kind of funding, they would be able to address the issues and produce a pistol that competes with the next tier of manufacturers up the food chain. Will the one time I need to rely on the PF9 be the time the slide flies apart? I don't have to worry about that with other pocket 9s that have had their teething problems addressed.ShootDontTalk wrote:I get your point, but I just don't see self defense as a business proposition. If that were the case, I'd have a whole world of problems with Smith & Wesson and a lot of others. As I stated, to me EDC is only about one thing. How much better would a more expensive product save my life?The Annoyed Man wrote: My own dislike for the brand isn't because I'm a brand snob. It is because I'm looking at it like a businessman. I see a gun company that in practical terms could have made better guns, but it doesn't. And it doesn't because it's business model has trapped it into not being able to. Innovation is a good thing, but even gun designers like JMB and Stoner found employment with companies that could afford to produce their superior designs. For my money, the smartest thing that Kel-Tec could do at this point would be for them to license their RFB and RD8 designs to another company that can afford to produce them in quantities with prices set to economies of scale under a more "reputable" brand-name, collect all those royalties and plow them back into significantly upgrading their pistol line to appeal to a market that is willing to pay more for a better pistol. But that's just me.
BUT..... All of that said, if I had to choose between leaving the house unarmed, or leaving with a PF9, I'd take the PF9 for sure. On the other hand, silverbear has an excellent suggestion that nobody has mentioned yet (me included), and that is a J-frame or similar sized revolver. And you can get those in 9mm too. I pocket carried my M&P340 to dinner tonight. Mine is a .357, but Ruger makes a 9mm snubbie for $619. Charter Arms makes the $496 Pitbull in 9mm. S&W used to make a 9mm Centennial, which is a fine pistol, and you can probably still find used ones around.
