I don't know about the P3AT - but it is far superior to the Kel-tec P11. I almost didn't try to PF9 in the counter because the P11 trigger was bad.The Annoyed Man wrote: Is that trigger better than on a Kel-Tec P3AT? I ask because I couldn't stand that trigger and finally sold the gun, and the one PF9 I have dry-fired seemed gritty to me.
That seems pretty consistent with what I have read. Many people (rightly so) knock the magazine safety. But it is removable like my SR9c, so I wouldn't let it stop me. But other than that, I don't see anything it has to offer over the PF9.The Annoyed Man wrote: Gun Tests magazine did a recent comparison of the PF9 to the LC9, and they preferred the Kel-Tec. http://www.gun-tests.com/issues/23_4/fe ... 868-1.html (note: you have to be a subscriber to be able to read the entire article). Their final reasoning was that although the Ruger had a nicer fit/finish to it than the Kel-Tec, it was 2.5 oz heavier, and $111 more.
I think that's about right. There is no question the PF9 lacks fit and finish. I mean you can see daylight and the spring between the slide and the frame:The Annoyed Man wrote: My own perception is this: Given the price difference, the Kel-Tec is probably the better deal. I don't know what PF9s are actually going for, but CM9s can probably be found in the $450 range....so perhaps the price difference isn't quite as dramatic as when comparing MSRPs. Also, I haven't held both pistols side by side, but the CM9 is a 6+1 capacity pistol, compared to the PF9's 7+1 capacity—which puts the PF9 squarely in competition with the CW9. That means that it isn't really a pocket pistol—which the CM9/PM9/MK9 most definitely is; so we're talking about somewhat different pistols to begin with. I have compared the PF9 to the CW9 side by side, although I haven't fired the PF9, but I have dry-fired both pistols side by side. The CW9 is 3.1 oz heavier than the PF9. I've measured my wife's CW9 trigger on a Lyman digital trigger pull gage, and it averages out to 6 lbs even, compared to the 5 lbs claimed by Kel-Tec for the PF9; but seat of the pants, I couldn't tell any difference in pull weight, and the Kahr trigger was not as gritty. The one thing I really liked about the Kahr was the tactile feel. The pronounced checking on front and back straps makes it very controllable under recoil....even the smaller "M" series pistols. Little things, like fit and finish, were of higher quality on the Kahr. I'm not saying that the PF9 is a bad pistol. For the price, it is probably a great pistol. But to some extent, you do get what you pay for. I could have saved money by buying a PF9, but I don't have any regrets about buying either of our Kahrs.
I guess I was just surprised when I tried the Kahr's. Given the price, I was expecting a really smooth trigger. Granted I haven't actually fired either of them - just fingered them in the store. But I remember thinking that one of them had a much worse trigger than the PF-9. It felt really gritty - I don't remember which model. And the other was pretty close to the same pull and weight as the PF9's. But these were also display models and that can make all of the difference in the world.