Converting a Kel-Tec PF-9 to "Safe-Action"

[Gary L. Griffiths]

I find the PF-9 easy to carry, accurate, and (now) reliable. It isn't, however, easy to shoot accurately, primarily because of the l-o-n-g strong trigger-pull. That got me to thinking (a really dangerous proposition). What if, instead of returning almost completely forward, the hammer were held at 3/4 or 7/8 cock? If the trigger bar had an additional hole drilled in it to the rear of the stock hole, the piece would have the same weight trigger-pull, but only perhaps 1/4" of trigger travel would be required to complete the cocking action and discharge the weapon.

I'm sure that if this were easy, someone would have done it by now. It would seem to me that the weapon would still be almost as safe as before it was modified, in that it would still have a strong trigger-pull, but that the short trigger travel would facilitate accurate shooting. This would be the same type of action as the Glock-type "safe action" except using the hammer to be fully retracted then dropped instead of a striker.

Is anyone aware of such a modification, or am I the only one to think it would make for a much more desirable pistol? The same potential would also exist for the Kel-Tec P-3AT, Ruger LCP, and similar K-T clones.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

The PF 9 is already made that way.

 

[lee n. field]

What if, instead of returning almost completely forward, the hammer were held at 3/4 or 7/8 cock?

It sounds like a horrible accident waiting to happen.

 

[Coltman 77]

"It isn't, however, easy to shoot accurately, primarily because of the l-o-n-g strong trigger-pull. . "

I think the modifications you describe, if they could be done, would add significant cost to the pistol, if they could be done they'd probably cost more than the pistol itself.

There's a very old saying that "you get what you pay for" and I think it applies in this situation.

If your bargain pistol really bothers you, spend a few bucks and step up to a quality pistol like an HK P2000 SK or a Walther PPS.

Good luck.

 

[Cheapshooter]

It would seem to me that the weapon would still be almost as safe as before it was modified,

Sounds like a personal injury lawyer's dream!!!

 

[Kreyzhorse]

It would seem to me that the weapon would still be almost as safe as before it

Rather than tinker with a pistol and make it almost as safe, I'd opt for buying a different pistol.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Appreciate all the comments.

The PF 9 is already made that way.

No, it's not. Trust me -- the trigger-pull brings the hammer back quite a ways before it releases.

It sounds like a horrible accident waiting to happen.

And yet I'm trusting the sear not to disengage the hammer notch now. Why would relocating the notch make it more dangerous -- especially with the original notch left in place to catch the hammer should it somehow become accidentally dislodged from the sear?

If your bargain pistol really bothers you, spend a few bucks and step up to a quality pistol like an HK P2000 SK or a Walther PPS.

I would be doing the work myself, so cost isn't a factor. I have a PPS in .40 S&W. My PF-9 is in my hip pocket in a wallet-holster as I'm typing this. No way the PPS would fit in that pocket.

Sounds like a personal injury lawyer's dream!!!

Probably would be it I was careless enough to point it at someone and fire it accidentally. We don't bat an eye when someone replaces an 8-lb Glock trigger with a 3.5-lb one, or stones a 1911 sear to make the trigger-pull lighter and smoother. Why would this be any different?

I'd opt for buying a different pistol.

So would I, if they made a 9mm as small, light, and flat as the PF-9.

 

[t45]

Im a PF-9 owner and think it might work. Im not a gunsmith but it does look possible. I would be interested to hear back if you decide to do it. I own several pistols that are 3 or 4 times the cost of my PF-9. For a CCW it is my favorite.

 

[leadchucker]

The intent of the semi DAO and its long trigger pull is so that nothing on God's green earth will make the gun go off except that nice long intentional trigger pull. Holding the hammer at 3/4 or 7/8 cock, would be about the same as single action with all the safety issues it brings.

 

[Andy Taylor]

While I am not familiar with the inner workings of a Kel-Tec, I would say that this sounds really unsafe. Kind of like carrying a 1911 Cocked & Unlocked, or your Sig/Beretta/other DA/SA pistol with a cocked hammer and no safety applied.
Get a different pistol if you find the K-T trigger unacceptable.

 

[Cheapshooter]

We don't bat an eye when someone replaces an 8-lb Glock trigger with a 3.5-lb one, or stones a 1911 sear to make the trigger-pull lighter and smoother. Why would this be any different?

Reducing the trigger pull, or smoothing a trigger isn't partially defeating the only safety a gun has.
Just saying that if for any reason, weather a ND or being used in self defense, the gun is examined and this mod is found you'll be in for a legal nightmare.

 

[Catfishman]

So would I, if they made a 9mm as small, light, and flat as the PF-9.

Clearly the OP is considering this because the end result would be a gun that currently doesn't exist.

I however don't think it is good idea. Assuming the gunsmithing is sound, you still have to remember why the Kel-tec has a L-O-N-G trigger pull.

It is a pocket pistol with no safety.

 

[scoobydoo6906]

I fail to see how shortening up a long heavy trigger pull for follow up shots makes it unsafe. I mean there are god knows how many da/sa pistols out there and they are consided safe and it would be safer if it worked properly. My only two conserns would be (if everything works right) the legal side and deing able to "decock" the pistol and put it back into the long double action mode. I think you could reasonablely defend the mod in court. Its no different than lightening a trigger or doing a trigger job. Just my thoughts though

 

[Cheapshooter]

I fail to see how shortening up a long heavy trigger pull for follow up shots makes it unsafe.

I think the OP's idea is to reduce the length of the trigger pull for the first shot, not only any follow up shots.
He refereed to the Glock Safe-Action, which has the striker nearly fully cocked with the trigger completing only a very small movement before releasing the sear.

 

[scoobydoo6906]

Well if you have a proper holster the length of the pull does not matter one bit. Case in point the 4.5 pound trigger glock pistols out there. Glocks don't have a long pull and they are as safe as anything. I would not stick a glock in a pocket without a proper holster nor would I stick a "op kel tec" in my pocket either. But if one had a proper holster why not? It's not to different than sticking a colt mustang in there. I realize there is a safety on the colt but that seems like it could go just as wrong without a holster.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

I would be interested to hear back if you decide to do it.

I'll let you know, and post results. May try fixing the trigger overtravel, which was suggested by a THR member first. May be worth doing, just to see if it can be done.

Holding the hammer at 3/4 or 7/8 cock, would be about the same as single action with all the safety issues it brings.

I would say that this sounds really unsafe. Kind of like carrying a 1911 Cocked & Unlocked, or your Sig/Beretta/other DA/SA pistol with a cocked hammer and no safety applied.

you still have to remember why the Kel-tec has a L-O-N-G trigger pull. It is a pocket pistol with no safety.

I don't think y'all have the concept down. The hammer will only be partially back, with the trigger pull bringing the hammer the rest of the way back and then dropping it to fire the weapon, using the original K-T sear. The hammer would merely be stopped 1/4 of the way down instead of almost all the way down.

Reducing the trigger pull, or smoothing a trigger isn't partially defeating the only safety a gun has. Just saying that if for any reason, weather a ND or being used in self defense, the gun is examined and this mod is found you'll be in for a legal nightmare.

Actually, yes it is partially defeating one of the safety features. Just ask any liability lawyer! This modification would not be without legal risk. The question is, "Is the risk worth the results." For example, I would not carry handloads for defensive purposes, because, frankly, I doubt I could load them more powerfully or effectively than premium factory defensive ammunition. If I choose to carry them anyway, I would be assuming additional risk for negligible, if any, benefit. Here, I'm modifying a handgun to make it easier to shoot accurately. Quick, accurate shooting may one day save my life, not to mention reducing the risk to bystanders should I pull a shot off due to the trigger-pull.

Again, thanks for all of your thoughts!

 

[noelf2]

Rather than mod the gun, just practice practice practice with the long trigger pull, and get used to it to the point that you prefer it. Getting extremely familiar with your preferred gun's quirks, through practice, will do much more to improve your aim in an SD situation than a shorter trigger pull modification will. JMHO

 

[tomwalshco]

I'd say go for it. Call KT first and ask them to send you a trigger bar. That way, if it's f'd up, or you can't make it work, you can get right back in business.

Probably already know this - but when you pull the frame out of the grip, the hammer block rotates away from the hammer and it's a pain in the ass to get it back together again. 2 springs to deal with. Patience.

 

[Rugerismisticness]

I'm sorry for all the discouraging comments, you've got a great idea that should work.