LCP Question

[Pico]

I was looking at my wife's LCP and was wondering if Ruger paid a royalty to Kel-Tec for copying the design of the P3AT. I recall Glock went after S&W for the Sigma series of handguns.

Pico

 

[Bill DeShivs]

There was nothing patentable on the Keltec. Ruger just stole the design.

 

[Powernoodle]

You mean, its an homage.

Pretty much every polymer, striker-fired gun has "borrowed" Glock's design, and so too the P3AT's design was borrowed by Ruger.

 

[BearBrimstone]

Speaking in film terms I think that I would call the LCP a remake. They took Kel-tec's original design and made it (in my opinion) better.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Ruger copied the design and in a stroke of marketing genius, made the gun heavier. They also made the exterior look more endearing.
The P3AT was designed to be one of the lightest pocket pistols made. Making it heavier is not an improvement, but people equate weight with quality.
Basically, they took an excellent design, made it LOOK better, made it a little bigger and heavier, and put Ruger's name on it.

Other than aesthetics, Ruger made no "improvements," in my opinion- but their marketing was genius.

 

[Cheapshooter]

Several years ago I looked at both. I shot both. I bought the Ruger, at a higher price, simply because it looked better, felt better, and most of all, functioned better. While I am sure, like the Kel-Tec P32 I have, the P3AT would have eventually "broaken in", and been the 100% reliable that the Ruger has been from the verry beginning. But why wait, and hope. In fact, the P3AT I shot is still owned by a friend, and after a couple hundred rounds did start running better. Not 100% with any ammo like my Elsea Pea, but it hasn't failed with good quality SD ammo.
So I would say reliability out of the box was a big improvement!

 

[dgludwig]

If Ruger "stole" the design from Kel Tec, there's an awful lot of 1911 thieves out there. One could argue that the concept first offered by Kel Tec was original, I suppose; but the design ("recoil-operated", incorporating a "linkless design in the barrel locking/unlocking system", utilizing a "tilted barrel design in which the barrel and slide are locked together at the moment of firing. After firing, the barrel and slide recoil to the rear a short distance while securely locked together. After this initial movement, the barrel is cammed downward from its locked position, permitting full recoil of the slide and the extraction and ejection of the spent cartridge case. Upon return of the slide to its forward position by the recoil spring, the barrel is cammed back upward into its locked position in the slide." Does this design sound familiar to anyone? ) has been around for many, many decades.
If the patent for this design is still viable, Kel Tec might should be on the look-out for the haunting of John Moses Browning's ghost...

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Instead of "stole," I should have used "copied, cloned, appropriated, used."

 

[lefteye]

Ruger "improved" the appearance. Since I am very small my LCP in a DeSantis pocket holster is ideal for very inconspicuous daily carry. In my limited experience it has been perfectly reliable. Certainly not my favorite self defense handgun (I would prefer my 8 3/8ths 629), but it is practical where I live. (Yes, I know I am assuming some risk.) My preferred carry handgun is an LC9.

 

[JohnMoses]

What George Kellgren did was combine a locked breech with a polymer frame for a 'blowback' class cartridge, resulting in a compact lightweight gun. Bill Ruger once said he was only a designer, John Moses had already invented the important stuff. I put Kellgren in the same class as Ruger.

 

[Mosin44az]

I agree with BearBrimstone, Ruger improved on Kel-tec's public domain (unpatentable) design, and added better materials and quality control. And when the weight is that small, a little extra weight is an improvement as well.

 

[Model12Win]

Also keep in mind the LCP II, a gun with more advanced features that leaves the P3AT in the dust.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

A single-action trigger on a pocket gun is a step backwards, in many people's opinion.

 

[ritepath]

Gosh I never thought we'd hear this question/argument again....