Owners: Bersa Thunder 380 vs. Kel-Tec PF-9

[dsk]

I would like comments form those who actually own BOTH of these guns. I have a Bersa, and it was supposed to go to a family member who has very small hands and is recoil-shy. Unfortunately I've found it actually hurts my hand when I shoot it. I see the Kel-Tec PF-9, but I wonder if it has less, the same, or more felt recoil using standard FMJ ammo. Please, no "get a Brand XXX instead" comments, I just would like to know how these two compare.

Thanks in advance.

 

[crispy]

Have both. Sorta.

PF-9 has way more snap/recoil. No problem for me, but my daughter didn't like it. Got the Thunder 380 CC for just that reason. Much less recoil. Didn't hurt my hand. Bersa is going to be her gun.

The PF-9 fully loaded was 2 oz lighter than the Thunder .380 CC. Both had almost the same footprint (Height, Length and Width). Both guns fit the same holsters.

Gave the PF-9 to Dad, and bought myself a Sig P238. You want to talk about a real nice .380... but 2 times the cost.

 

[Mosin44az]

I have owned a PF9 and a Thunder 380 cc. I have rented a regular Thunder 380 at least twice.

The PF9's recoil is much more unpleasant than the Thunder 380's. The regular Thunder is also a bit more comfortable than the T 380cc--the longer grip tang at the rear on the regular gun helps noticeably.

I am surprised you didn't find the regular 380's recoil comfortable, but trust me if that's the case you definitely won't like the PF9's felt recoil, or its muzzle flip for that matter. Both intolerable for me.

If you feel you can pay a bit more, take a look at the Kahr CW9 or CM9. Both much more comfortable to shoot than the PF9, with much better triggers. Just as comfortable as the Thunder 380 as I recall.

 

[predecessor]

Well- everyone perceived recoil differently based on several variables. But for me, I FAR prefer shooting a Bersa Thunder to a Kel-Tec PF9. The Bersa easily outshoots the PF9 on paper and at speed.

 

[loose_holster_dan]

i have owned and extensively shot both. if i were to just have one, it would definitely be the bersa. it conceals just fine in a decent iwb holster, and is dead nuts accurate. it is a little finicky with ammo tho. pick the right ammo and you will be just fine. i did eventually sell it for a p7 because i prefer 9mm.

a couple of months ago, i decided i wanted a pocket pistol for when i didn't feel like holstering up the p7, so i bought a pf9. after shooting it a few times, it becomes clear that this a "better than nothing" solution. the thing is hard to hold onto even with some nice finger grips added (does help), and is very difficult to shoot accurately.

while the pf9 is a fine backup or pocket gun, if you want a primary ccw and you are only considering these two, i would def stick with the bersa.

 

[dsk]

Thanks for the replies. The Bersa pounds the web of my hand, and the one time I shot it I brought 200 rounds to the range to give it a workout, only to give up after only 50 because my hand was hurting. The PF9 might not beat me up like the Bersa does, but if felt recoil is greater then it rules it out as an option. I actually used to have a Kahr P9 and the recoil was manageable to me, but I think it'd still be too much for the individual in question. Maybe the steel-framed K9 would be better, but we're talking some serious dough for a pistol that'll probably be shot maybe once or twice then left to sit. I might need to look at an inexpensive .38 revolver instead, if there is such a thing.