P-64 vs Kel Tec PF-9 for CCW

[raftman]

I've got a P-64 in 9mm Mak and think it's a great gun, and presently what I use as a concealed carry gun.

Lately, however, the Kel Tec PF-9 has begun to seem attractive. I just can't decide whether to stick with the P-64, or to trade it in to go towards the Kel Tec. The Kel-Tec fires the more potent 9x19 (not that I think the 9x18 is inadequate, but hey, bigger is better, no?), and carries one more round than does the P-64, and it offers these advantages in a smaller and lighter package. So on the surface, it seems like you get more, and in a smaller, lighter package.

The P-64 however seems to have the advantage of superior reliability, mine's been 100% reliable thus far. Plus the all-steel construction seems to assure a longer life-expectancy than the Kel-Tec. In contrast, the Kel-Tec's have reputation of being a bit hit-or-miss in terms of reliability, with some people swearing by them, and others avoiding them like the plague.

I guess that's what it comes down to, is the Kel Tec reliable enough to make it a hands-down better choice for a self-defense/concealed carry gun than the P-64? Or is the proven reliability and more solid construction of the P-64 make it worth keeping?

 

[skoro]

I've owned three Kel-Tecs.

PF-9
P3AT
P32

Never had a jam or misfire in any of 'em. Two are in my carry roatation and the third is with my daughter. I'm convinced they're reliable enough for self defense.

 

[Mosin44az]

You've actually answered your own question.

You like your P64, and it's reliable.

And you are aware that Kel-tec is a crapshoot in terms of quality and reliability. I am here to testify that 4 of the 5 Kel-tecs I have owned had problems within the first 200 rounds. 3 of them (two first-generation P32s and a P3AT) I dumped because I did not believe they could ever be made reliable over the long term; and my P11 had a lousy trigger and surprisingly nasty recoil (a problem that would be worse with the thinner-grip PF9).

At Least hold on to your P64, which is a proven item. If you insist on experimenting with the PF9, don't trade your known good gun for one you know has a high chance of being a problem.

 

[raftman]

Heh, if nasty recoil were a problem for me, I wouldn't be carrying a P-64!

But that is a good thought. I guess I got to thinking it had to be one or the other, because in many respects the guns are so similar (compact, single-stack semi-autos) and being a frugal person, I didn't figure to own both at the same time, at least for a while until either establishing the KT as a keeper, or not.

 

[Tom2]

Sounds to me like either aquiring a reliable Polish pistol or the commercial gun is a crapshoot, these guys either get ones that are reliable or not, and the Pole has a reputation of being either great or problematic, after all, it is a surplus gun made in the Combloc. SO if it works good for you, then go with it. Might buy another of the same and have problems with it. When you find a keeper, keep it.

 

[old_ironsights]

The P3AT is 8.3 oz.
The P-64 is 21.8 oz.

The P3AT has 5.2" OAL
The P-64 has 6.3" OAL

The P3AT is 3.5" in height.
The P-64 is 4.6" in height.

The P3AT is .77" wide.
The P-64 is 1.06" wide.

The Kel Tec is finicky with limp-wristed shooters because of its diminuitive size, and it's recoil is 'noticable' for the same reason.

But, if you like longer, wider, taller and much heavier guns - roughly the same size and weight of an AMT .45 Backup - for your concealed carry purposes, then the P-64 may be the weight...uh, way for you to go.

 

[raftman]

Tom2, I am not considering getting the P-64, I already have one. It happens to be of the problem-free variety. The question was, whether to give up on the P-64 and instead to acquire and carry the Kel Tec PF-9, as the Kel Tec does on the surface, seem more attractive on account of higher ammo capacity, firing a more effective round, and being lighter and smaller, but offering less solid construction and an iffy track record with reliability.

old_ironsights,

I wasn't looking at getting the P3AT and have ruled it out. Also, I'd never heard of the AMT .45 before, but having looked it up, though not extremely expensive, is certainly more expensive than the Kel Tec and far more so than the P-64. If I had all the money I wish I had to spend, do you really think I'd be choosing between a 30-year-old Polish surplus pistol and a Kel Tec? I'd probably go for the PX4 subcompact, if I truly had a choice. Give me SOME credit.

Also, you're acting as if I am somehow oblivious to the size and weight of P-64 in comparison to other pistols (it may be worth noting that it's still a good deal lighter and smaller than what a huge number of people do carry), when the very POINT of this thread is me addressing that very concern, in that I am considering a gun will be shorter, thinner, lighter, but also firing a more potent round, and holding more ammo. The fact that the guns being compared are both inexpensive, should have implied that budget is something to consider.

 

[mavracer]

I sure wouldn't give up my reliable carry gun til I had a reliable replacement.

 

[tju1973]

I would stick with what you are comfortable with--- not knocking KTs, but I tried the PF9/PF11 and went with a Taurus PT111-- not because KTs are bad, but the Taurus felt better...

FInd what you like and are comfortable with, and shoot the snot out of it!

P64s are great guns too-- BTW-- probably would go with it over the KT..

IMHO

 

[raftman]

I guess to further address the notion that the P-64 is somehow a poor choice for concealed carry, one may take note the of Walther PPK's, which has been a respected concealed-carry pistol for decades. Most versions of it are heavier than the P-64, and most are chambered for smaller caliber ammunition. Oh, and by the way, they also sell for by far more than the P-64. That's how I got into the P-64 to begin with, it is a value that's I believe literally cannot be beat. I paid a meager $90 for my P-64, and ammo for it is cheap and plentiful. For that price, it's basically impossible to get a better gun. Even crappy pot-metal guns sell for more than that.

I am not in so financially gifted a situation where I can drop 500 or 600 (or more) on a gun whenever I want so I am always looking around for the value, the most gun I can get, for the least $.

 

[warrior poet]

I've got an older P-11 Kel-Tec and is just works. It is my "carry it when nothing else can be hidden gun." I like it.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I've played with and shot several P-64s, and didn't particularly like them. Two of the ones I tried had triggers that seemed to need a bumper jack to activate.

I think the smaller caliber guns (like the PP, PPS, PPK, Maks) were widely used in Europe and South America because the calibers available there were tightly controlled, and these calibers were about all that was available/legal.

I've shot and carried a number of small guns and have found the authentic Makarovs (Bulgarian, East German) and the Kel-tecs to be fine, serviceable guns. (I also have a Kahr P9 which I like and will, someday, spring for a PM9.) I've come to prefer lighter, thinner, 9mms (9x19).

 

[torpeau]

I've played with and shot several P-64s, and didn't particularly like them. Two of the ones I tried had triggers that seemed to need a bumper jack to activate.

Some people replace the spring and lighten the DA trigger pull. Others leave the P-64 alone, only use SA and let that stiff DA pull act as kind of a safety.

 

[amd6547]

I replaced the hammer spring on my P64, and the result is a very usable DA trigger. I also put in a stronger recoil spring, moderating the recoil. The result is a terrific carry pistol. From the beginning, my p64 has been 100% reliable.
The p64 is very thin, and it is very accurate out to 25yds.

 

[rjsixgun]

The Polish P-64 makes a great carry pistol! with some Wolff Springs it takes on a the feel of a costom trigger job. Hands down my vote goes to the P-64 over the Kel-Tec!!
A gun built for WAR will definatly hold up to being used as a carry gun.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Don't think the P-64 ever saw much action...

 

[a7mmnut]

Got both, love both, carry both. I've been polishing and buffing all through the P11 ten times over. Never touched the P64 to get a good, light trigger. It's your call, but a loaded clip of 9mm 147's in the PF9 should just about equal the two guns in weight.

-7-

 

[Walt Sherrill]

In contrast, the Kel-Tec's have reputation of being a bit hit-or-miss in terms of reliability, with some people swearing by them, and others avoiding them like the plague

That seems to be a fair assessment -- if it works right to start with, or with a small bit of tinkering, it will continue to work properly. Others can never get them to work right.

I'd say, however, that there are almost as many horror stories about the small, polymer Kahrs as there are about the Kel-Tecs (and there are arguably not nearly as many small Kahrs as K-Ts out there!) You hear of darned few problems with the steel-framed Kahrs. I don't think the designs are all that different.

That suggests that a lot of the problem with any of the small, very light guns might be caused by the shooters -- folks limp-wristing or having problems related to over-reacting to recoil, which can be quite unpleasant.

I've seen guys with small guns (expecially the small polymer ones like the PM9, P11s, P3ATs) have bad days at the range, while friends or buddies, shooting the same guns, have no problems. I think some of it is technique -- or the lack of it. (And, too, sometimes the guns just don't work right -- but they don't work right with everyone who shoots them.)

 

[Hepcat II]

I've noticed on my P-64 that after you fire it, the hammer stays cocked and is very easy to fire off another round. To make it safe again, you have to lower the hammer. On my PF-9, you just pull the trigger over and over and never have to worry about a hammer staying dangerously cocked.

 

[raftman]

One could argue that the short trigger pull of a cocked pistol allows for greater speed and accuracy for the delivery of follow-up shots than does a long trigger pull.

I've left the DA trigger pull heavy on my P-64, so it acts as a sort of safety, and helps assure that I don't shoot unless I am sure I need to. However, if I do need to, and I do shoot, I would want the follow-up shots, if they are needed, to come quickly and accurately.

Although, I admit, I don't know if the long trigger pull of the KT is really enough to hamper defensive type accuracy, since an extreme degree of precision in these situations is probably not necessary, nor realistic, I would speculate the Kel Tec is accurate enough.