captaintj

Anybody have experience comparing these two?

mawguy

Great question. I haven't personally, but there are a lot of Youtube videos comparing them. Kel Tec is lighter and they say has "harsh" recoil. The Ruger is an upgrade of their LCP and seems more refined with less felt recoil. Generally, the Ruger is about $100 more.

TMD

A friend of mine whos so cheap he probably has his first dollar carries a PF9. He brags that it only cost him $240 and that all three times that it boke Kel-Tec sent out repair parts right away free of charge.
I asked him what would happen if he needed to defend his life with it when it fails for the 4th time. All I got was a blank stare.

Con 43

I have both. The Ruger is far and away the sturdier made gun. That being said I have had no problem with either as to malfunctions with both having about 500 rounds through them. The PF-9 has a lot better trigger then the LC9 somewhat shorter and smoother. They both can keep palm size groups at 10yds. which is fine. I have carried both and do not feel the PF-9 is a risk for a carry weapon. But then I have a couple of Taurus's that I think are smoother then comparable S&W

bhefley59

I owned a PF9 will never own another one or any Kel-Tec very cheap, jammed all the time . I now own and carry a LC9 great little gun . Around 1000 rounds with no problems at all. I have had it almost two years now, carry it every day.
Not your everyday target gun but it works for what it was made for , a carry gun ...

3482jl

KELTECIMHO the only semi-autos on the market in the sub $400 range that are really worth much more than you pay is the "P" series Rugers

WheelyGuy

I have had two kel-tecs; P11 and PF9. Neither were reliable. I even sent the PF9 back for factory servicing twice and it still wouldn't work to my satisfaction. No more kel-tecs for me.

eb07

I did a comparison of both as I owned both. They are very similar

Here is my personal opinion on the two:

Pro's of the Ruger:

The Ruger handles recoil better
The Ruger is built better, fit, finish, strength of frame
The sights are better
The trigger is smoother

Con's of the ruger:

The mag safety (which can be removed) that the Keltec does not have
The manual safety that the Keltec does not have
The loaded chamber indicator that the Keltec does not have
My particular LC9 ended up having to go back to the factory for light primer strikes.....

Pros of the Keltec:

Lighter
Never had a FTF or FTE or any firing issue

Cons of the Keltec

Grip flexes in hand when mag is removed wheras the Ruger is solid
Poor sights
Poor trigger
Recoil is worse for follow up shots due to weight



My issues with the safety is simple, a DAO pocket weapon does not need an external safety and the LCI is just a bandaid for proper firearm handling and safety. You should visually and physically inspect the chamber not rely on an LCI. So to me it is an added feature that should not be on a defensive weapon.

They both shoot well.

I ended up getting rid of the LC9 and the PF9 and settling on the LCR .357 model for carry.

Here are pics of both:

Linejudgemick

I have not owned the Ruger because I'm a south paw. After shopping for a sub-compact 9mm I bought a PF-9 because it did not have an external right-hand only safety. That was the main reason I bought it and not the LC9, always having been a Ruger fan. After I owned the Kel-Tec about 3 months and having it beat the crap out of my hand, regretting owning a pistol with such shoddy fit and finish and basically just regretting my decision, I bought a Beretta Nano and sold the Kel-Tec.

What a difference! The Nano has quality materials and workmanship. Now I can shoot 100 rounds in my sub-compact and not think I need xrays for my hand and my skin isn't red and sore. While the Nano is about the same size physically, it weighs quite a bit more. It handles recoil very well for such a small pistol, is very accurate, has good sights, and most important to me - is left-hand friendly.

I absolutely love my SR40C, but the Nano is much easier to carry. IMHO there are much better sub-compact options than a Kel-Tec PF-9, and... the LC9's strong resemblance to it bothers me; as well its "right-handedness". I'd personally recommend throwing the Nano, S&W Shield, Kahr CM9, and perhaps a couple other options into the group you are considering.

Good luck and I hope that you're happy with what ever pistol you end up with.

bwinters

Lcp over the keltec any day.

doublebarrel2

I have Kel-tec PF-9,wife has Ruger LC9,both have been 100 percent reliable.I like the Kel-tec better,she prefers Ruger.Pick what works best for you.I have 4 Kel-tec and 3 Ruger semi-autos and haven't had any problems from any of them.

blbolin

Same experiance, the Kel Tec PF-9 was a jam o matic with the same ammo that works fine in my Ruger LC9. I never had a problem yet with my Ruger LC9 and I was able to shoot it with much more accuracy also than the Kel Tec. I know the Kel Tec is cheaper but you do get what you pay for and even the LC9 prices are lower now than when first introduced. I paid less than $300 for mine, which to me is a bargin for something that works great. The Ruger is much more comfortable to shoot than the Kel Tec for me, as I usually shoot 50 to 100 rounds at a time. Both about the same size, but the Ruger seems much better built.
After the having both I would never consider or recommend the Kel Tec PF-9. I still have the Ruger, I had to about give the Kel Tec away to get rid of it, another thing to to consider.

eb07

Keltecs are hit and miss quality wise. Mine was fine, I know others that couldn't get theirs to work right. That right there scared me away from carrying it as something to rest my life on when possibly needed. I wish Ruger would make the LC9 without all the lawyered up safety garbage. It would be perfect.

gunjunkie

You and me both. I wish they would make a non California LC9 built similar to the LCP. My PF-9 has never had a hiccup so I'll stick with it, but I did add an XDs into my stable and it's a pleasure to shoot.

Dozer02

The Ruger LC-9 is clearly an attempt to copy the highly successful Kel-Tec PF-9. I had an LC-9 briefly but it couldn't match the quality of my PF-9 so it was traded for credit toward a new FNX-9 which is a much better shooter than both. On that note, many posts are referring to recoil being an issue with these two compact 9's but it seems that everyone's forgetting that these are small polymer pistols designed exclusively for concealed carry and recoil doesn't really factor into self defense unless we were talking about the .454 & up. My opinion is that the Kel-Tec is a much better gun than it's Ruger "copy" and you'll get a much better price for a gun that see's well to it's intended purpose, concealed carry. A lot of Kel-Tec "bashers" buy a Kel-Tec and take it straight to the range expecting 100% perfect function on it's first outing but the fact is that Kel-Tec's are rough cut weapons that usually require a "run-in period" of a couple hundred rounds of ammo (which you should do with any brand of weapon intended for self defense) and a quick polishing of the feed ramp. After a brief break-in they'll usually out perform just about any compact 9mm on the market. The folk's that call them names like "jam-o-matic" & "pieces of junk" are not mechanically inclined enough or simply lack experience & knowledge required to own a cheap a semi-auto, like when to polish up the feed ramp or clean & oil the gun.