[Ladobe]

Didn't find it with a search here, so time to ask.

I bought a P-11 in 1998, and it was a great pistol. But I let a friend talk me out of it a few years ago. I've been reading the specs and am thinking about getting another KT, either another P-11 or a PF-9. I noted the +P ammo thing, but either should handle it as little as it would get shot. Size is so close it doesn't really matter, nor does the number of rounds too much, I won't conceal carry it, it will just be handy, so...

My question is to those who have or had both... the why's a what fors for picking one over the other.

Thanks folks

 

[lklawson]

Number of rounds in the mag don't matter to you? Size/weight difference between the two don't matter to you?

hmmm...

The PF9 has an accessory rail and a lighter (sometimes smoother) trigger. The P11 has true double-strike capability in case your round doesn't go off the first time.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Toney_D]

Howdy!!! It's a hard choice, If your carring on or in the belt there's not much difference other than the cap and the different triggers. If your thinking pocket carry the pf is a little better.

Just get both and you won't have to think so hard about it

 

[darkwriter77]

If you're NOT thinking of conceal-carrying it, then presumably you're looking at this as a home defense and/or range plinker, yes? If so, then honestly you might want to look for a larger pistol. The small size and light weight of these subcompact 9mm's not only makes them rather uncomfortable to shoot for very long (due to the snappy recoil), but by design they're intended more as "shoot a little, carry a lot" handguns.

If you're wanting something mainly for HD with only OCCASIONAL concealed carry use, then the P11 would be my pick; it may not have a rail, but it's got a nicely-sized grip, holds more rounds than the PF9, and due to the extra weight will be a little less snappy in recoil. Personally, I don't care for tacking gadgets like lights and lasers and whatnot onto the front of my pistol. For one thing, it just adds weight and bulk, and the other is that there are times you might want to shine a light at something but you don't necessarily want to have your gun aimed at it. (Yes, I know they make quick-detach rail lights, but I still don't see the point.) If I need a light, I carry a bright compact LED flashlight or keep one handy beside the gun on the nightstand.

The PF9 is something I would mainly consider if this is going to primarily be a concealed-carry pistol that does double-duty as home defense (or an HD backup option), with only light range practice use. Again, if you're not going to be carrying it much (if ever), then why bother going as small as possible?

 

[roberet44]

I have both. The prior posts sum things up fairly well. You might want to include:

1. You can look at a PF-9 and see if there is a bullet in the chamber. You have
to pull the slide back a bit on the P-11.
2. Looking at the this blog, there seem to be fewer reliability issues with P-11.

Overall, I like the PF-9 a bit more because the trigger pull seems significantly lighter.
I have Northwood triggers on both.

 

[Ladobe]

Thanks for the comments so quickly... got a little info on the PF-9 you'd only know from having had one (or by not being brand new on the KT forum). Reliability is a big one (in part why I mostly carried magnum revolvers for CCW). A loaded chamber indicator doesn't matter to me as whichever I buy would be loaded for bear 24/7 anyway (I live alone). Forgot about the double tap the P-11 will do - never had to do it with the one I had.

The size/number of rounds thing was to leave the door open for either model. If you can't stop whatever with 7-8 most likely 2-3 more isn't going to matter much either. I know what a P-11 will do AND that is what I was just going to get again. Then I saw some comments on other boards from folks who had a PF-9 and loved them, but they had no experience with a P-11 to compare them to.

"I won't conceal carry it, it will just be handy" wasn't clear enough... my fault for not giving more information. I have bigger pistols around the house, including a Glock 17 and Colt 1911, and magnum revolvers, but would like something smaller again even for that. I had a Glock 27 when they first came out... like the P-11 better.

Don't carry concealed anymore, but when I'm out all wee hours of the night walking I'd like to have something strapped to my walker and still be legal. Smaller is less conspicuous, and even though this is an open carry pro gun state there is no need to advertise until you have to. IOW the others are all way too big to not be noticed open carry.

Don't care about lights or lasers; with over 40 years as a serious handgun hunter before the hadicaps ended that a few years ago recoil and heavy triggers don't bother me at all (especially from a pipsqueak 9), nor is hitting what I shoot at with a handgun. I won't be target shooting with it... other than intitially it probably won't get shot much, if at all. It will just be... "handy".

 

[MitchellB]

I prefer the PF9 because it is the smaller of the two. No other reason than that.

 

[DaveSpud]

Used to own a P-11. Now own a PF-9.

I could never make the P-11 work for pocket carry. The PF-9 works well for pocket carry.

 

[bigvan]

I started with p11, then p3at for easier carry, then pf9 for best of both worlds.

 

[Timex]

Same here. Started with P-11, then P3AT now Pf-9. Thought I would carry the PF-9 more but the p3At is just too handy. It goes where I go. The others-not so much.

 

[Ladobe]

I don't see enough difference in size or weight between the P-11 & PF9 to worry about for consealed carry like some of you are saying. Even if I was going to stuff either in a pocket it would be in a back pocket holster, and either would ride there just fine. Way back when I carried the P-11 I had I carried it SOB whether for primary or backup (had both IP and OP holsters for different waistbands), and I never paid it any mind at all even when riding in a vehicle. So that would be my first choice to carry any of the KelTecs, not in a pocket, and cross draw either IP or OP would be my second choice.

I consider the 9 barely up to the task in todays drug world, so anything smaller I doubt I'd consider even for a back up carry. A compact 45 with a compact 9 backup just makes more sense to me (or compact 44 and backup 357 or 38 wheel guns). It's been a very long time since I carried a 380 as a primary carry or backup, not since the mid 70's when I had 2 of the original FI made Colt Pony prototypes with consecutive serial numbers. Before them it was a Colt 1903 32, or either the Baby Browning or tiny Colt 1908 Pocket 25's. Even further back it was a Astra Cub 22 Short. Times and ideas sure do change don't they?

 

[defense minister]

I've had both, and for me the trigger pull was the deciding factor. I still have the PF-9, and it's my daily carry.

 

[darkwriter77]

I never really thought the difference in size/weight between the P11 and PF9 was really significant enough to notice, but hold them side-by-side and try one in each hand (especially with each fully loaded), and then it finally becomes pretty clear. Biggest difference I feel between the two is the SHAPE of the grip, more so than the actual thickness. The grip is almost always the hardest part of any pistol to conceal, and when you drop one in your pocket, the squared shape of the P11's grip can print quite a bit and it's significantly harder to get my fingers all the way around it while it's in my front pocket.

Yes, either one can be carried in a rear pocket if your pants have sufficiently large pockets - most cargo pants or relaxed-fit jeans will work - but just that little 1/8" difference in thickness between the P11 and PF9 makes a HUGE difference in how it fits in that pocket. Likewise, those few extra ounces and the weight of those few extra rounds on the P11 are completely imperceptible when carried IWB or OWB, but in a front or rear pocket, it feels downright HEAVY compared to the PF9. (And even as lightweight as the PF9 is, even that feels kinda chunky compared to a P3AT.)

I fully intend to hang onto my P11 even though I have a PF9 now and (so far) it's been working pretty well. The P11 has its place for me as an all-day IWB or OWB carry option and can work for pocket carry in a pinch; the PF9 is better suited as a pocket carry option for me with IWB carry as an easy alternative. And being that my PF9 is hard chrome while my P11 was factory blued (and now is just bare polished steel), the PF9 is likely to get carried more in the summer whereas the P11 is more likely to be my winter carry piece.

 

[Ladobe]

Thank you kindly for your comments and how you perceive both pistols. Comes down to a personal thing as it should because we all don't march to the same drummer. Most all of you are basing your pick on for CCW, and as I said what I get will never be carried concealed. Besides, if it was going to be for CCW with a 9... I'd much rather carry 11 than 8.

Pockets. I would never carry a handgun in a front pocket, never did with even any of the vintage small "pocket" pistols I've owned over almost 5 decades, and never will. Instead I always carried small to medium size handguns in a back pocket, including pistols, short DA wheel guns, smaller/shorter single actions or single shots, and never had any problem with the weight or size ORr accessability of any of them riding there no matter what kind of pants I was wearing (although mostly Levis or hiking shorts). Along with growing up on a ranch I spent most of my spare time all my life in the outdoors, and one type of handgun or another was almost always with me from the late 50's. Either belt carry for the full sized I carried for hunting/bear protection, or stuffed in a back pocket with the smaller handguns up to 44/45 caliber used for any use.

Trigger pulls don't bother me at all, nor does small grips since it won't get shot much... and it won't be carried concealed ever. So I guess for a smaller and less conspicuous open carried KelTec 9 for my walker it comes down to round count, and remembering how well the P-11 I bought in the 90's that was conseal carried served me. I don't want another baby Glock even though the 27 I did have for CCW when they first came out was OK... I just liked the KetTec better.

Thanks again to all of you for your input...