For price and size it is the only one. I would be kidding myself to believe that some other gun or calibre would suit my pocket carry as I lug along with its one or two pounds of metal. If I am not going to carry it, there is no sense in buying it. The kel tec has its fans and critics but mine shoots well and is comfortable as heck sitting in my pocket.

I own the P3AT and like the gun. If I were to replace it, I would probably get the Ruger's version. But that's only because I'm partial to Rugers.

Only problem I've ever had with it is sometimes I have to hit the back of the slide after the first shot.

WM

P11,yes I would,Chromed slide all the way

http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/p3at.htm

It says here you can get a hard chrome version.

this is good to know , ive been thinkin about a p3at,ive always heard good things, but this re affirms it

Currently have P11, P32. Have put lots of rounds through both NOT 1 single hiccup!!! Love'em, excellent weapons. YES i would

I seem to have bought the only bad one out there. I bought it it shoot one shoot worked perfect then could never get it to fire again. I gave it away and would never consider another one if it were given to me. I hear good things about them but you won't hear good things from me. I will only tell of my experiance and will not trash the entire line of them.

RCG

yes i own three p32 p3at pf9. i like them and trust them.

I love my P32 but it lacks any serious stopping power or penetration.

Bought my first one about a week ago. Getting used to the trigger pull was my only problem. I like it. I may consider purchasing another one of their handguns in the future.

I would and did. I owned a pf9 first, and recently got a p3at. The latter lives in my pocket all the time now.

There are other Keltec's I'd like to own too. KTOG user group lists all with pictures. I think they're great guns.

As mentioned in a previous post, I did get the P11. Looking back, I wish I had gone for the PF9, just to save a few ounces & have a slimmer gun. Overall, I like the gun. I have not put a lot of rounds through it - around 100 - but I have had no failures as of yet. I need a good holster before I start carrying it. I have been carrying an LCP, so the P11 seems huge!

I have a P3AT and would buy another one. The rough textured grip is a big plus. I can conceal carry this gun in just about any clothing situation. The only issue I have is the lack of .380 ammo at affordable prices.

@ twodogs and anyone else that can help.

I've heard several people say that they wished they had gotten a P9 because it is smaller than the P11.

I copied this from the Kel-Tec website:

Kel-Tec P11 Chrome $390
Calibers: 9 x 19 mm Luger
Weight unloaded: 14 oz.
Loaded magazine: 6 oz.
Length: 5.6"
Height: 4.3"
Width: 1"
Barrel Length: 3.1"
Sight radius: 4.6"
Capacity: 10 + 1 *****
Trigger Pull: 9 lbs

Kel-Tec PF9 - Chrome $390
Calibers: 9mm Luger 9x19mm
Weight unloaded: 12.7 oz.
Loaded magazine: 2.8 oz.
Length: 5.85"
Height: 4.3"
Width: .88"
Barrel Length: 3.1"
Capacity: 7 + 1 ***

What am I missing the look very similar in size.

The weight difference is only because of the additional bullets ??

I'm thinking about getting one of these - help / advice would be appreciated

When I bought my P11, I did the same thing that you did. I looked at everything on paper, & I was sure that the P11 was the smarter move. You get more rounds, and the size doesn't seem that much bigger.

My dad picked up a PF9, and it feels better to me. I like that it is a bit thinner, and the few ounces seem to make a difference. The trigger on the PF9 is MUCH better than my P11 trigger. I did end up selling the P11. I couldn't get used to the trigger, and the overall feel of the gun bothered me.

I would think about picking up a PF9 if the price were right. Unfortunately, I have a long list of guns that I would like to pick up someday...

Originally Posted by nailer

The only question I have about my keltec p3at is will a .380 caliber be adequate in an emergency. Is a 9mm or 45 acp better? Sure shot placement is important, but in an emergency with adrenoline pumping and hands shaking more power may be better than placement.

How are you going to carry? If you are going to use a wallet holster then check first to see if the 9mm will conceal satisfactorily. In either case (9mm or .380) you will be consuming a pocket. The questions become: weight and thickness. The height and width will fit most pockets. The thickness of the 9mm is .88" which is thinner than my actual wallet so thickness should not be a problem.

So it boils down to weight. Will the extra 7 ounces make the carry too heavy?

If you are using some other form of carry the weight difference should not be a factor. On the belt you will not feel the 7 ounces; on a ankle rig you will quickly acclimate to the heavier weapon.

Bought my first Kel-Tec P-3AT about three months ago, now I have four and I love shooting all of them. From top left clockwise PF-9, P-3AT/2G, P-32/2G, P-32/1G.

I've been very happy with my PF9 so far and would not hesitate to buy another Kel-Tec product if I wanted or needed another model firearm that they make.

I've owned 2 Kel-Tec's P-11 and P-32.I won't buy another one.

Had the little .32. Had nothing but problems from the get go. So I got one of the "bad" ones, and won't be going back.
Eli

PF-9=Daily carry

Honestly had some issues when I first got it. Sent it back for a new slide. Had some FTE and FTF as well as some "return to battery" failures. Worried about it awhile then visited Kel-Tec PF-9 forum over at KTOG.org and followed the examples for a modest Fluff-n-Buff. Now with that and about 1,000 rnds downrange can honestly say I bet my life on it gladly.

Overall I think shooters are far too accepting of functional failures of firearms. If you bought a car and the engine stalled all the time and the manufacturer said, "Well, it is a fussy eater. Try Sunoco instead of Exxon next time.", you would go ballistic.

If you stepped on the brakes than the car spun out because only 3 of the 4 brakes worked and you brought it back to the dealer and he said, "Well, for the first 20,000 miles you need to break in the car before it stops straight." you would go similarly ballistic.

But with a handgun we are far more forgiving. It is an error that needs to be corrected from the grass roots. As long as we remain accepting of failures, the manufacturers will produce defective goods. The manufacturers should be held more accountable. They should have a mechanism that effectively cycles the weapon mechanically for several hundred cycles so no break in is required. If only certain ammo will work with the weapon then it should come with a notice that says, "Certified to function satisfactorily with the following ammunition..."

Until we, as shooters, become more demanding, then they, as manufacturers, will remain lax.

Great point Packard, however, those guns cost $1500-$2000 and are made by Wilson, Les Baer and Kimber. Added QA requires expensive equipment and labor. I'd prefer a $300 concealable life-saver that I need to "own". Remember when we had to use "feeler gauges" to set spark plug gap and manually adjust carb jetting and distributor timing? Same thing in my opinion. I appreciate being able to afford a small weapon and don't mind "honing" it to a razor sharp edge.

Originally Posted by Dynamik1

Great point Packard, however, those guns cost $1500-$2000 and are made by Wilson, Les Baer and Kimber. Added QA requires expensive equipment and labor. I'd prefer a $300 concealable life-saver that I need to "own". Remember when we had to use "feeler gauges" to set spark plug gap and manually adjust carb jetting and distributor timing? Same thing in my opinion. I appreciate being able to afford a small weapon and don't mind "honing" it to a razor sharp edge.

Baer still recommends a break in. Kimbers are supposedly fussy about ammo. I don't think money can buy the over-the-counter reliability we should demand. My old Colt 1911 and my old Colt Commander were reliable right out of the box. Why is that? Of course back then revolvers reigned supreme and everyone expected, and demanded out-of-the-box reliability. Back then manufacturers were held much more accountable.