a person on another forum just replied:

Kel-Tec P11 is true double action with a hammer.

And has double-strike capability.

Does that mean that the P9 is striker fired gun?

I have seen a P11 and it does have a hammer.

The PF 9 is .88" thick at the grip; the P11 is 1.1" thick. The difference is .22" (nearly a 1/4") which will make a difference or no difference depending upon how you carry.

I have both and carry the PF-9 in a Kholster. I often foret it is there. Like a few weeks ago when I was picking my kid up from the airport. Made it all the way through the security line, got to the desk to hand him my ID and when I pulled it out I saw my CC license. OOPS! I remembered I was carrying and about to go through a metal detector. I played dumb like I forgot something and went out to my car and locked it up. What an interesting afternoon that would have been!

On subject: They are both fantastic carry options. The main differences are capacity and feel. The thinner PF-9 IS NOT a range gun. I have put about 500 painful, but trouble free, rounds through it and I am confident with it's performance. But I carry it over the P-11 because it's just not as bulky.

I decided on the PF9 because I wanted a small gun for CCW and did not wish to go with a caliber smaller than a 9mm. I am real happy with my choice so far, because I carry more often than ever simply because the gun is small enough in size and light enough to be easier to carry than anything else I have. While I think there is a place in your CCW arsenal for a high capacity pistol a small pocket pistol carried, is better than a larger pistol left at home.

So, Monday I went to the local police firing range with a cop buddy and fired the Kel-Tec arsenal (PF-9, P-11 9mm also with .40 conversion, P3AT) about 100rds each. They all did exactly what they were supposed to do. Now, the PF-9 which is my daily carry and having only a Limbsaver slip on grip cover and a flat black Duracoted slide as "upgrades" was much easier to handle. The felt recoil didn't seem nearly as bad as in the past. Maybe it has been broken in (just at 1,000rds) and is smoother, but it was actually nice to shoot.

My friend shot them as well and said he is going to buy a PF-9 to carry off duty now that he has shot one and liked it. He's been carrying his LCP lately because his sub compact Glock .40 is "getting annoying" to carry. He said it's too bulky, thick and heavy.

On a side note, as I said, he had his LCP at the range. We both fired the LCP and the P3AT and the ONLY difference is the slide locking back after the last round on the LCP. Otherwise THERE WERE NO NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCES in firing, accuracy, handling, operation or ammo feeding.

Just my .02 but I would go do some hands on I found that the pf9 is entirely too small for my hand I didnt think the minor difference in size would make a difference but it did.. I also played with the px4 sub compact and I think I may have to get one of those next.

Originally Posted by The Tomcat

...On a side note, as I said, he had his LCP at the range. We both fired the LCP and the P3AT and the ONLY difference is the slide locking back after the last round on the LCP. Otherwise THERE WERE NO NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCES in firing, accuracy, handling, operation or ammo feeding.

You kind of have to wonder why a company would make a "me too" product at a similar price point with no real advantages to the consumer. Ruger's engineers could not figure out some improvement over the existing design?