i read on another forum that there will not be a law suit
turns out keltec doesn't have any patents dealing with the 3AT
the look of the new ruger is a lot more easy on the eyes
my wife picked it over the 3at based on looks
it will be interesting to see what those magazine writes say about it in a couple of months
Night and day difference in the fit and finish of the LCP and Kel-tecs. The LCP just has a quality feel and appearance, the Kel-tecs do not. If you were to look at them both side by side, you would think the K-T is the cheaply made imitation.
I am sure the Ruger is a fine little pistol, but I still don't understand all the excitement over a gun that appears to only be a very marginally improved (and in some ways not an improvement at all) copy of a gun that has existed for several years. I guess a lot of it can be written off to the lingering prejudice against KelTec in the shooting community. A lot of shooters think "real" guns have to be made by a company that has been in business for half a century or more.
Marginally improved? I'd say looks alone is a big improvement and think you hit the nail on the head about the lingering prejudice against Kel-Tec. I would not buy their products just because of their cheap looking build quality and reputation alone. Yours may have been proven 100% reliable and that's great, but there has been a lot written about problems the P3AT's had or may still have. Just take a look at all the F&B articles that have been written that many owners deem necessary to improve their pistol right out of the box. Some of it having to do with sanding and filing down the rough plastic seams... a big sign of poor workmanship, if you ask me.
Without having any prior knowledge of the P3AT or the LCP, if I was in the market for a small pistol, I would pick the one that looks better made and I would bet the majority of consumers would too. As for their reliabilty... whatever pistol I picked, a new P3AT, or a LCP, I would have to convience myself with some range time, that it is going to be reliable enough for it to live in my pocket as a CCW.
You being a die hard Kel Tec fan, I can understand where you are coming from. Your P3AT has proven reliable for you, so I see why you wouldn't buy a new LCP on looks alone. I wouldn't either, but I would give the Ruger's LCP a tad more credit than what you are.
One other thing I dislike about Kel-Tec... while they may have great customer service (Ruger's aint too shabby either) is their lack of initative to improve and smooth out the rough edges of their product. Case in point... my LCP which, is an early build pistol (S/N 370-0156X), developed the same problem many of the P3AT's have... which is the wear marks right under the extractor. As soon as the mostly "cosmetic" issue was brought to Ruger's attention, they changed their milling process to eliminate the issue on future guns. See the before and after pics below.
So, if you will... lighten up on the LCP a little and give Ruger credit for improving on Kel-Tec's design, ever how slight it may be. What Ruger has done is no different than other companies have done to the popular 1911... they improved and refined the original design.
Wake up Kel-Tec... it's time to improve your products, if you don't, others will!!!
Here are the wear pictures I was talking about that the early build LCP's share with the P3AT's.
I do like the Ruger's feature of the slide hold. I always saw that as a drawback on my 3AT, especially with no "loaded chamber" indicator. Someone early in this thread said there was no instruction manual but there is a PDF of full instructions if you follow the first link to the product information and specs.
Let's let some "pro's" test it and we'll get the reviews. Until then, I'll carry my 3ATin my pocket.
There was actually a great deal of internet discussion about early problems with P3ATs, which KelTec listened to, and corrected. This is why we see so many reliable P3ATs now. The P32 also had some early teething problems and KelTec corrected them. I don't know why anyone thinks KelTec doesn't listen to consumers and improve their products.
Some KelTec owners are tinkerers, just like 1911 and Glock and P35 owners all like to mess around with their pistols. The extend of my "mods" to my P3AT have been the belt clip and a cut-down Handall Jr. No "fluff and buff" was ever necessary, and I doubt it was required for anyone who bought the latest P3AT generation.
I will grant that the Ruger slide device is a minor improvement over the P3AT, and if John Farnam's words about the better trigger hold true, that would be a more substantial improvement.
But using the 1911 analogy, what we're seeing is about like putting an extended safety and a crisper trigger on a stock Colt while dressing up the finish - and everyone getting all excited about it, treating it as if it's some revolutionary change rather than very minor tweaking of an already-good pistol.
Some people are more comfortable with Ruger than KelTec. I get that, even if the design itself is straight KelTec. But a copy is still a copy. It may even be slightly better than the original (though it is heavier, which I think is a drawback to the Ruger), but it's not some giant leap forward in pocket pistol technology just because it says "Ruger" rather than "KelTec" on the side.
I think it's a pretty ho-hum development technically. I think the more startling thing about it is that it may herald the beginning of a reversal for Bill Ruger's company, which previously held defense-oriented shooters in contempt.