Buckshot said:

What happened to the first post in this thread?

The text runs down the left side of the post instead of being formatted in sentences and paragraphs like a normal post.

Buckshot

It looks fine on mine. It was a little weird when I transfered this post over from the old place, probably just some residual from that.

I've had a couple P11s, they were good pistols and didn't have reliability issues. I did break an ejector once but they were real good about replacing it. I would have another for the same price.

None of my rifles have 2nd strike, same with the shotgun, not sure I need it in a pistol, guess that is one of those use what you are most comfortable with. Had a KP90 one time also, can't recall any .45 pistol I have ever liked any better. Another one I should have kept.

Monty

The text runs down the left side of the post instead of being formatted in sentences and paragraphs like a normal post.

Buckshot

My B-I-L has a PF-9. It has shot fine since he got it. He had some trouble getting it to sight in, the rear sight was stuck (even with the screw out) with about a half pound of Loc-tite. Got it sighted in after that was dug out of there.

I have a P-11 (actually, the 10 round mag is stored and I have three factory 12 round mags for it so it is really a P-13!) that I have almost 200 rounds through with no malfunctions to date.

I just can't convince myself to spend the 9 mm to finish "shooting it in" in these ammo-short times. That and it is too hard to give up my J-frame .357 Mag. revolvers for the 9 mm.

I don't really like the PF-9 as well as the P-11 as the PF-9 has no second strike capability. I don't care how good a person is, the trigger finger can pull through again (often getting ignition on the second hit) while the weak hand is crossing over to start a tap-rack-bang drill.

The same thing (second strike capability) is why I have a Ruger KP-90 instead any one of a number of other DA/SA semi-autos.

Buckshot

Buckshot said:

Monty,

Has anyone ever put these two up against a Kel-tec P-11?

Seems like it would not come out bad at all.

Or against the PF-9? Single stack like the rest of them instead of the double stack of the P-11.

Better prices all the way around, also.

Buckshot

Found this over on wikipedia's P-11 page
Weight 14 oz (397 g) empty
20 oz (567 g) w/loaded magazine
Length 5.6 in (142 mm)
Barrel length 3.1 in (79 mm)
Width 1 in (25 mm)
Height 4.3 in (109 mm)

And the PF-9
Weight 12.7 oz (360 g) (no magazine)
14.5 oz (411 g) (w/loaded magazine)
Length 5.85 in (149 mm)
Barrel length 3.1 in (79 mm)
Width .88 in (22 mm)
Height 4.3 in (109 mm)

So although the PF-9 loses out a little size-wise compared to the PM9 it is a tad thinner and lighter (and carried one more round). Add the price savings and the PF-9 looks like an excellent choice if it is reliable. From what little reading I have done, the early models had some issues, later models/high serial numbers are better, can benefit from a little fluff and buff and has excellent warranty service. If it has a problem and you send it back, they will take the time to make it right. It's been on my list to pick up and try out for a while.

Monty

Has anyone ever put these two up against a Kel-tec P-11?

Seems like it would not come out bad at all.

Or against the PF-9? Single stack like the rest of them instead of the double stack of the P-11.

Better prices all the way around, also.

Buckshot

Is the size and weight savings of the Ruger LCP over the Kahr PM9 worth trading down from a 9mm to a .380ACP for a pocket pistol?

What about that difference in price? Looks like you could have a LCP in both front pants pockets for the cost of a PM9.