Kel-Tec P-3AT vs Ruger LCP

Discussion in 'Guns and Ammo' started by ezbite, Dec 30, 2008.

  1. ezbite

    ezbite the Susan Lucci of OGF

    13,978
    2,306
    2,398
    ive had my kel-tec P-3AT for a few years and i really like it. its light weight, reliable and easy to conceal. now ruger has came out with a clone (IMO) of my good old kel-tec. guns and ammo, handguns mag did reviews of the ruger LCP and both loved it. there was also an article in one of them about the best pocket .380 auto out there. they didnt even have a kel-tec in the evaluation:confused: anyhow, 4 gun writers and a woman all loved the ruger, which was no suprise to me, ruger is also my favorite firearms maker, so when i saw this auto, i had to have it.

    they did forget to mention in any article ive read this past year, that this auto has been recalled. the recall was because if you dropped it with a live round in the chamber, it would sometimes fire(well DUH!!). guess you shouldn't drop a loaded gun. seems that the bobbed hammer was a little too long, would stick out just enough when cocked and loaded to hit the ground and fire, if dropped just right. ruger is fixing this problem for free and it is stated several times in the manual, if you drop a loaded firearm it may fire.

    i had been waiting to buy my new ruger from the same gunshop that i got the kel-tec, but he hasn't even received the shipping boxes from ruger to fix the recall on the autos he has, so off to gander mtn i go. i paid $249 for the kel-tec 2.5 years ago and i just paid $349 for the ruger. both before taxes.

    both pistols have polymer frames, break down for cleaning the same, are 6+1 in capacity, weigh about the same, barrels are the same, like i said eariler, they are clones of each other. the ruger does have a slide lock(which is an attractive feature to me), it also recesses its barrel ever so slightly inside the slide, the kel-tec actually extends past the slide(which ive never been a fan of), the extractor on the ruger is beefier than the kel-tecs, both have fixed sights and checkering on the grips. the checkering on the kel-tec is rugged and very easy to hold on to. the ruger checkering on the other hand is small and almost smooth and only goes 1/2 way up the handle, im having a hard time holding this pistol practicing to get it out of my jacket pocket, ive actually dropped it twice:eek:(yes, it was unloaded) IMO, the ruger needs the kel-tec grip, because i firmly believe it only going to get harder to hold on to with sweaty hands. i guess i could put some grip tape on it or a rubber grip sleeve. here's a few pictures and off to the range i go. more in a few hours.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Im a Ruger guy myself in the sense that I really like there bolt guns, I purchased a handful of them yrs ago, I also have on of there 22 target pistols, but lately it seems as though they have had trouble with there QC dept, I mean I heard for awhile that with there bolt guns you either got a shooter or a gun you couldnt hit the broad side of a barn with, I also seem to remember reading on one of the boards that a guy who had a friend who worked in the Ruger factory said that his friend told him that they were pushed on putting out quanity over quality, with that said I would probably still buy one of there bolt guns or a revolver given the chance, let us know how she does at the range.
     

  3. That was timely for me. I have been looking for a ccw gun. Looking to take the class this year. I have both of these guns on my list to look at. Thx
     
  4. ezbite

    ezbite the Susan Lucci of OGF

    13,978
    2,306
    2,398
    i stopped a wal-mart and picked up a box of 100ct .380 winchester white box. the winchester white box is a good value and what my glocks shoot the best. now keep in mind all guns shoot the same ammo differently, one shoots some better than others. that being said the ruger ate up the winchester without any feed problems at all. pretty good for a brand new auto. but, it clearly shot 3" to 4" low at 5 steps (shot both autos from this distance) and to hit my target with the ruger, i really had to concentrate on it and what i was doing. as i suspected, it did want to move around in my hand when being shot. im looking for a rubber grip sleeve later. the ruger targets are the 2 on the left side.

    the kel-tec also ate up the winchester (which i already knew it would), except for after the very first shot of the day off a sandbag, where i had a non-feed. the fresh bullet got jammed into the feed ramp and held the slide open, a quick heel of my hand to the back of the slide solved this one and only jam. it was clearly my fault because i was trying to hold the auto down on the sandbag instead of gripping it tight. the kel-tec seemed to hit the target (ones on the right) without too much effort on my part, just point and shoot. im used to shooting it and have confidence in it, so it wasnt a suprise.

    i shot both guns first mag of the day off a sandbag to see how tight of a group i could get on the bottom plates, nothing special here, just what you'd expect from a pocket auto with about a 2" barrel. after that i was standing and used a 2 hand grip (the way you should shoot them) the rest of the day shooting at the top plates.. i like the ruger, it is a FINE looking gun. i'll need to shoot at least 100 or more rounds before i carry it and do something about that slippery grip. it is a ruger and i really do like rugers, so we'll see. the kel-tec im more familure with, so it really wasnt a fair test. i know what it will do and not do. its also didnt seem to bite into my hand as much as the ruger did, maybe its the grip:confused:.

    do i think the ruger is worth $100 more than the kel-tec? i saved 6 rounds to put in a mag at the end of the day, guess which one got loaded....yep, the kel-tec:)
     

    Attached Files:

  5. I love my keltec so much i had my neighbor chrome it at his work. Looks sweet now. Only thing that i dont like is that now thats its chromed you can see how bad the molds are. The Chrome shows any and all imperfections on the slide.