Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Showdown between 642 and PF9

  1. #1
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    I went to the range with my BUGs today to see who would end up as my EDC. I hada box of WWB 9mm JHP and one box of WWB .38 Spl +p JHP. I ran one magazine through the PF9 first, then one cylinder through the 642. Recoil was fairly matched between the 2. Sight acquisition was much easier with the Kel-Tec due to the big dots on the combat sights, but the Crimson Trace laser grips on the 642 made up for the crappy sights.

    Shots were taken at 10 yards with each firearm (defensive distance), with remarkably similar grouping. The trigger on the Smith was smoother, which kept me from jerking down and left, which was where my groups were going with my PF9. It was easier to recover for follow up shots with the PF9 than the 642, easily due to the fact that it is an automatic withlinear recoil as a result of the action of the slide. This, along with the fact that it carries 3 more rounds than the Smith leads me to believe that the PF9 would be the better bet in an SD situation. The only issue I have with thisdecision is that by limpwristing the PF9, I was able to cause a malfunction. This is something that would not happen with the Smith.

    As a result of my unscientific test, I have decided that I will carry the PF9 in my pocket and the 642 in an ankle holster.

  2. #2
    Regular Member zoom6zoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dale City, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,694

    Post imported post

    I recommend the Galco Ankle Glove for the 642 - you'll barely know it's there.

  3. #3
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    I actually have the soft armor 2" ankle holster. It is remarkably more comfortable than I thought it would be.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cold Springs, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    The PF9 sits in your pocket comfortably?? Does it print like crazy or what?

  5. #5
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    Doesn't print at all in my suit pants, but in a pair of jeans it does.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    I've had both guns and the S&W is the better gun.

    The PF9 is not as well made (you can see the difference in their lack of internal finishing) and the trigger is terrible.

    The 642's trigger can be cleaned up and the internal lock removed. No-lock guns are now available.

    I do recommend that you look at the Kahr MK9 and Kahr PM9. Both are pretty good, but require some testing before use. I had some trouble with one of my PM9's.

  7. #7
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    The advantage the PF9 has over the PM9 is that the KelTec is lighter, shorter and cheaper than the Kahr. I do like the 642 more, but the PF9 is lighter and slimmer than the Airweight, and the additional rounds are nice to have. I have already gotten used to the trigger on the PF9, and am more accurate with it than the .38. The 642 is much more comfortable in my ankle holster, so it has become my EDC BUG, but I usually will also slip the PF9 in my pocket. There's nothing wrong with carrying 2 BUGs.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •