Well, I've had a P3-AT for nearly a year, and picked up the Ruger this past weekend. Took them both to the range this weekend; had a few surprises. Look for this comparison to heat up as the Ruger becomes more available. Unfortunately, I won't be able to post a full review, because the hammer spring in my Kel-Tec broke halfway through my test. As for the Ruger, I took it straight from the gun show to the range and shot it right out of the box. Here they are, growling at each other:
Let me say this: I was interested in the Ruger only because I never had total faith in the Kel-Tec. I bought mine at the same time as two other friends. One friend has had to send his back to the factory. I have had two minor issues that I was able to fix. Although I'm not a gunsmith, I like to tinker and can figure some things out. The third friend has only put 100 rounds through his, and has had no problems. My Kel-Tec had about 500-600 rounds through it at the time of the test, and averaged a 3-4% FTE rate, regardless of the ammo used. Now you know why I never had total faith in it. All that aside, let me give you some quick observations that I was able to make with the small head-to-head test I was able to perform. Some of these categories are trivial, and these are only my opinions.
Let's start with dimensions. You can find dimensions everywhere, and I have run across different numbers in different places. I used two different digital scales to determine the weight of the guns, and they read the same. If it's off by a hundredth of an ounce, nobody will care. As for dimensions, I used my digital calipers on the widest and longest points I could find. My calipers are accurate; the only thing that can affect the measurement is if the calipers aren't placed exactly on the longest and widest points. That requires good eyeballing, and I doubt anybody will care if my reading is a hundredth of an inch off. Let's take a look at what they look like on top of each other:
Kel-Tec P3-AT Dimensions
Weight, no mag: 7.90 oz.
Weight, with empty mag: 8.97 oz.
Loaded Weight, 7 rounds Speer gold-dot HP: 11.36 oz.
Width: .826 in.
Length: 5.137 in.
Height: 3.599 in.
Ruger LCP Dimensions
Weight, no mag: 8.41 oz.
Weight, with empty mag: 9.56 oz.
Loaded Weight, 7 rounds Speer gold-dot HP: 11.95 oz.
Width: .813 in.
Length: 5.167 in.
Height: 3.640 in.
Now for my brief opinion of which one is better in the following categories. Keep in mind that the test was halted halway through when the Kel-Tec broke:
Appearance: The Ruger is sexy, the Kel-Tec looks cheap. Even if you're one of those that think Ruger ripped off Kel-Tec, you'd have to limit that on dimensions and the assembly diagram. They sure didn't steal the looks.
Fit & Finish: The Ruger is tight, solid, and feels well-made. The Kel-Tec has a wider gap between the slide, a rougher finish, and feels much less solid. Just look at the finish of the plastic, your hand with thank you when it goes bang:
Handling: gotta give this one to Ruger. It's less harsh on the hand while firing, as it absorbs recoil better. The Kel-Tec has rough checkering and doesn't feel nearly as good in the hand. The Ruger is smoothed out well and has a nice quality feel to it.
Accuracy: I found the Kel-Tec to be slightly more accurate. This may be due to my experience with it, and having none with the Ruger. My hunch is that this is not the case. The Ruger shot a little low, and I have read this elsewhere also. With some practice, I think the average person would be able to achieve 3-inch groups at 5 yards and 4-inch groups at seven yards. More practice would equal better grouping, of course. These are short-range guns, so either one is effective within self-defense range. This round goes to the Kel-Tec. Here's a pic of the near identical sights. While the KT's sights are better in my opinion, this really shows the difference in the Ruger finish. By the way, I borrowed by buddy's KT for the pics; I though it was only fair to compare a fairly-new KT to the Ruger on camera. Ruger on the left, KT on the right.
Okay, now for the targets. In the first two pictures, there are 10 rounds from each gun at 5 yards. In my opinion, anyone using these guns are likely to shoot at this distance or less. I fired approximately one round per second. Now, before you say I'm a bad shot, I would ask you if you've fired one of these guns before. The sights are just little nubs, and if you don't have a very smooth trigger pull, it will easily yank it off course. Plus, I didn't want to make this overly scientific by taking 30-seconds between shots, but no rapid-fire either. So, I compromised. I may not be Jerry Miculek, but if you try these two drills exactly as I did, you'll see what I mean. These are not guns with 4-inch barrels, so you don't expect that kind of accuracy. Plus, sighting those black sights against a black target isn't as easy as it sounds. Anyway, first the Ruger, then the Kel-Tec at 15 feet:
The Ruger seemed to walk on me a bit, perhaps I was trying to compensate, which would be a mistake for the test. Keep in mind these were the first rounds fired, right out of the box. I don't really have an explanation. As you can see all shots from both guns are within 2 inches of the center of the bullseye, except for the one flyer from the Kel-Tec. Chalk that flyer up to me, like I said, you gotta watch the trigger pull on these little guns.
The second targets are from 21 feet. This is really the outer range for these guns, especially when adrenaline hits and you're no longer Mr. Bullseye. I did the same drill...shots were one second apart. The Ruger target is on top, Kel-Tec on the bottom. The Ruger target has two more shots in it, because the Kel-Tec broke while shooting this target.
These targets don't have measurements on them, but the outside line of the inner orange circle is 2.5 incles from the center of the bullseye; the outside edge of the outer ring is five inches. As you can see, the Ruger shot a tighter group, but a little low. The Kel-Tec, while more scattered, had 3 bullseyes and its rounds were centered more around the target. So, at 21 feet, both guns put every round within three inches of the center of the bullseye at a semi-brisk shooting pace. I think most of us would agree that the Kel-Tec held the edge here.
Reliability: This remains to be seen, as the Ruger is new. After the Kel-Tec broke, I kept shooting the Ruger. After 200 rounds, it was flawless. While only time will tell about the LCP's reliability, it looks promising. I also found it ironic that the Kel-Tec broke during the test. I wouldn't even have the Ruger if I had peace of mind with the Kel-Tec to begin with.
Concealability: This is a toss-up. the guns are basically identical in dimensions and weight. I have read that the Ruger is 1.5 oz. heaver, put I don't know where that comes from. I used two different scales and could not find any difference beyond .59 oz. I would consider them equals in this category, but I will say that the Kel-Tec belt clip is a really nice accessory that Ruger hasn't come out with yet. Since it's not interchanable, Ruger needs to hurry up with that.
So, there you go. My quick opinion on a half-test. Although I may be premature to say this, I would recommend the LCP highly. If you have a Kel-Tec and it hasn't given you any problem, great. Keep it if you have faith in it. I will say that the LCP will be a thorn in the side of Kel-Tec, even if it turns out initial impressions were too generous.
I plan to repair my KT, and run about 200 rounds through it. If it doesn't have any problems, I'll give it a good cleaning, another fluff and buff, and sell it. And yes, I'll disclose to the buyer about its history.
p.s. I cartainly don't want to sound like a KT basher...I know there are many satisfied Kel-Tec customers out there, so I've tried to be as objective and fair as possible.
.
