Gun Tests gives Kel-Tec PF-9 am F rating.

[Diddle]

Gun Test magazine August 2010 (pg. 24) Gives the PF-9 an "F" rating. "This pistol had the most felt recoil and was the least accurate -- We suspect from the heavy trigger."

This was among 11 other 9mm pistols (tested in 2007) beginning with the Springfield P192029LP which retailed at $1253.00.

I have to totally disagree with the review. While I would not give the PF-9 an "A" rating I think it deserves a "B-" or "C+" all things considered. It is a light weight 9mm pistol and as such it would have significant recoil. But for a pistol that can be had for well under $300.00 (Typically $259.00) I consider a decent buy.

Any thoughts?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SIXTO]

Gun Test magazine August 2010 (pg. 24) Gives the PF-9 an "F" rating. "This pistol had the most felt recoil and was the least accurate -- We suspect from the heavy trigger."

Well, just from that quote alone, I'd give gun test an F. They sound like a bunch of pansy ninnys. Of course it has a lot of recoil; its a tiny pocket rocket. And of course the trigger sucks; its a cheap pistol. However, that should not have affected the accuracy of the gun; it boils down to the shooter not being able to handle a heavy trigger.
All things considered, Keltec does a great job in their nich market. Building inexpensive ccw pistols.

[Rollo]

Personally I would rate it a B- to a C+ at the least. F is WAY to low. And My grade isn't even taking into account the price, just the size ans weight. The gun is plenty accurate one you get the hang of the trigger. Does the article state how long they spend shooting the gun?

[Grant48]

And SWAT Magazine in September 2008 gave the PF-9 glowing reviews.

For every review/rating, there's another out there somewhere that contradicts it... Which just goes to show that reviews/ratings in gun rags are basically worthless.

[WHEC724]

... Which just goes to show that reviews/ratings in gun rags are basically worthless.

Yup. I still have them delivered to give me something to read in my "office", but for pragmatic feedback, I come here.

[Grant48]

Yup. I still have them delivered to give me something to read in my "office", but for pragmatic feedback, I come here.

Agreed. I read them for entertainment, and that's all. They're hardly a source I turn to when making purchase decisions.

[SpringerXD]

And SWAT Magazine in September 2008 gave the PF-9 glowing reviews.

For every review/rating, there's another out there somewhere that contradicts it... Which just goes to show that reviews/ratings in gun rags are basically worthless.

The thing you have to remember about magazine reviews (not just gun rags, but ALL of them) is this: They'll never give a poor review to an advertiser's product. Period. If I remember correctly, Gun Tests is the one that accepts no advertising so they can give their honest opinions, flawed or otherwise.

I've played guitar for many years now (and boy are my fingers tired! BA BOOM! SHHHH!!!! ) It's the same principle. You'll see a glowing review on a guitar that you know is a hunk of Indonesian-made junk, then turn the page and there will be a big two-page, full color ad for that company. There's simply no way they'll ever pan a product and risk losing those advertising dollars.

[redrick]

I would not give the one that I shot an F, maybe a C. It does have a lot more recoil than my Kahr P9 , the trigger isn't as good and I don't shoot it as accurate, but it didn't have any failures with 3 of us shooting it. My friends wife, whom he bought it for, shot it the best. Thin, lightweight, 9mm and cheaply priced, it has a market.

[OldVet]

I got a couple of their rags and wrote them off. Eval'd far too many top of the line firearms (with good ratings) and too few economy class firearms (which naturally got lower ratings than the ToL models. It only makes sense that the $2000 custom job would work/handle/ be more accurate. While some of their comments were accurate, many were, like most reviews, simply personal opinions (didn't fit my hand well, etc.). Well, duh! No, a double stack .45 isn't going to fit too many women's hands.

[QKShooter]

S.W.A.T Magazine does not give a hang about their advertisers.

They will only print an honest and truthful product review as they see it and test it.

If an advertiser does not like the review and complains they say "BYE~BYE!" and S.W.A.T. will show them the EXIT door.

Just FYI & I know that for a fact.

And SWAT Magazine in September 2008 gave the PF-9 glowing reviews.

For every review/rating, there's another out there somewhere that contradicts it... Which just goes to show that reviews/ratings in gun rags are basically worthless.

[CMR]

I really don't give a rats behind what Gun Test magazine thinks, one of the worst magazine publishings I've ever delt with.

[C hawk Glock]

The thing you have to remember about magazine reviews (not just gun rags, but ALL of them) is this: They'll never give a poor review to an advertiser's product. Period. If I remember correctly, Gun Tests is the one that accepts no advertising so they can give their honest opinions, flawed or otherwise.

I've played guitar for many years now (and boy are my fingers tired! BA BOOM! SHHHH!!!! ) It's the same principle. You'll see a glowing review on a guitar that you know is a hunk of Indonesian-made junk, then turn the page and there will be a big two-page, full color ad for that company. There's simply no way they'll ever pan a product and risk losing those advertising dollars.

Yeah guitars are that way for sure. By the way, hello from a fellow shredder!

[gwlammers]

I don't know why, but I'm more accurate with my Kel-Tec PF9 than my Kahr PM9.

[hogdaddy]

I can give a rats ssa about what anyone thinks about my CCW, As long as I"M happy ; )
H/D

[GlockJS]

I rate my own guns

Cheap, expensive, or otherwise.

One mans trash is another mans Kel Tec! LOL J/K