AAR: S&W 642 vs. Kel-Tec PF-9 Pocket Pistols
Mission & Limitations:
I carry pretty much whenever I am awake. I am lucky enough to even be able to carry at work, providing I remain extremely discreet even with the clothing options I have at the work place. As a result I am tied rather exclusively to pocket carry and pocket pistols.
As such I have carried a variety of them (Kel-Tec P32, P3AT, PM40, 442, and now a 642). Each time I have changed firearms, it has been in an eternal balance between reliability and capability all limited by the nature of pocket carry.
While I currently carry a 642, and have done so for over a year, there was a time that I carried a PM40 over a 442 so that I would have the advantage of capacity and accuracy - I even did a big AAR on the choice at that time. In the end the PM40 was not reliable enough (stovepipes) and gave way to the 642 that I carry now.
However, I cannot get away from the two basic down sides to the 642 as a carry pistol: accuracy and reloading.
For those that have not spent much time with a J-Frame revolver, they are very comfortable to the hand, reliable, and easy to carry. They are very much the ultimate "toss it in the jacket" firearm. But, that being said, they do have some down points and one is the sight system:
As you can see, the sights are kinda an afterthought and not a careful instrument. Given the fact that this is a "shove it in their belly" weapon for many, that is understandable. Also, the pistol rests in the hand comfortably, but at an upward angle which is convenient at very close ranges, but requires practice at longer ranges lest the shooter fly rounds over the target.
The PF-9 is a more familiar firearm to my backround. While the bottom finger must rest under the magazine, the sight system is more "real" and easier for me to gain sight alignment and picture:
And even thought the feel of the firearm is less appealing, the slight nosing down of the firearm results in a proper alignment when my hand rises up to the plane of my eye.
Both weapons can of course be reloaded and I always carry one reload with me at all times. Due to clothing requirements I have to carry a flat reload which means a speed reloader for the 642 is not possible and a speed strip is my only option. Obviously, a PF-9 mag carries just fine as well.
So, enough of the initial impressions, let's head off to the range and see how they do!
Off to the Range:
Today was my first chance to take a newly acquired PF-9 to the range to test. I had a window of 40 minutes in between two kid events to sneak off and get this done. That is ok, because I had nearly no ammo to test with.
But we do the best with what we have at the time!
642 & .38 Ammo
The ammo I had with me to test the 642 was a bottom of the barrel hodgepodge including 130 grain FMJ, 130(?) Wadcutter Match, and 110 HP. My normal carry round is the excellent 135 Speer +P round that delivers 280 fp of energy and a round that is designed for the snubby (seen on the right in the picture).
PF-9 & 9mm Ammo
One of the advantages of the 9mm platform is the superior ballistics and terminal velocities of modern ammunition. The HST HP rounds here deliver 345 fp of energy in a package smaller than the .38. As a result, more rounds can be carried easily (7 versus the 642's 5).
Additionally, since the PF-9 is a single stack magazine fed system, it is far, far faster to reload and that is a primary concern that brings me back to considering a carry change.
Accuracy Test (Nothing Else Matters if you Can't Hit the BG!)
642 (Wadcutter Match)
The 642 is not known for its accuracy, but I thought I would give it every chance by firing at a slow pace and with my match wadcutters. All firing was done standing and not using a support. The range for all shooting was 7 yards which I consider to be the most likely maximum range for an encounter.
The target is the diamond on the upper left hand portion of the square target:
YouTube - 642slow2
Wow! They did better than I expected. The 642 has a heavy, stacking trigger pull that is very long. It is hard to get used to and I still do not have it mastered but have improved. I used to look at that trigger as being so heavy that my kids could not pull it, but they are bigger now and I no longer think it would deter them so it is no longer an advantage.
Now for a couple of runs on the PF-9.
Using a mix of FMJ and HP, I got the following results first on the lower left diamond, and then the upper right one:
YouTube - pf9group1
YouTube - pf9slow2
So both pistols can be accurate, or at least accurate enough at working ranges. Well, let's test the issue of reloading and staying in a fight that lasts more than a few rounds.
Rapid Reload Test (Might have to Hit the BG more than Once!)
642 with a speed strip:
YouTube - 642speedstrip
Yes, I could shorten that reload time with practice, but it might only be cut by half under good circumstances and I cannot imagine pulling it off under fire. Frankly, I would be grabbing a knife to hold me over while I tried a reload.
And the PF-9:
YouTube - pf9reload
Yup, that is the reason for the season. More rounds, faster reloads. Period.
Reliability Test ("Oh, No!" or Staying in the Fight)
My 642 has never failed to fire, ever. Even if I had a bad round all I would need to do is pull the trigger again on a new round and go! At the same time, that would still be tragic as a 5 round payload would be reduced to 80%!
So, in nearly 80 rounds fired, did I have any failures? Yes, one:
YouTube - pf9malfu
What happened was the slide did not activate the trigger but had cycled a round into the chamber. It took a few seconds for me to process the info and move on. While it was a failure, it was a fast one to fix and I was right back into the swing of things. Another 500 rounds will tell if this is a 1.5% failure rate or less/more. Concerning, but not yet damning.
Now, for some Fun (AKA let's move and shoot some!)
I have no formal training at all in move and shoot. All I know comes from youtube, books, and getting laughed at by Rhino at Wabash Vally IPSC shoots. But I do test a few things now and then. One is the ability to shoot while retreating from a threat:
Backpeddling tests!
642
YouTube - 642 Making Space Drill
PF-9
YouTube - pf9back
I ran out of 9mm at this point (other than a reserve for actual carry) so I could not to a move and reload test. But since I had a few more wadcutters, I figured I would try a side to side test (I am no esrice, but I am willing to try):
YouTube - 642 Side to Side Experiment
(Note: I pulled the trigger two times on empty because I had not processed the pistol was empty, I was focussed on moving. I wonder if a locked slide would have caught my attention sooner?)
And then I was out of ammo, and out of time. Quickly I gathered up ammo, took down the camera and tripod and raced off to my next appointment in the real world of kids and family.
So, results:
1. Both firearms were matched in slowfire accuracy. The 642 had a greater propensity for first shot being very high if I was rushing it and it was slower to acquire the target, but these could be fixed with more practice. The PF-9 however, is a firearm that I would be more inclined to practice with as the 642 has a less fun firing experience.
2. The PF-9 wins the reload race hands down and gains in rounds carried. It is also just plain old more familiar in function.
3. The PF-9 did have a malfunction which only reminds me of the reason I like the 642 - it goes bang every time. I will need to run another 500 rounds in the PF-9 to know just what I can expect from it.
4. The PF-9 may just usurp the 642 but has to do a bit of proving first. I think many more rounds need tested and next time I will do accuracy tests based on quick fire and quick acquisition (while trying not to shoot the camera) and I will kill some watermelons (a.k.a. hillbilly ballistic gel) as well.
5. I had a ball.
Techres
P.S. Thanks to tyler34 for stopping by and saying "Hi!" and also for not being angry that I was in such a rush and had little time to chat. Time is always fleeting these days...
Last edited:
