.380 EDC Pocket Pistol

Screwball said:
Difference between hammer fired and striker fired… spring pulls a hammer forward verses spring pushes a striker forward. Different ways to skin the same cat.
Click to expand...

That's all it is. Something folks on the Innernetz obsess about, that shouldn't.

So, the hammer on all LCPs is enclosed. The only spot open is a slot in the back of the slide, which allows you to view the hammer position.
Click to expand...

And that's something that really didn't need to be changed, from the first release of the LCP to later ones. The original was perfectly fine for what the gun is intended for. But, Innernetz folks complained, so...


My buddy had/has a Kahr P380. Being he had to qualify with it, it had some rounds thru it.
Click to expand...

You do know they have a factory recommended "breakin period", right. 200 rounds, I think it is.

Between the Kahr and Ruger, I’m more of a Ruger fan. I have the original LCP and the LCP Max. Never had a major issue with either.
...
Higher round counts… I’d go Ruger over Kahr. Might piss some of the Kahr fans off, but just what I saw.
Click to expand...

I have an LCP ("Gen 1"). I have a couple Kahrs (purchased at some point, never carried). Would rather have a Kahr, mostly because the LCP is no fun at all to shoot.

With a broader range of choices, I'd probably be looking at a G42.
 
Kahr forum has a list of ammo that should work. My p380 did not work. It nose dived and stuck at the feed ramp at random with everything.

It is also larger in the pocket than the lcp bc it is not round melted at all.

I was heavy into playing with the original lcp, the p3at. While people talked a lot about pocket lint...i dont remember many or even a handful of claims that a p3at didnt function bc of lint. Never heard it with an lcp. Lcp gen2 is my fav true pocket gun.

P365 380 if you tolerated the bersa size.
 
Lcp is better. Flat out. Gen2 greatly improved the trigger. Hold open switch. Sold my 3 p3ats and now just lcp gen2.

Scotch tape over hammer area functions amd keeps crap out.
 
lee n. field said:
And that's something that really didn't need to be changed, from the first release of the LCP to later ones. The original was perfectly fine for what the gun is intended for. But, Innernetz folks complained, so...
Click to expand...

The cut in the back of the slide or the trigger?

Because if it’s the former, which is what the quoted part of my post touched on… the cut in the slide is identical between the different models of LCPs (don’t know about the .22). It’s similar, while smaller in size, to slide cuts on quite a few other designs.

Trigger… I have zero issue with either. The LCP Max has actual sights, so I can at least make hits further out than the original. While it isn’t a DA trigger, I do not mind it. Being in L/E, not every time I use the gun will be within arm distance. The sights, slide hold open on empty, capacity and trigger were the reasons I bought the LCP Max to replace my LCP (been in rotation since 2009/2010).

lee n. field said:
You do know they have a factory recommended "breakin period", right. 200 rounds, I think it is.
Click to expand...

I am very aware of the break in period.

That is why I mentioned that the P380 had some rounds thru it due to qualifying. I think we figured 2,500 to 3,000 when the issues started. And it was a few different failures… to include failure to extract, failure to eject and failure to fire. The F/I told him if he can’t get the gun fixed, he is to stop carrying it.

Once I rebuilt it, gun ran perfectly. And if I remember correctly, it did go back to Kahr early on for some production issue it had.

If I had to shoot a qualification course with a backup gun twice a year… I’d be over the 200 rounds within the year and up to 2,500 before some shooters would even get passed the 200 round break in (not tooting my own horn, but pointing out that normal firearm guys don’t shoot their guns a lot). For me, it is a deal breaker that I have to do more than a recoil spring change to get the gun to function.
 
PaulF70 said:
I had to look that gun up. Looks like the 9mm Beretta my cop father carried for 20 years. That gun was waay bigger than it needed to be. :)
Click to expand...
I carried a Beretta 92F in 1987-90 when I was stationed overseas. The weather there called for jackets and suits as daily wear. The size and weight never bothered me. Rather it felt comforting, considering the venue. The Cheetah but feels the same way today, despite the difference in size. With the contemporary stress on micro sizes, these older guns are considered almost prohibitively large. Not to me. I'm used to them and find them comfortable in every way. I know, the paradigm has shifted towards smaller, but not that much for me. For me a good small gun would be the Walther PPS M2. I won't go micro.
 
Last edited:
I can assure you all that the 1911's hammer was meant to be cocked. It was not required to be cocked, but could be cocked/decocked as the user wanted.
Where do people come up with this stuff?
 
PaulF70 said:
I do not endorse the statement but I've seen it in print.
Click to expand...
But look at the evidence.

First, the 1911 has an exposed hammer rather than the enclosed hammer of the 1903 "Hammerless".

Second, the 1911 hammer was a flattened spur type rather than any other shape.

Third, the surface of the hammer was scored to increase the surface area as well as give a more positive purchase.

The evidence present in the design says it was designed to be thumb-cocked while other evidence shows JMB certainly knew how to design a handgun that was not meant to be thumb-cocked and even that it was possible to have the handgun striker fired with no hammer as in his Vest-Pocket design.
 
Dealing with the original question, I would pick the LCP Gen 2 over the Kahr because much better chance of being reliable. None of the four Kahrs I owned (past tense intentional) could be trusted for defensive carry, with my P 380 being by far the worst.

I think Kahr builds its guns too tight, and the geometry of the tiny P380 does not allow enough margin for error/variation in ammo for reliable cycling. If Kahr had built a .380 with the barrel length of the K9/P9, that probably would be a more reliable design.

LCPs aren’t perfect, but the Gen 2 improved the trigger and sights over the original, and the LCP Max is even better/easier to shoot. My Max took a few hundred rounds to be reliable, but finally broke in. Ruger’s QC isn’t fantastic, but the basic LCP design should be worked out by now.

Your prejudice against strikers I think precludes your considering the two best choices for your needs: Glock 42 and the new SIG P365 .380. Much more accurate, comfortable, and likely more reliable than what you are considering. Both enough smaller than the Bersa to hide in a pocket. I pocket carried my 42 and still carry my 365 9mm in a front pocket with no issues. When my front pockets are super tiny, I carry one of my LCPs. If you choose black as the color, no one will ever see anything in there.
 
I have Colt Mustang that I bought when they first came out. It hasn't see the light of day since I bought an LCP. (Version 1.5) I pocket carried that every day for 10 years and recently upgraded to an LCP Max. My Max has been pretty much 100% with at least 500 rounds thru it. If you go with the gen 1 LCP I put white nail polish on the sights. That was a big help. I have small hands but I found the extended magazine makes both guns easier to hold on to.
 
Harry's Holster makes a good point that you don't hear much on the Gen2 recoil vs the LCP II.

Though the LCP II is heavier which should help recoil, I too found the grip shape made the recoil harsher than the Gen2 more curved grip.

https://harrysholsters.com/ruger-lcp-vs-lcp-ii/

I'm glad people like their IIs, but the gen2 is still being made and has a lot going for it as the smallest of the current working production pocket guns.
 
khegglie said:
Any opinions on the discontinued P3AT Keltec for pocket carry?
Click to expand...
I have the P3AT and the LCP. Very similar feel and function. I prefer my LCP custom, one that was between the original LCP and LCP II, it came with a red trigger and upgraded sights. I found that I needed to upgrade the recoil spring to get it to function reliably, but once done it was excellent. The P3AT is a bit more primitive, but the only upgrade I did was to put some fluorescent red paint on the front sight. The P3AT functioned perfectly right out of the box.
 
To the OP: If you like the 1911 feel on a .380 but don't want the single action, you might try haunting the online sites and gun shows for a Colt Pony Pocket Lite. It's almost the same as the Mustang, but, glory be, it's double action and hammer fired. I have carried one of these on and off for years. Two things: the out of box trigger is a bit creepy and gritty, so if you get one have a competent gunsmith do a trigger smoothing job, also I had my gunsmith replace the front sight with a tritium dot.
 
Ruger LCP Max, with 10 round magazine in a Galco Horsehide Pocket holster. 12 round magazine in another pocket. I use Hornady Critical Defense, completely reliable.
 
P3AT

Agree dannyb, the P3AT is more primitive vs the LCP, have both.
I'm tending to carry the Keltec more because it is Slightly thinner and has less weight.
Just off hand fired the Keltec, no flaws.
Some folks say these baby pistols recoil some but I think the non blowbacks are ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top