# Introducing The Ruger Ccw .380



## bluehandgun (Jul 13, 2007)

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firea...terfire Autoloading&famlst=64&variation=P345®


----------



## nukehayes (Sep 22, 2006)

Well, it looks like they took a KT P3AT and stamped their logo on it. A little bigger too, not really impressed, probably costs more than the KT. :?


----------



## bluehandgun (Jul 13, 2007)

for ruger it is a big step. this will most likely mean smaller versions of the sr series, etc. 

ruger is finally entering the ccw market.

rugers are well made, affordable guns. i would buy a ruger with no hesitation... a keltec? how's never? 

way to go ruger.


----------



## hideit (Oct 3, 2007)

wonder if Ruger really will make it so reliable that kel tec will loose a lot of sales

i heard they make close to 900 3AT's a week with lifetime guarantee so...
has Ruger really done it?


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

I have the KT-3AT and in my area they are about $100 bucks cheaper than the LCP. Since the frist 50rds in my KT it has been totally A-OK.


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

I think it looks awesome.


----------



## Black Metal (Jan 16, 2008)

Another poly striker fire compact whoopitydo


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 9, 2006)

No instruction manual, so no way to tell how to break it down.

But looking at the exploded view, it looks suspiciously like my Keltec.

I'd like to get my hands on one and compare it with my Keltec.

WM


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Well, Ruger is never innovative. They basically take proven designs and make rugged and reliable versions of same. Witness the Mini-14, a shrunken Garand. Their DA revolvers aren't startlingly original, except they can be field-stripped. Their SA revolvers are basically modernized Peacemakers. The P85 was about twenty years late, as was the SR9. Now they are basically copying an innovative KelTec model.

If it's reliable, it should be a good gun. I don't know why I'd prefer it to my KelTecs, which are both totally reliable and inexpensive. If Ruger had made this in a more serious caliber - 9mm or .40 - they might have something. As it stands now, I don't see what it does that a P3AT can't do.

I will continue to pursue my mild interest in the KelTec PF9 instead of Ruger's late entry in the .380 sweepstakes.


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

From the looks of them I would say they break down the same as a KT.


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Well, Ruger is never innovative. They basically take proven designs and make rugged and reliable versions of same. Witness the Mini-14, a shrunken Garand. Their DA revolvers aren't startlingly original, except they can be field-stripped. Their SA revolvers are basically modernized Peacemakers. The P85 was about twenty years late, as was the SR9. Now they are basically copying an innovative KelTec model.
> 
> If it's reliable, it should be a good gun. I don't know why I'd prefer it to my KelTecs, which are both totally reliable and inexpensive. If Ruger had made this in a more serious caliber - 9mm or .40 - they might have something. As it stands now, I don't see what it does that a P3AT can't do.
> 
> I will continue to pursue my mild interest in the KelTec PF9 instead of Ruger's late entry in the .380 sweepstakes.


True, true. Ruger is well behind the curve. Still, improving on proven designs is the best way to design anything. See also Ford F150 -> Toyota Tundra. I'd like to see Ruger come out with a genuine sub-compact in 9mm as well.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Snowman said:


> True, true. Ruger is well behind the curve. Still, improving on proven designs is the best way to design anything. See also Ford F150 -> Toyota Tundra. I'd like to see Ruger come out with a genuine sub-compact in 9mm as well.


Agreed, and I'm not criticizing Ruger for using proven designs as a basis for their guns. I just don't see what this one will do that my P3AT can't do for less money - but maybe it will have a better trigger or last longer than a KelTec.

I remember when Ruger introduced the SP101 as a concealed carry gun. It was in a market that already had good snubbies like the J-Smith and the D-Colt, but the SP101 carved a nice niche for itself. Maybe this gun will do the same.

But I want a reliable 9mm pocket gun that costs less than an AR15. :mrgreen:


----------



## hideit (Oct 3, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Agreed, and I'm not criticizing Ruger for using proven designs as a basis for their guns. I just don't see what this one will do that my P3AT can't do for less money - but maybe it will have a better trigger or last longer than a KelTec.
> 
> I remember when Ruger introduced the SP101 as a concealed carry gun. It was in a market that already had good snubbies like the J-Smith and the D-Colt, but the SP101 carved a nice niche for itself. Maybe this gun will do the same.
> 
> But I want a reliable 9mm pocket gun that costs less than an AR15. :mrgreen:


all good points
if it doesn't have a better trigger etc etc then why would someone buy it for more $$ than the 3AT

mike- then you are implying that there is not a pocket 9mm that costs less than an ar15?


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

hideit said:


> mike- then you are implying that there is not a pocket 9mm that costs less than an ar15?


The true pocket 9mms I'm aware of are the Rohrbaugh R9 ($1100), the Kahr PM9 ($600ish), and the KelTec PF9 ($300ish). While I am confident the first two are reliable, they are pretty pricey. I am concerned about the reliability of the PF9, but I will probably buy one to try out when I get back home. It's only $300, after all, which isn't much for a gun. If it doesn't work, I'll likely just stick with my P3AT.

I was mainly joking about the AR price comparison, though the KelTec is the only one not in that general price range. I don't even have any ARs anymore. I sold all mine and have no interest in getting any more.


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> But I want a reliable 9mm pocket gun that costs less than an AR15. :mrgreen:


Me and you both. When one finally comes out they'll sell like hot cakes.

If only the new Walther was ~ $450...


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2008)

I remember many years ago Ruger came out with the transfer bar safety system and they also re-energized the single action revolver market and as they matured as a company the innovation stopped. Their focus seemed to change to we can make it stronger and reliable. They now seem to realize how far back they have fallen in the marketplace as their marketing group dropped the ball.

Back to the topic I'm not big on mouse gun calibers but would consider a similar sized 9 MM.


----------



## forestranger (Jan 20, 2008)

Have owned 8 Rugers in my life. Have 4 now. Had some problems with one but after two trips to factory, Ruger fixed it. Have 4 Kel Tecs including P3AT. None have had to go home for repairs and they get shot and carried regularly. None of my Rugers are well suited for cc. Whether the new Ruger is a Kel Tec ripoff, better, worse, etc., I'm kinda glad to see them jump into small affordable ccw arena. I'd like to see them try a small 9mm too. :smt1099


----------



## wild cat mccane (Aug 19, 2007)

When you compare the internal parts to the p3at there are only 2 new parts added. One for the manual ejector (it doesn't lock back on the last shot) and one other...

check out the KTOG site. its amazing. I would be amazed if this gun isn't taken off the market after a good and deserved suing from Kel Tec.


----------



## wild cat mccane (Aug 19, 2007)

lots of pf9 talk. 

My first gun and it has been nothing but fantastic. 

I believe either I have a fluke or you are just hearing a few loud people on the build quality. aren't they at like 20,000 of them already? 

There is no need improvements on the newest models, and they are the only ones in most stores currently.


----------



## spacedoggy (May 11, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Well, Ruger is never innovative. They basically take proven designs and make rugged and reliable versions of same. Witness the Mini-14, a shrunken Garand. Their DA revolvers aren't startlingly original, except they can be field-stripped. Their SA revolvers are basically modernized Peacemakers. The P85 was about twenty years late, as was the SR9. Now they are basically copying an innovative KelTec model.


Right on the money. I wonder if their plan is to try to improve on proven models. Take Joe Blow, he went to a gun show and wanted a pocket 9mm. One of the vender's had both the Ruger LCP and the Kel-Tec P3AT. If priced the same chances are he would go for the Ruger because the finish looks a lot nicer and the Ruger name. Now Spacedoggy is looking at the new Ruger and wants to see if he should sell his Kel-Tec for the new Ruger. He sees that the new Ruger's finish is 100 times better than the Kel-Tec but he knows that's not important because he is not going to hang it on the wall. The only way he will give up his Kel-Tec is if the Ruger has a great new action where it's really smooth and improves his shooting skills with the little pocket pistol.

The action is the only thing that would make me even look at this new piece and just plain curiosity.

I really would like to see Ruger come out with some thing new and exciting in the auto pistol market. They need to work themselves out of the box.


----------



## hideit (Oct 3, 2007)

i read on another forum that there will not be a law suit
turns out keltec doesn't have any patents dealing with the 3AT

the look of the new ruger is a lot more easy on the eyes
my wife picked it over the 3at based on looks
it will be interesting to see what those magazine writes say about it in a couple of months


----------



## Willybone (Oct 26, 2007)

Snowman said:


> If only the new Walther was ~ $450...


AMEN!
I do not like the feel of the KelTec and the LCP looks so much like it. The PPS looks like a thing of beauty.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

hideit said:


> it will be interesting to see what those magazine writes say about it in a couple of months


That will depend on how many pages of ads Ruger pays for with any particular magazine. :mrgreen:


----------



## Mathias (Mar 28, 2008)

Night and day difference in the fit and finish of the LCP and Kel-tecs. The LCP just has a quality feel and appearance, the Kel-tecs do not. If you were to look at them both side by side, you would think the K-T is the cheaply made imitation.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Mathias said:


> Night and day difference in the fit and finish of the LCP and Kel-tecs. The LCP just has a quality feel and appearance, the Kel-tecs do not. If you were to look at them both side by side, you would think the K-T is the cheaply made imitation.


Nonetheless, my P3AT is 100% reliable, and that is my prime criteria in a defensive pistol. I really don't care what it looks like, since I carry it in my pocket or clipped to my running shorts.

I am sure the Ruger is a fine little pistol, but I still don't understand all the excitement over a gun that appears to only be a _very_ marginally improved (and in some ways not an improvement at all) copy of a gun that has existed for several years. I guess a lot of it can be written off to the lingering prejudice against KelTec in the shooting community. A lot of shooters think "real" guns have to be made by a company that has been in business for half a century or more.


----------



## AZ Outlaws (Dec 3, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Nonetheless, my P3AT is 100% reliable, and that is my prime criteria in a defensive pistol. I really don't care what it looks like, since I carry it in my pocket or clipped to my running shorts.
> 
> I am sure the Ruger is a fine little pistol, but I still don't understand all the excitement over a gun that appears to only be a _very_ marginally improved (and in some ways not an improvement at all) copy of a gun that has existed for several years. I guess a lot of it can be written off to the lingering prejudice against KelTec in the shooting community. A lot of shooters think "real" guns have to be made by a company that has been in business for half a century or more.


Welcome home!!!

Marginally improved? I'd say looks alone is a big improvement and think you hit the nail on the head about the lingering prejudice against Kel-Tec. I would not buy their products just because of their cheap looking build quality and reputation alone. Yours may have been proven 100% reliable and that's great, but there has been a lot written about problems the P3AT's had or may still have. Just take a look at all the F&B articles that have been written that many owners deem necessary to improve their pistol right out of the box. Some of it having to do with sanding and filing down the rough plastic seams... a big sign of poor workmanship, if you ask me.

Without having any prior knowledge of the P3AT or the LCP, if I was in the market for a small pistol, I would pick the one that looks better made and I would bet the majority of consumers would too. As for their reliabilty... whatever pistol I picked, a new P3AT, or a LCP, I would have to convience myself with some range time, that it is going to be reliable enough for it to live in my pocket as a CCW.

You being a die hard Kel Tec fan, I can understand where you are coming from. Your P3AT has proven reliable for you, so I see why you wouldn't buy a new LCP on looks alone. I wouldn't either, but I would give the Ruger's LCP a tad more credit than what you are.

One other thing I dislike about Kel-Tec... while they may have great customer service (Ruger's aint too shabby either) is their lack of initative to improve and smooth out the rough edges of their product. Case in point... my LCP which, is an early build pistol (S/N 370-0156X), developed the same problem many of the P3AT's have... which is the wear marks right under the extractor. As soon as the mostly "cosmetic" issue was brought to Ruger's attention, they changed their milling process to eliminate the issue on future guns. See the before and after pics below.

So, if you will... lighten up on the LCP a little and give Ruger credit for improving on Kel-Tec's design, ever how slight it may be. What Ruger has done is no different than other companies have done to the popular 1911... they improved and refined the original design.

Wake up Kel-Tec... it's time to improve your products, if you don't, others will!!!

Here are the wear pictures I was talking about that the early build LCP's share with the P3AT's.

Before....










After....


----------



## Dsig1 (Dec 23, 2007)

I do like the Ruger's feature of the slide hold. I always saw that as a drawback on my 3AT, especially with no "loaded chamber" indicator. Someone early in this thread said there was no instruction manual but there is a PDF of full instructions if you follow the first link to the product information and specs.

Let's let some "pro's" test it and we'll get the reviews. Until then, I'll carry my 3ATin my pocket.


----------



## AZ Outlaws (Dec 3, 2007)

Dsig1 said:


> I do like the Ruger's feature of the slide hold. I always saw that as a drawback on my 3AT, especially with no "loaded chamber" indicator. Someone early in this thread said there was no instruction manual but there is a PDF of full instructions if you follow the first link to the product information and specs.
> 
> Let's let some "pro's" test it and we'll get the reviews. Until then, I'll carry my 3ATin my pocket.


I don't know where, but somene did mention they have a LCP, but had no manual. All I can say is, mine shipped with one, and yes, Ruger puts their manuals online too.

LOL... were there ever any bad reviews of the P3AT, especially with the first generation pistols?


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

There was actually a great deal of internet discussion about early problems with P3ATs, which KelTec listened to, and corrected. This is why we see so many reliable P3ATs now. The P32 also had some early teething problems and KelTec corrected them. I don't know why anyone thinks KelTec doesn't listen to consumers and improve their products.

Some KelTec owners are tinkerers, just like 1911 and Glock and P35 owners all like to mess around with their pistols. The extend of my "mods" to my P3AT have been the belt clip and a cut-down Handall Jr. No "fluff and buff" was ever necessary, and I doubt it was required for _anyone_ who bought the latest P3AT generation.

I will grant that the Ruger slide device is a minor improvement over the P3AT, and if John Farnam's words about the better trigger hold true, that would be a more substantial improvement.

But using the 1911 analogy, what we're seeing is about like putting an extended safety and a crisper trigger on a stock Colt while dressing up the finish - and everyone getting all excited about it, treating it as if it's some revolutionary change rather than very minor tweaking of an already-good pistol.

Some people are more comfortable with Ruger than KelTec. I get that, even if the design itself is straight KelTec. But a copy is still a copy. It may even be slightly better than the original (though it is heavier, which I think is a drawback to the Ruger), but it's not some giant leap forward in pocket pistol technology just because it says "Ruger" rather than "KelTec" on the side.

I think it's a pretty ho-hum development technically. I think the more startling thing about it is that it may herald the beginning of a reversal for Bill Ruger's company, which previously held defense-oriented shooters in contempt.


----------

