I know a fellow here on the forum who has both guns, name of gb_in_tx.
I notice he hasn't chimed in yet, but I know that he has owned the 9UC
for several years and now he's moved on to the pf9, and he seems to
like it better because of the slimmer single stack design, IIRC.
Well, actually, I never have had a T9UC. Mine was a T9FS, its bigger brother. That said, I consider them to be apples and oranges, if ya' catch my drift. Different guns intended for different niches. FWIW, my PF-9 has now become my daily carry, it has been flawless since its initial break-in range trip. No issues at all since that first range session. I just happen to be carrying it right now, for that matter.
Since I've never actually had a T9UC, I can't give any direct feedback on them. That said, they are supposed to be quite similar to their larger sibling which I have had first hand experience.
Triggers & safeties -- the T9s have DA/SA triggers, which make them nice for a range gun but may cause some shooters trouble regarding the DA to SA trigger transition. If I were to be carrying one, I'd be sure to practice with BOTH triggers, not just SA as is the tendency when shooting at the range. BTW -- the PT-92 which I replaced the T9FS with has the capability of being carried C&L which largely negates that issue, the T9s do not have that capability. The T9s safety double as the deco.cker, engaging the safety deco.cks the pistol. In general, the T9 trigger is pretty nice, other than having a bit of slack when in SA mode. The PF-9 is a DAO and has no external safety at all, and doesn't need one. Being a DAO, it neither needs nor has a deco.cker. Being a "traditional" DAO, the trigger on the PF-9 is longer and harder than the SA trigger on the T9 -- which is not really detrimental to the intended purpose. Keep in mind that that trigger pull is also what makes it unnecessary to have an external safety. The trigger design of the PF-9 seems to favor those with more slender fingers, and can pinch on reset between the end of the trigger and the trigger guard. Thankfully, my fingers aren't that big around so it isn't really an issue for me. This brings up one big fault in the design of the PF-9 -- the lack of second strike capability. If you have a failure to fire, you can NOT just pull the trigger again. You have to manually rack the slide. Normally, the PF-9 is internally in a half-co.ck state and the trigger is NOT able to co.ck the hammer if it happens to be completely deco.cked. Normally, this isn't an issue -- unless you happen to have ammo that has hard primers, like that Wolf junk. The T9s, being "traditional" DA/SA do not have the 2nd strike issue that the PF-9 does -- the DA trigger WILL work just fine when the gun is completely deco.cked, for that matter that is the way it is designed to work.
Magazine/capacity -- The T9s are double stack fed and thus have higher capacity than the single stack PF-9. That said, the PF-9 holds 7+1 for a total of 8 rounds which I happen to feel is enough to get the SD job done -- just like the same 7+1 capacity of the T380 is also enough to get the SD job done. Especially since when carrying it I also carry a spare mag. FWIW, factory single stack mags for the PF-9 are less expensive than what I paid for factory mags for my T9FS -- and I do mean a whole lot less expensive. And, the dealer had them in stock, no problem.
Sights -- the sights on both guns are useable, and are low profile so as to not be prone to snagging.
Size & weight -- here the PF-9 wins, hands down. --> Less than 13 oz empty. <-- A bit smaller in length and height than a T380, and it is less than 1" thick -- and that's SKINNY! It hides like you won't believe! This gun is so easy to carry, you forget you have it. Ok, so the grip is slim -- that means that it isn't pleasant to shoot. So what? It is a carry gun, not a range gun. It is controllable, and that's all that I really care about. I have other guns that are "range guns", the PF-9 is now a "Carry much, Shoot little" gun -- maybe a box at the range and that's it, I switch over to something else for the bulk of my shooting. OTOH, the T9UC is more of a jack of all trades, master of none kind of gun. It is a much better option for someone who only wants one gun, and is arguably a better option for someone who is new to shooting. It is small enough to be carried, but is nowhere near as small or light as the PF-9. Again, it is more of a general purpose gun, and much more suitable for sustained use as a range gun. Same thing for the weight -- the heavier T9 is more suited for sustained range use where the featherweight PF-9 really shines for daily carry.
Ergonomics -- here the T9 wins, to an extent. It depends on what you want the gun for. I find that the thicker double stack grip of the T9 fits my hands much better than the thinner PF-9 grip, and that is important in a sustained shooting range gun. The (much) thinner PF-9 grip does make for unpleasant shooting, I've found that when shooting 100+ rounds at a time through it I get a blister on the 2nd knuckle of my thumb -- not an issue with heavier, double stack guns. On a "shooting gun" like the T9, the extra width is a plus, but on a "carry gun" like the PF-9, the skinniness of the gun is a plus -- again, it all depends on what you wanted the gun for in the first place. I find that the ambi- safety/deco.cker is convenient on the T9 (as it is also on my PT-92), especially since I am a southpaw and "switch-hit", I practice shooting either handed. OTOH, safety placement is a non-issue on the PF-9, it has no safety at all. The PF-9, like all other KelTec handguns, is designed to minimize snagging. I feel that it would have been better if KelTec had left off the accessory rail which does have the potential of snagging. That is one thing that is better about the PF-9's older sibling, the P-11 -- no rail to snag.
Accuracy -- here the T9 is the winner, but again keep in mind the intended purposes of the guns. I found my T9FS to be a tack-driver. Ragged hole accuracy, and I understand that the T9UCs are no slouch in that department. However, I've found that my PF-9 is no tack driver. I'm confident that I can consistently hit the "boiler room" of the torso of a BG at 7 yards with it, and I know it will do better if I were to slow down and spend more trigger time with it -- but then again, "minute of BG" accuracy is all that is needed for the gun anyway. I don't practice with the PF-9 for accuracy, I practice getting off timely boiler room hits since that is its intended mission. I've got other guns for ragged hole accuracy -- for that matter, ALL of my other guns are capable of ragged hole accuracy, come to think of it.
Other things:
The T9s have an alloy frame, which is a good trade-off between sturdiness and weight, and I happen to like the aesthetics of them. The PF-9 is a polymer frame gun. I don't happen to care for the looks of it, or of any other polymer framed gun. Not only that, but the finish on the PF-9 is kinda crude looking. Objectively, however, I know that aesthetics mean little in a carry gun. It may be homely and it may have a "wartime finish" (if ya' know what I mean), but nobody is looking at it anyway. It isn't for show, it is a no nonsense tool for self protection. I've got pretty guns, but that isn't why I have the PF-9.
I would like to give points to KelTec for making available a NICE factory add-on for the PF-9, one that is available for all of their other handguns, and one that I got and am very happy with. And that is the belt clip. I got mine right after buying the gun, and I really like it. I don't bother using a holster with it when carrying it IWB as I usually carry it. Honestly, Bersa -- you need to do something like this for the single stack T380CCs, even though you might need to rethink having the external trigger linkage.
All told, comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges, as I've already pointed out. The T9(UC) is more of a conventional, jack of all trades compact pistol. Its form factor makes it viable as a smaller "duty" gun, or as a conventional compact form factor CCW. The PF-9, however, is a much smaller and lighter package that is better suited to pocket carry, discreet IWB, or as a BUG. It is intended to fill the niche that is usually held by the likes of the small polymer framed Kahr, or as a semi-auto alternative to the extra light alloy J frame .38s. It fills that niche VERY well, being lighter and having an extra round than the Kahr and with 8 rounds of 9mm has much more useable "firepower" than the 5 shot wheelgun in a similar size/weight package. For that matter, it stands up pretty well when compared to the J frame .357 Mags in total useable firepower.
Between the 2, if I were to have 1 gun, I'd be more likely to pick the T9 as a general purpose handgun. I'd be more likely to suggest a T9 for a new shooter (although I still lean towards either a .22lr if the shooter is willing to commit to getting a better gun in the future, or a .38 Spl/.357 Mag medium frame revolver for an only gun). But, for a gun that I'd want to carry 365, the KelTec gets the nod, no doubt about it. It is just so light and easy to carry, and yet packs a no nonsense, 8 rounds of 9mm punch. The KelTec is NOT a gun I'd suggest for a new shooter, and it is NOT a gun I'd want to have for an only gun. But for the experienced shooter, it IS a gun that is a dream to carry day in and day out.
I'm one and the same as gb_in_ga, so add a bit over 900 to my post count...