The Rohrbaugh Forum
Rohrbaugh Products and Accessories => Rohrbaugh R9 (all variations) => Topic started by: DDGator on July 30, 2004, 05:40:26 PM
-
Rohrbaugh Firearms has sent the following letter to Mr. Winkle in response to his recent review of the R-9s in Gun Tests magazine. The following is the letter in its entirety. My thanks to the Rohrbaughs for permitting us to post it here.
ROHRBAUGH FIREARMS CORPORATION
PO Box 785
Bayport, NY
11705
7/29/04
Dear Mr. Winkle,
I am writing this letter in rebuttal to your most recent review of the Kahr PM9 and the Rohrbaugh R9S. I am gravely disappointed with your lack of journalism knowledge, due to the obvious point that you should check to make sure your facts are correct, before you actually set your story to print. Since your article is full of erroneous information that is now propagated and perpetuated, I feel that I must point out these flaws and provide the correct information. I am sure you would wish to have accurate information to validate your article. I must say that I have taken offense to the lack of research, whether to read the instruction manual or contact our office with any questions.
One must preface this rebuttal by stating that the Rohrbaugh was designed specifically to fulfill a need in the pocket handgun industry. The true pocket handgun industry, not a design that gets close. Due to physics, one can only make the gun as small as the cartridge. Literally, the gun was drawn around a 9mm cartridge. Because of space limitations, several items were “too big” to fit and compromised the design reasoning.
Fact 1: I have been a subscriber for approximately one year, and I do read your magazine from cover to cover. Of interest, is your statement in which you categorically claim that you purchase all firearms so “as not to be beholden to anyone”. I am assuming that this is your magazine’s claim to fame and subsequently has been repeated in the industry. Yet, the R9S you reviewed was sent to you from the factory as a testing and evaluation piece. I should know, since I am the one who sent it to you. Subsequently, you returned the piece after your evaluation. Nowhere, at any time did you purchase the firearm. I would think, since your reputation is such that you purchase firearms, you would have had a disclaimer in the article that you did not purchase the piece and clarify your position.
Since you did not purchase this piece, you were sent one magazine. All Rohrbaugh pistols are sent with two magazines, one lock, an instruction manual and a lockable carrying case. You seemed distraught by the fact that only one magazine was provided and that thought was evident by the amount of verbiage that was used throughout the article.
I feel that at this point in the letter, I should point out a very salient fact (while we are at the beginning) - the pistol that was tested, by GUN TESTS, was the exact same one, Serial #R170 (see photos in the American Handgunner and the photo in GT,) that was tested approximately a month prior, by AH, and then sent to you. Ironically they seemed to have a different opinion of the function, accuracy and reliability. I might also point out that Serial #R170 was also tested by Massad Ayoob approximately one week ago at a workshop in Long Island, after you returned it to our factory. His opinion regarding the accuracy and reliability did not seem to match yours.
Now I could go into various descriptions, “in my estimation” of you and your report, but I shall stick to the obvious mistakes.
(Continued)
-
Fact 2: Normally, when I receive a new firearm, I review the manual to understand its characteristics. A simple perusal of the manual reveals several important points of this particular weapon. I should know, since I wrote the manual. First and foremost, there are only 16 major parts plus springs and pins. We design by the principle of KISS. The Rohrbaugh is double action only, not “SO CALLED double action only”, as you report. Either it is or it isn’t. I researched several gun digests and could not find this particular mechanical action that you describe.
I am sure you realize that the Rohrbaugh is essentially a 21st century revolver- i.e. hammer impact with full trigger pull and does not require a safety. This design has been prevalent for almost 150 years. A design that has been tested by time. On the other hand, the Kahr is a striker setup.
The trigger pull on the Rohrbaugh is an excellent mechanical design in the simplicity and the smoothness. I congratulate your photography, as I cannot remember ever seeing, in print or picture, the trigger spring and trigger bar. However, since I have over 5000 rounds through one of our test guns, I need to report that it is silky smooth and continues as such.
Fact 3: After test firing so many rounds, I have come to develop the proper grip for this pistol and can report that it can be shot with three fingers in a comfortable fashion. The ergonomics and orthopedic design actually sets the piece deeper into the hand for better absorption of the recoil and better force distribution into the forearm. I also know this because I am an orthopedic surgeon. Mauling of the hand is not a word that is appropriate for this firearm.
Fact 4: Because the Rohrbaugh is a true DAO, the trigger reset of the R9 is, and will be, longer after the first shot than the Kahr, which is not true DAO. After getting the feel, double and triple taps are easily accomplished. Regarding ammunition choices, the R9 is designed with limited breech dimension and will not run all ammunition, nor has it been claimed. Due to breech size, the feed ramp is at a higher angle than other larger pistols and subsequently cannot feed the longer 147-grain truncated cone. Research by actual R9 owners, (see the RohrbaughForum.com and www.TheHighRoad.org for results) has shown that HIGH QUALITY ammunition has been flawless. I submit that the frangible ammunition choices and the Winchester BEB were inadequate; however, the reviewer had no problems with the Speer GoldDot 115 and 124-grain bullets. These have been reviewed elsewhere and chronographed well and reported to be a fine choice. You don’t feed a Ferrari, 87-octane fuel.
Fact 5: Keyholeing. Nowhere else, in our testing nor current reviews has this ever been reported. Only with lesser quality ammunition was this seen and was commented, by you, that the ammunition was a probable culprit in those incidents, yet you perpetuated the fact that the rifling was the issue. It was alluded that the rifling in the barrel was inadequate. Our rifling is a 1:16 right hand twist - a standard for 9mm in the industry. Funny, this was also listed in the owner’s manual. Ironically, Roy Huntington and Mickey Fowler did not seem to have an issue, and consistently shot 2½-inch groups at 25 yards. I personally witnessed Mr. Ayoob place 6 headshots at 10 yards into a regulation IPSC target that could be covered by a silver dollar. Now this was the same gun in all tests, and Mr. Ayoob’s test was the gun that you returned. Imagine, the exact same gun fired by different hands - different results. There is no planned designed to limit the twist to decrease the recoil. I submit that the ammunition choices, or just “flinching” caused your problem. This has never been reported by us or other owners. On the other hand, we were able to hit golf balls at 25 feet, so I submit that the accuracy is pretty good.
Fact 6: Your description of the size as “slightly smaller” does not do the pistol justice, nor does the angle of the photography on page 11, in which the guns are side by side. True pictures reveal the exact size differences. (please see the RohrbaughForum.com in which Mr. R.J. Hedley and R9SCarry show direct comparisons) Thank you for noting the difference in weight; however, I do believe you scale needs to be recalibrated. The R9 weighs 12.8 oz. without a mag and 14.3 oz. with an empty mag. This information has been reproduced by other independent researchers. Again, you continue to harp on one magazine, where two are supplied to customers that purchase the R9.
(Continued)
-
Fact 7: NOWHERE, and I repeat NOWHERE, is any plastic or polymer used in this firearm, except the follower in the magazine, which, technically, is not built into this gun. I specifically refer to page 13, in which you state that the grip panels were made of a stiff, light, and durable polymer. The material is called CARBON FIBER! A simple review of the manual shows this information, or a call to the company would have easily answered this conundrum. Another misinformed statement regards the grip screws. It is stated that they are made of aluminum. Actually, they are stainless steel. By the way, at no time did a reviewer contact our office with any questions or comments. I guess they already knew the answers, but I would question the credibility of the reviewer who could not tell the difference between steel and aluminum. By the way, the reason that there was wear on the screw holes was that this was the same R9, Serial #R170 used by previous examiners.
Fact 8: Take down was a bitch. I agree that the first time it is true; however, with some practice and experience it gets much easier, as it would for anything new. No one ever said the first time is the easiest in anything and can be daunting at times. The first time one takes apart a Colt .45 or a Luger or whatever, it certainly gets easier as you gain experience with the design. Practice makes perfect. Just like no one shoots “x” ring the first time they shoot a gun.
Fact 9: The hammer is not flush. It resides in a recessed area at the back of the slide to prevent slam fire and cover drop-testing requirements. Ours was tested to 12 feet without incident. The trigger activates the hammer to bring it out of its chamber.
Fact 10: Where does it state that firearms need or require a slide lock? This design is by purpose to maintain the thinness for concealability and the smoothness for ease of engagement. When the action hits, and adrenaline is flowing, you will not realize whether the slide lock is present or not, nor will you care.
In all fairness, you do state that some shooters did like the R9, but you never reported how many shooters actually fired the piece and for how long. This is an acquired taste. Mr. Ordorica states that he generally does not like 9mm and seems to have been biased. Being in the medical field, medical reporting must be done in a scientific non-biased fashion based on accurate collection of data, accurate facts and accurate interpretation of the facts to draw a conclusion. I would expect that this should carry over to other fields and would hope that our industry can be held to a high standard. Now, I could rant and rave, but I would like to think I am better than that. If our firearm was evaluated accurately, compared apples to apples, and was found to be second place, then so be it. I can live with that conclusion. Of course, all of this “is in my estimation”.
In conclusion, I hope that the errors generated by this article are now revealed and corrected. You have my permission to print this corrected information in your errata. Please feel free to contact me at orthoward@optonline.net for any questions or comments you may have. We, at Rohrbaugh, are striving to produce a quality and reliable product and pride ourselves that we listen to our customer’s feedback, both positive and negative, to be used for constructive purposes.
Very truly yours,
Michael Ward
VP Marketing and Operations
cc: www.RohrbaughForum.com
www.TheFiringLine.com
www.TheHighRoad.org
www.KTOG.org
-
I hope you do not mind responses here, but BRAVO. I really appreciate the Rohrbaugh crew taking the time to address facts :)
-
I love the fact that it is the SAME GUN in all these reviews...should help quiet down the "Well, their QC must be spotty, some guns are good and some are bad" chatter...
-
In the past, I have found that Gun Tests produced more accurate reviews than a lot of the competition. As I posted on the North American Arms forum, I disagreed with the reasoning supporting their conclusions. Now, having read the above, my opinion of them has dropped several notches.
One of the things I was waiting to see before I buy a Rohrbaugh was the life span of such a potent, lightweight gun. 5,000 rounds through a test piece goes a long way towards addressing my concerns. My other concern was the lack of availability of tritium sights, which was addressed in another thread on this forum.
After a less than stellar review of the North American Arms .32NAA, Gun Tests printed the rebuttal from Cor-Bon but not the one from North American Arms. Whether or not I see the above letter printed in its entirety in the next issue or 2 will go a long way towards determining whether they regain credibility with me.
Re: Recoil: My North American Arms .380's recoil can be quite uncomfortable if I grab the gun exactly like I would any other, but becomes significantly more comfortable if I shift the backstrap over towards the knuckles. Maybe Gun Tests didn't figure out the best way to hold the Rohrbaugh?
-
Indeed, Bravo to Michael .. and dangit - an orthopoedic surgeon too --- quite a guy. Wow.
A brilliant letter - tempted tho he must have been to include invective it was just a well measured, factual and clearly constructed rebuttal. I cannot fault any of his statements and certainly - if all this was thru #170 ... and that up to 5,000 rounds .. I 'd say that for sure ... that GT report has a strong smell of fish. So very many inconsistencies.
As was said - heck - they could have cleared up a number of simple errors by the expedient of calling Rohrbaugh to find out. So easy but no - make a big deal of certain things and screw up on facts.
Is there such a thing as ''gun libel''?? George ... I know - made that up! But - the article painted aspects of the gun in a sufficiently bad light to lose the gun sales ..... smearing its name almost.
I have said before and in fact this echoes Michael's last statement ..... I am a fierce defender of this gun but at the same time, not in Rohrbaugh's employ and so if I see or find a negative I'll say so - that would be honest reportage. Based however on measured fact rather than lack of or mis information.
Thx Duane for posting that - more than glad to have been able to read it. Kudos to Michael Ward.
-
"....your statement in which you categorically claim that you purchase all firearms so “as not to be beholden to anyone”."
[quote from the Rohrbaugh letter]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was contacted once by Gun Test Magazine, asking how they would be able to get a holster for some sort of test / evaluation. I was aware of the above stated policy, so I told them where and how to order.
If they ever ordered, I am unaware of it. Guarding that budget, I guess.
I have *given away* quite a few holsters to Magazine "product testers" over the years. Only had one publish. They get a lot of neat stuff that way, I suppose.
-
I have no connection with Rohrbaugh, except that I have purchased on of their R9S. I do not defend a gun or anything else I purchase "just because I purchased it". In fact, I have NO PROBLEM complaining about a new purchase...go to the S&W forum and read about my purchase of a Scandium revolver I had problems with. In fact, I consider the internet the great CUSTOMER EQUALIZER for poor customer service or products. With that said, the R9S has met every expectation I had of the gun and more (except for the ugly blue grips IMO ;D). The gun has been totally FLAWLESS after 500 rounds, with no keyholing that I can see. I have a Gun Test subscription. After reading their article I was disturbed at the
obvious "one magazine" inaccuracy which was blatantly not accurate. I had previously been disturbed about similar inaccuracies in other articles such as the Wilson KZ45 COMPACT comes with a 10 round magazine. That also is not accurate. These are blatant inaccuracies I noticed right off the bat. It made me wonder what else was inaccurate in their evaluations. Now that I read they do NOT purchase their firearms as they claim, that is the final straw and I wil immediately be cancelling my subscription to Gun Test. This isn't some rahrah allegiance for Rohrbaugh...this is for the fact that I have noticed several basic inaccuracies in Gun Test articles, and now I find they lie to us about their purchase of guns. That INFURIATES me and it should everyone else as well. F@#$ them!! Thank you Rohrbaugh for making your product. You apparently read this forum since you had seen RJ Hedley and P9SCarry's post. I wish you every success and I know I am just one person, but I, and everyone else who owns one I imagine, will be complimenting your product to the people who haven't tried it yet.
-
8)
-
R9SCarry,
To answer your question, Rohrbaugh would have to show:
1) Gun Tests made a false statement.
2) They knew or recklessly disregarded whether the statement was false (I assume that Rohrbaugh is a "public figure" for purposes of public comment based on their advertising).
3) The false statement was published.
In the case of libel, damages generally don't have to be proven.
-
Both RJ and Bill can vouch that when I like something, I really like it.
As to the reply, I really like it. But, and there is always a but, I doubt that it will be published for two reasons: Its tone and length.
We, and by that I mean everyone at Rohrbaugh and here on this board, reacted viscerally to the Gun Tests review because of its factual inaccuracy (read--bullshit). I would have preferred a shorter response which just corrected the facts without commentary. Sometimes it is just better to let the facts speak for itself.
By the way, I use to subscribe to Gun Tests. I let it lapse because I wasn't relying on it very much. But, this review will hurt Rohrbaugh, exactly how much is yet to be seen. Let us see what the other reviewers will say about this gun.
-
Hello fellow members, I just joined this forum. When I read the rebuttal, I had to join so I could state how very, very pleased I am with my R-9s! I own several compact DAO pistols, the R-9s being the largest except for an AMT 45acp Back-Up.
Not even counting my AMT, as we all know how the action is on them, my R-9s absolutely amazed me by having the best DAO action of any pistol I've ever fired. The trigger pull is wonderfully smooth! It puts my N.A.A. 380 to shame. Although I've only had it for 2 days, what little I've fired it, I've found it to be as accurate as many pistols I've fired in single action mode. The DAO pull seems to make very little, if any difference in firing this gun accurately.
Thanks to everyone at Rohrbaugh for designing and producing such a fine firearm! I think and hope we'll all see many more calibers come from them, which also have such fine quality and fuction as the R-9's I'd love to see a 45acp the size of the AMT Back-up with the function of the R-9. What a gun that would be! :P
-
What a great rebuttal Dr. Michael Ward presented to that useless, misleading, and self-serving piece of drivel published by Gun Tests! Lo, how the pompous are deflated.
Thanks for posting that letter here, Duane. It has made my day! (Now, I think I'll go out to the range and run a box of Golden Sabers through my R9s just so I can field-strip the little masterpiece when I get home.)
RS
-
Gunner .. welcome to the forum ... and the ''owner's club'' ... :)
George .... I take your point on the letter's length but have an ambivalence on it - in as much as yes, shorter would have been useful if it were to be published but, to be honest, I really think Michael had to lay all the cards on the table.
Facts do speak for themselves but - in this case, the shere panoply of errors did I think need addressed as singularities .. thus of course in the end, the letter did reach epic proportions.
Overall, and even if it does not get published (would they in fact even bother to publish a shorter one I ask myself!!?) ..... I am pleased we have it to read ..... and hope it gets exposure on the net such that it can redress the balance somewhat for many who have been duped (IMO!).
-
Richard_S
I read your post up to this point, "NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT".
This must have been taught of the couple of those days I cut classes. I was told I would live to regret those times I spent on the lake shore, drowning worms.
If I will be billed for your clarfication, please advise in advance.
-
Duane,
Thank you very much for posting the Michael Ward rebuttal of Gun Tests R9S/PM9 article. I subscribed to Gun Tests almost since its inception. In the past, I have noticed inconsistencies in some of their articles and have put them down to differences in individual guns and reviewers.
After reading Mr. Ward's rebuttal, I am canceling my subscription to Gun Tests. They are not only as bad as the regular firearms magazines, but much worse since they do such a good job of pretending to be objective. The word "Slimy" comes to mind.
Frank
-
How about this: Why not ask Gun Tests to compare the Rohrbaugh with the Seecamp 380.
They are both pocket guns that retail for about the same. Compare apples to apples.
-
I just reread the reply. I still love it. However, boy was Michael pissed when he wrote it.
-
[size=13] However, boy was Michael pissed when he wrote it.[/size]
Quite agree George - and so I think would most of us have been in his position .. not to mention what Karl and Eric musta thought!
However, .. that taken into consideration - I think he managed to remain remarkably polite!!! As I think I mentioned before - one could well imagine the wish to include a few expletives! :D
-
I dont think they'd bother to publish a shorter letter either. The fact they were so sloppy with the facts in the test makes me doubt any printing of the letter almost 100%.
I too would like to see a comparison test of the Seecamp .32 and the R9 but I'm not so sure I'd want Gun Tests to do it. ;D
I dont get the chance to read gun magazines very often (too busy snooping around the web, ha ha) but would like to start searching for articles requarding tests of some of the guns I own and (in my opinion of course), see just how accurate they were.
Being a car enthusiast, I learned long ago the tests many car mags. published were biased and/or way off. I'd say Mr. Winkle had decided he wouldn't like the R9 way before he ever tested it.
Gunner930
-
Hi Gunner:
I use to get Gun Tests. They have published replies from manufacturers before. Overall, I did like the rag. I didn't agree with it always, but I respected their opinion. This review was different. It was sloppy. The review's author was lazy. He didn't even bother to read the manual. To compound the problem, they tested a pocket gun against a compact firearm. (It was like comparing a Volvo station wagon against a Corvette, and then complain that the Vett didn't have enough room for both the baby and the wife.)
-
[size=13]Why not ask Gun Tests to compare the Rohrbaugh with the Seecamp 380.[/size]
Now that George would indeed have been a much wiser choice for a comparison test. As you point out - the PM9 really- well IMO anyways too - does count much more as a compact as against ''true'' pocket, par excellence... or being charitable maybe even say ''sub-compact''.
-
RJ:
The motto can be translated from the Latin as, "No one attacks me with impunity." It is of Scottish origin and is said to have first appeared on the coins of James VI of Scotland (James I of England). It was emblazoned on the flag of the Richmond Rifle Rangers in the American Revolutionary War, is used today by some British military units, and is the motto of the Order of the Thistle. It is also often associated with Police Memorial Day in the United States.
RS
-
"No one attacks me with impunity."
Thank you for that bit of history, the sun is going down, but you made me smarter today that I was yesterday..
The way I would put it is,"Slap me if you must, but the slaps aren't free" ;D
-
RJ:
The motto can be translated from the Latin as, "No one attacks me with impunity." It is of Scottish origin and is said to have first appeared on the coins of James VI of Scotland (James I of England). It was emblazoned on the flag of the Richmond Rifle Rangers in the American Revolutionary War, is used today by some British military units, and is the motto of the Order of the Thistle. It is also often associated with Police Memorial Day in the United States.
RS
It is also the motto of the Montresor family in Poe's The Cask of Amontillado:
Here I knocked off the neck of a bottle which I drew from a long row of its fellows that lay upon the mould.
"Drink," I said, presenting him the wine.
He raised it to his lips with a leer. He paused and nodded to me familiarly, while his bells jingled.
"I drink," he said, "to the buried that repose around us."
"And I to your long life."
He again took my arm and we proceeded.
"These vaults," he said, are extensive."
"The Montresors," I replied, "were a great numerous family."
"I forget your arms."
"A huge human foot d'or, in a field azure; the foot crushes a serpent rampant whose fangs are imbedded in the heel."
"And the motto?"
"Nemo me impune lacessit."
"Good!" he said.
Ya gotta love Poe
-
Hello GeorgeH, I'm totally with ya. One must judge something for what it is. In my first post, I referred to pocket pistols as compacts. I do know the difference but at one time compact (to me at least) meant a pocket pistol. My first gun purchase was a S&W 6906 which I chose because it was smaller than most 9mm's at the time. I never thought of it as compact though. I do now know it is considered a compact just as my R9s is a pocket pistol.
Oh well, just correcting my error. If there is a place one should correct errors, Its definately here! L.O.L. :D
-
Fact 6: Your description of the size as “slightly smaller” does not do the pistol justice, nor does the angle of the photography on page 11, in which the guns are side by side. True pictures reveal the exact size differences. (please see the RohrbaughForum.com in which Mr. R.J. Hedley and R9SCarry show direct comparisons)
I'm sure I'll get dogpiled on by the partisan crowd in here, as usual, but.... I could not find a post by R9SCarry showing a direct comparison btwn these two guns. Don't know what Mr. Ward was referring to.... ???
-
Hi, the pics are under forum topic "Kahr PM9--Rohrbaugh R9s" a little ways down from RJ Hedleys pics. All are fine comparison pics.
-
Hi, the pics are under forum topic "Kahr PM9--Rohrbaugh R9s" a little ways down from RJ Hedleys pics.
uh, no they are not :(
-
Bandit
What are you trying to find ? Mr Ward referred to a lot of things.
-
Bandit:
There are a number of pictures in this forum showing a direct comparison.
-
Does anyone have a pair of glasses i could borrow? ::)
-
Gunner:
Keep the faith. And welcome to the Forum.
RS
-
Thanks for the welcome Richard and everyone else here! I'm learning alot from all of you. Always Faithfull..... ;)
-
I'm wondering how many of you actually read the article. It wasn't nearly as much a hatchet job as the response in this thread makes it sound.
They did point out repeatedly that the Rohrbaugh is smaller and preferred by some of their testers. They didn't state that the screw was aluminum, just that they hoped it wasn't. They didn't make a big deal out of accuracy, but keep in mind that the keyholing seems entirely consistent with how finicky the Rohrbaugh is to ammo.
And, as to why they didn't purchase one when their policy is that they do... read some of the other messages in this forum. It's not easy to get your hands on one quickly. The options in this case were either pay an extreme premium over list, not review it at all or get a press gun. Perhaps in the future the press gun should come packaged as if for sale, but even the single magazine was not made a big issue of.
I've been seriously considering a Rohrbaugh myself. It would fit nicely to my set of odd smaller guns, including a Firestar M43 and a Colt Mustang PocketLite. But the ammo restrictions and the need to stay in practice to avoid jams (which is well documented in a lot of places, including an interview with one of the brothers who notes that this is not a gun for novices) may place it out of my comfort range... in exactly the same way a Ferrari is out of my comfort range; fantastic, unbeatable tool if you'll put the time and training and effort into using it it's way. Trouble is, I tend to want to use them my way.
-
Tcat,
Welcome to the forum.
Most people on this thread did read the entire review -- in fact, it was posted here for a while before it was removed for copyright reasons.
This place of full of early adopters and Rohrbaugh enthusiasts who are very happy with their R-9s, so an enthusiastic response is to be expected. I have debated the PM9 v. R-9 issue to death here and in other forums and I still do not believe they are quite in the same class -- its an unfair comparison in many ways.
The R-9 is not quite so finicky as people may lead you to believe. It is clearly a handfull to shoot -- those (like me) who want to shoot premium 9mm ammo out of an 11 oz. gun tend to get what they deserve -- i.e., be careful what you ask for you just might get it!
-
Hi TCat,
I did read the article, and I was actually pretty shocked by it. :o
I had been shooting my Rohrbaugh for a couple of months, and was completely satisfied with its performance out of the box. No failures to extract, no failures to fire, accuracy "as good as I am" and the only drawbacks I noticed with the Rohrbaugh were ones I expected. It is a small, light, pistol, and recoil is noticeable but manageable, the trigger pull is long like a double action wheelgun, but very smooth.
Personally, I haven't found my own Rohrbaugh to be finicky about ammo, I have just always shot quality ammo in the Rohrbaugh and my other guns, and I think that goes a long way toward allowing any gun to perform at its best.
I did feel the article used the fact that they had received only one magazine as an unfair black mark against the Rohrbaugh and to me that indicated some unfortunate ignorance on the part of the reviewer, since all purchased Rohrbaughs come with two mags.
Well, anyway, those are my thoughts and honest reactions to your post, none of this is directed at you. In fact, welcome to the group. ;D
-
Thanks for the welcomes. Yes, early adopters tend to be very enthusiastic and dogmatic even, regardless of arena. And people who buy premium-priced items also tend to be very defensive, again regardless of arena... e.g. Mac computers, McIntosh or tube-based audio equipment, BMW autos, anything where a premium was paid and it's difficult to quantify the benefit based on the cost.
So clearly the R9 fans will be overly defensive, being as it's both a new item and brand and a premium-priced item.
What I'm trying to discern for myself is the actual frustration value of the weapon. My others are bone-solid-reliable and easy to use, although some of this is due to extensive reworking. The word on the web (i.e. at less partisan gun fora) is that the P9 has the following disadvantages, relative to many other similar weapons (e.g. Guardian series, Seecamp, Kahr PM9, Firestar, etc.:
- Prone to stovepipes, relative to others. Not that it will happen all the time, but it's a lot more likely with an R9 than a LWS380 or PM9 or M43, etc.
- Not +P rated. Which is not a problem if you buy and stick to a single recommended model of ammo as suggested, but may be a problem if you fancy a particular line. This is similar to Seecamp, but annoys me. I still am a fan of (and have quite a bit of) Black Talons for example. My HiPower was carefully ramped to be able to reliably handle Cor-Bons. (Over a decade ago, I hasten to point out.)
- Difficult strip-and-reassemble. Nobody has disputed this. It's an issue for me; I despise, and won't use, guns I can't easily clean after.
- Very technique-dependent. I don't have it handy, but I read an interview with the creator/co-founder, who was very clear that this is a shooter's gun and that less-serious shooters should not bother; it will be too unreliable and hard to use. I don't practice enough for that, unless I qualify on account of lots of shooting in the 80s.
- High-Maintanence, in that you are urged to replace the spring every 500 rounds. That's perhaps reasonable but it's gotta add up!
- Expensive. Not really an issue but paying a lot for something that will annoy you, well, that reminds me of marriage.
In fairness, there are a lot of good things said on the web fora about the R9 also:
- Smallest 9mm out there. By a lot more than the measurements make you think. Lots smaller than the PM9.
- Excellent accuracy if you use the correct ammo and good technique
- Very cool, feels really high quality
- Reliability isn't an issue if you pay attention and do everything right. Failures are your fault for doing it wrong and using the wrong (not cheap, just not correct) ammo
But that does bring me back to how much convenience I wish to sacrifice for my next gun. I don't marry them, I don't train frequently with them (although I do go to the range enough to stay competent), I do expect them to be wife-friendly (meaning she shouldn't need to learn a lot to use them). I think the Gun Tests article was largely aimed at non-partisan users like me, not dedicated gun nuts who probably have purchased four guns this year. And all the Gun Tests report said was about what I read online in fora anyhow.
Which still has me lusting after a P9s, but considering swapping the smaller size for the friendliness in ammo/use/stripping/price of the PM9 or something else.
I'll keep watching. Perhaps I'll wind up agreeing that concerns are overblown. But it is a lot to spend on a gamble.
-
Most people who post their opinions about guns base those opinions on their limited, personal experience with one gun that they happen to own, or have tried, or that a friend owns, etc. This limited experience is especially true of a gun such as the Rohrbaugh, which is new and still scarce. Obviously, this limited experience may be a useful tidbit of information, but it is hardly the basis to draw a definitive conclusion. So, with that said, I can only offer my own personal tidbit...I have fired @ 650 rounds through my personal R9s without ANY failures of ANY kind. All my shooting was with 124 and 115 gr. gold dots, and PMC. Should you buy the gun based on my personal experince..of course not! However, remember you are basically doing the same thing if you depend on an article in a magazine such as gun tests. You are hearing their opinion based on their limited, one gun experience. My problem with gun tests magazine is that they routinely, in my opinion, mis-state basic, crucial information. Consider their recent article describing the S&W 4040 as having a TITANIUM frame!!! Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that S&W might use titanium for the cylinders of some of their lightweight revolvers, but the frames of those same revolvers, and the frame of the 4040 pistol, are made of scandium (actually, a little scandium and a lot of aluminum). There is no such thing as a titanium framed 4040, although I would love to have one if they made it and I could afford it! Anyway, just an example...and there are many others!!! Personally, I did read their article on the R9s and it did seem to me they made a fairly big deal out of the incorrect statement that the gun comes with one magazine. As far as gun test magazine is concerned, I think you have to agree that, as I pointed out above, any evaluation based on one example is suspect based on sample size. While its interesting and informative to hear about individual experiences. the net forums are full of those without paying for a subscription. If I am going to pay, then at least I expect them (gun tests) to get the background and basic information about the gun correct! Otherwise, what they offer is worth no more than reading about my experience with my R9s, and I'm not charging you to convey that :)! I think it is much more informative and valid to consider the collective experiences offered on boards such as this one than it is to base a decision on one writer's experience...whether that writer be me or the gun test author. It appears to me that while a few people are reporting problems, collectively the information regarding the R9s is as follows:
1. With exception of people who have pin problems regarding the older type pin, the R9 is generally reported as exceptionally reliable,especially compared to other pocket guns of equal size;
2. You will not have key hole problems if you use correct ammo...Gold Dot seems to be one such ammo;
3. If you do have problems Rohrbaugh will definitely stand behind their product and make it right;
4. R9 is for people to whom size matters....there is little point in buying an R9 if you don't need a very small but powerful POCKET pistol;
5. the guns are expensive and hard to find.
Personally, I don't consider the Kahr to be comparable as a POCKET gun. I do consider the S&W 340, and the Seecamp 380 to be more appropriate competitors, although the S&W is obviously a revolver, and the Seecamp is of a lesser caliber. At least they are both high quality, reasonable options as pocket guns, while the Kahr is too big IMO for say shorts or summer clothes pockets. Not that it can't be done..its just not optimal. Am I trying to defend my purchase...maybe...but the fact remains that I personally have not had ANY problem, and the gun carries extremely well. And if gun tests had asked me, I could have told them the R9 DOES come with 2 magazines, the Wilsom KZ Compact has a 9 round magazine, rather than 10 as they reported, the s&w 4040 IS not MADE OF TITANIUM, ETC, ETC, ETC....
-
Well said JimACP..... I must say, at this point, I don't care if I have to use the R9S as a blunt force weapon!!!! Mine will be here by the end of this month... and I just can't wait!!! Let her jump, rip, and snort, I'm ready for her!!! I'm retired so disassembly time shouldn't be a problem!!! I love Gold Dots and have lots of em!!! I love pee wee guns that have tight tolorences and this one appears to be very tight!!
This fine looking weapon may not be right for everyone, but it will be for me, sight on seen!!!! I will shoot it well as I am dedicated to do so!!! I have spent 859.00 on many many things through out my life that haven't been nearly as impressive as the Rohrbaugh!!!
A happy R9S fellow forum member, you bet cha!!!!
An objective evaluation of the R9S, Nah, I don't even have it yet!!! However, sometimes a fellow just knows whats right and this gun is very right for me.............
You guys have a great Sunday and thanks for all your super posts.... Jim, (in the thumb of Mi.)
-
Jimacp:
Great post! My experience with the Rohrbaugh is similar to yours. I consider my R9s to be one of the finest pistols I have ever owned.
RS
-
Well, first its an "R"-9, but -- as for the rest:
* Prone to stovepipes, relative to others. Not that it will happen all the time, but it's a lot more likely with an R9 than a LWS380 or PM9 or M43, etc.
The failures noted in this gun (due mostly to use of the wrong ammo) were not in the nature of a stovepipe to my knowledge. Any internet chatter about that is wrong or misleading in my opinion. Heck, the NAA Guardians stovepipe on the last round of every magazine and NAA has billed it as a "hold open" feature! PM9s have their share of problems too, as you probably have read. I don't know what an M43 is.
Not +P rated.
Nope. Not designed to be. This gun was designed to be the smallest possible 9mm pocket gun. This invovled a serious negotiation with the unchanging laws of physics. Rohrbaugh, in cooperation with Wolff Springs, experimented by trial and error, and shaved every last .1 inch off this slide and spring combo to get this done. 9mm +P pressures would have required a bigger gun. If you MUST have +P, this is not your gun -- buy a bigger PM9.
Difficult strip-and-reassemble. Nobody has disputed this. It's an issue for me; I despise, and won't use, guns I can't easily clean after.
Its not as easy as a Glock. Not that much harder than a CZ to me -- except it requires a punch. More straightforward than a 1911. The first time is the hardest. Using any of the tools described on this board would help a lot. Its not that big a deal to me, and I am no home gunsmith and not particularly mechanically inclined.
Very technique-dependent. I don't have it handy, but I read an interview with the creator/co-founder, who was very clear that this is a shooter's gun and that less-serious shooters should not bother; it will be too unreliable and hard to use. I don't practice enough for that, unless I qualify on account of lots of shooting in the 80s.
I read the same interview -- and didn't think that was what he meant. I think he meant that shooting full-pressure 9mm ammo in an 11 oz. gun is not for new shooters. The gun is not technique dependant in my opinion. I have tried to limp wrist this gun and cannot. Yes -- lots of shooting in the 80s will be fine, so long as you can maintain trigger control on a small gun and not develop bad habits -- like a flinch.
High-Maintanence, in that you are urged to replace the spring every 500 rounds. That's perhaps reasonable but it's gotta add up!
No different than the Seecamp. Its unavoidable in a gun this small -- the spring wears rapidly. 500 rounds is a convervative estimate for obvious reasons. Changing a spring is not high maintenace in my opinion. Its an easy function when field stripping the gun. One spare comes with the gun. If you shoot your R-9 more than 1000 rounds, you have earned a free spring. I will send you one.
Expensive. Not really an issue but paying a lot for something that will annoy you, well, that reminds me of marriage.
I have been through this extensively here and elsewhere. This guns costs a lot to make -- all top quality materials made in a small low-volume factory with a lot of hand fitting and assembly. No plastic or MIM or cast parts. Its almost a semi-custom piece. Its also the smallest pocket 9mm available, and a lot of R&D went into that process. By all means, if you think it will annoy you -- don't spend the money.
I should also point out -- you say we are over-enthusiastic about our guns. Maybe so. Keep in mind, however, that much of the internet criticism you hear is also a product of human nature -- people who don't have the latest and greatest or think they can't afford it are overly critical. Call it jealously or whatever, but the guy who scraped to afford his PM9 wants to drag down the R-9 because he doesn't have one. I see all sorts of negatism about this gun from people who have never seen one. Such is life. Personally, I think anyone who can afford a $600 Kahr can buy a $900 Rohrbaugh if they really want one.
The R-9 is a high performance sports car. It costs more, but it is made to outperform everything in its class -- if you even consider it to be in a class with any other gun out there. You have to feed it premium fuel and keep it clean (but not unreasonably so). When used for its intended purpose -- it is a fantastic tool. Don't feed your Ferrari regular gas, don't forget to change the oil, and don't try to haul plywood home from Home Depot.
-
Good posts ..... which have covered a lot.
Let me just add ...... repeating what I put on my test #3 web site report, following discussion with Karl ..... it bears further exposure IMO, and includes some personal comments.
[size=13]The design of the barrel is such that there is a significant freebore of 0.250" - the reason for which being pressure control. As we all know I think, the 9mm Parabellum round is a high pressure round, even at standard pressures. This small delay before bullet engagement with rifling permits the immediate pressure peak to dissipate to a safer level - sparing the barrel/slide mechanism some extreme trauma. This is both desirable and necessary with the design of such a small gun using this round.
Further to this - it can probably be imagined therefore that not every bullet of every type will engage the rifling with absolute symmetry, per the example above. This then also explains why there are occasions also where a perceptible degree of bullet tumble is seen after exit from the gun.
I have stated elsewhere - this gives me no cause for concern, seeing as the likelhood of long range engagements is remote. It being much more likely that ''things'' would be happening within ten feet or so. At this distance I doubt if an assailant is going to make much complaint if he is hit by a 100% stable bullet - or one which started to tumble a little![/size]
-
Hi TCat:
You raised some interesting points. I understand them all, except for the stovepipe, which is new to me. My R9s has not experienced any stovepipes yet. And I haven't heard about it being a problem with others.
I've also read the replies to your post, and found them interesting as well.
But, you are comparing apples to oranges. When comparing the R9 to other firearms, there are only two competitors in the marketplace: The NAA Guardian 380 and the Seecamp 380. There is no comparable 9mm pocketgun. The Firestorm, Kahr PM 9, et cetera are compact firearms, but not pocketguns.
I have always used, over the last 14 years or so, frangible ammo in my pocketguns so to maximize their ability to cause injury to an assailant. Both Magsafe Defender and RBCD are standard pressure cartridges and it makes little difference to me that the gun isn't rated for +P. Yes, having the gun rated for +P would help in marketing, but Seecamp, didn't miss any meals selling a pistol designed for a single specific brand of ammo, and I own 3 Seecamps.
As to cost, have you priced a mid-level side by side shotgun or good quality rifle. If you have, then you know that the Rohrbaugh is cheap in comparison. While CNC maching is used to build the parts, the gun is hand assembled--one at a time--by one person and not an assembly line. When you look at other hand build guns, like Clark, Ed Brown, you will see that the cost is at least a third higher than the Rohrbaugh.
Yes, the Rohrbaugh is expensive when compared to mass produced guns, but then it was not intended to compete with those firearms.
The only reason that I bought the Rohrbaugh was that it is the smallest 9mm on the market. I wanted a small 9mm pocketgun. If there was a mass produced version as small or smaller, I would have bought it instead.
-
At least they are both high quality, reasonable options as pocket guns, while the Kahr is too big IMO for say shorts or summer clothes pockets.
Let me disagree with you here. PM9 is a good shorts gun. The R9 will be even better.
(http://www.glocktalk.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=2945406)
-
Tcat
You raised a flag with me on your first post. What is your point? Why are you here?
I can't get worked up over the fact that you don't like the R-9, nor the hundreds of words you have typed here to prove the other members wrong.
Could this be your purpose? You remind me of a dude named "Bandit"...
-
A tip of the hat to RJ - well said and to the point.
Sorry, Duane, I don't have a Ferrari but my little Honda requires premium. I don't complain or consider that a fault, I knew that when I bought it. The many pluses a 240HP 4 cyl 2 liter engine just make it worth it. Just like the Rohrbaugh, performance comes at a price, both in the purchase price and in the maintenance (ammunition or gas, its all the same). Great comparison, Duane!!
Not maybe, not probably, but definitely the R9 is not for everyone. That point has been made clear, both here and from the factory. I haven't seen anything that says otherwise. Haven't received the twins yet, but I also haven't seen anything that makes me sorry I nave guns on order, nor that makes me want to cancel the order. But the things that make it right for me may be distasteful to someone else. That's what capitalism is all about, isn't it? Freedom to choose what particular item we want from a vast selection available.
Nuff said on this. Back to RJ, we really don't need someone baiting members of this group just to get a rise. We point out the good as well as the bad, but all in an effort to help and educate our fellow owners and interested parties. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
PS Eric says I still have another month before the twins arrive
-
ahhhh.....dmobrien...good illustration! However, I have some shorts like those and a Glock 26 would fit in the pocket as well! You have made a good point that with the right clothes, a lot of guns are very concealable...however, I can assure you the r9 will fit in pockets the kahr won't...not knocking the kahr, but it IS significantly larger :D
-
RJ...
I've just read Tcat's two posts and although not jumping up and down about the R9 I didn't sense that he was trying to come across as a troll. I gathered that in his own way he was trying to discern for himself whether the gun was for him or not. Based on his observations I would guess it probably is NOT, but I'm not sure it warrents chasing him off with a broom.
In Tcat's case it is unfortunate that he probably cannot find an R9 owner local to him so that he could determine firsthand for himself if ithe R9 is for him. But then there are plenty of other folks, like me, who are willing to buy the gun sight unseen. As everyone agrees on - the gun is not for everyone.
BTW...I took my first of two R9's to the range yesterday for a first outing. Out of 100 shots fired with six brands of ammo I had one keyhole and two FTE - all with non-recommended bullets. The majority of shots fired were with recommended ammo...Winchester 115 practice, Speer GD 115 & 124 - and all was well. I knew before hand that I was in for a surprise with the R9 in regards to handling but was unprepared for it all the same. Wowzers...!!! At the end of the session I felt like I had shaken hands with Mohammed Ali - hand was stinging but had a BIG grin on my face...!! The R-9 more than met my hopes and expectations, and once I am more thoroughly familiar with the piece I expect it to become my year round, 24/7 BUG.
Again, the R9 is not for everyone (Tcat?), but I am happy to say it is for me...!...TW<<
-
TW
Just about every R-9 owner has posted a near shot by shot report on their experiences. Some have had no failures, some have, and reasons have been discussed. The Rohrbaugh people have demonstrated their willingness to do what ever it takes to make the pistol perfect as can be humanly expected.
Tcat seems to want assurances that can't be foreseen, he will just have to give the Rohrbaugh a try , like the rest of us..
My post was just expressing my thoughts on Tcat posts.
I didn't expect all to agree, and there were many other very patient responses.
I had just finished my nap, when I read his posts ;D
Keep on shootin'
-
Glad you're back online RJ.
-
Grrr.... I had written a detailed message and my browser suddenly vanished. Probably a mouse error due to a dying keyboard. Anyhow...
JimACP, I used to subscribe to Gun Tests for years, until about eight years ago. Cancelled for the same types of reasons you gripe about; I found too much opinion and too many errors. That doesn't invalidate their reports though, especially when so much of the rest of the world agrees. Just as I found Consumer Reports off-base so often, but still useful for some data. I went from very eager when I first heard about the gun to my current holding pattern as I await settling of the opinions.
DDGator, yes, the world agrees that the R9 is more reliable than the Guardian. But it's less reliable, says the internet in general, than the PM9. One question I'm grappling with is, is it a measurable difference? Or, more importantly, would it impact me? That's a lot harder to say. The replacement of springs is a bigger deal for me. More than half my pistols, bought new and at the time popular, are no longer in production. Should Rohrbaugh go away, the odds of finding replacement springs seems lowish. And even if they stay around, having to order said springs increases the annoyance factor immensely.
The high cost isn't really much of a factor to me. Cost is about what I just spent on earrings for my wife. But I'm only gonna buy one gun in probably the next two years, and if it's gonna be pricey I'd rather it be friendly as a result. I prefer the IDEA of the R9, but may wind up with a PM9 instead for the perceived reliability.
GeorgeH, I agree that there's no Apples-to-Apples comparison to the R9. Or to any other gun. Or to any car. Or any woman. So we generalize. And I agree with everything you said. ;)
RJ, you need some valium, me thinks. Don't seek enemies everywhere you look. My purpose here is simple: I've been researching these guns (compact pistols) a long time. I have ones that no longer are in production, though not as many as many other people here probably. I haven't bought a new gun in more than five years, and I will buy one in the next few weeks, so I wish to ensure I get the one that will annoy me least. Your defensive attitude is interesting, and perhaps warranted if you have regular troll members here, but makes you sound cranky and, well, all alone in the world. People can ask hard questions without being trying to "prove other members wrong"; they may be trying to knock the opinions against rocks to get the shells off, to find the nut (kernel) of truth and reality.
TW, the part I find interesting (beyond RJ's venom) is that you had the two FTEs in 100 shots and don't consider it an issue. (The keyhole doesn't bug me, my view being that if you hit the target, hitting it sideways isn't a problem. It's missing the target that's the problem. And gunfights are close range anyhow.) Yes, it was non-rec'd ammo, but how much does that constrain your options?
-
TCat,
I agree with you that the what you are talking about is the "perceived" better reliability of the PM-9. Many people here report 100% function. The two people who have had the most serious problems had a broken pin that has now been upgraded -- and both people where taken care of expeditiously by Rohrbaugh.
I don't follow the ins and outs of the PM-9 now, having sold mine -- but I know there was recently a signficant recall on them. I also know that many people bemoan the combination of a plastic mag catch and metal magazines that can shear the catch and render your PM-9 a singe shot pistol. Incidentally, I also know that my local dealer won't take a Kahr in on trade because he can't resell them.
How important is using recommended ammo? It's all important. Find a carry round that your gun likes -- for the R-9 it appears to be Gold Dots. I don't think anyone has reported any kind of failure using Gold Dots. Gold Dots are used by many, many federal and local police agencies and are readily available -- why not use them? My Glock 19 on the other hand, would choke on Gold Dots. Even Glock "Perfection" has its ammo quirks.
As for the springs -- I repeat again that you won't shoot this gun enough to have major worries. The springs are made by Wolff--probably the largest spring manufacturer in firearms. Springs should never be a problem. If you are worried, buy 10 springs and you will never run out. Maybe 5...
If the size of a PM-9 works for you -- its a more versatile gun. Larger grip, more magazine options, larger sights with more options (including night sights). For me, it was too big for pocket carry. If you are going to carry IWB, it is probably a good choice. That being said, I don't know how their customer service will compare...and see my comments above relating to resale value.
You are certainly welcome here and we will gladly help you decide, just realize you are coming into the lion's den and poking him a bit... ;D
-
" I haven't bought a new gun in more than five years, and I will buy one in the next few weeks, so I wish to ensure I get the one that will annoy me least." // Tcat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will make a prediction. When, and if, you ever manage to make the decision to purchase a Rohrbaugh, you will not like it. And you will go on to be the biggest headache the Rohrbaugh's have ever encountered.
Maybe you should stick with the Firestar, and stop agonizing over every opinion that differs from your own preconceived opinions. From your first post, you have sounded like a person that has trouble with purchase decisions.
Thanks for the Valium tip, I feel much more like conversing with you on your quest for a Carry Weapon that fits your "comfort range", but this will be my last post in this thread. Those little pills sure don't last very long.... ::)
-
I have bought and sold hundreds and hundreds of pistols... I consider it to be part of the pleasure of fine firearms. I enjoy target shooting and enjoy accuracy and reliability at highest levels.
I went through several hundred... and I know that does not make sense... I went through several hundred Walthers in an attempt to find one or two that were accurate and reliable... finally I did. It is the Makarov.
I went through many, many, 9mm small guns and finally arrived at the one that suits ME the best of all per my criteria - it is the Glock 19.
I have now made a decision to find my favorite SMALL 9mm, also according to my two criteria... currently the Rohrbaugh has no peer in it's size range - FOR ME.
One very nice thing about buying, testing, courting, and getting engaged to various pistols; divorce is easy and inexpensive. In fact generally I sell my used pistols for almost as much as I buy them for and have a bunch of fun in the meanwhile.
Wouldn't it be fun if we could do the same thing with cars! My son does that. He buys cars at auction, below wholesale, has them worked on a bit, details them, drives them and sells them - often for more than he paid. That is his deal. He always has the coolest, rarest, most high performance auto of anyone I've ever known. However he has only two keeper cars; his Jeep wagon and his Ford pickup. Meanwhile he has a couple of cool luxury, performance, status, cars at all times as well.
The Rohrbaugh is NOT the most perfect pistol I can imagine. I would like to have a similar pistol with a polygon barrel, 12 shots and made of some titanium, scandium, type alloy to keep it light. That pistol does not exist... yet. However, I enjoy the quality, performance, accuracy, reliability of the Rohrbaugh in the tiny form-factor and for ME it is currently the best there is. I've tried the rest and have several small 9s of other kinds.
Try it if you wish... Enjoy! ;D
-
TW, the part I find interesting (beyond RJ's venom) is that you had the two FTEs in 100 shots and don't consider it an issue. (The keyhole doesn't bug me, my view being that if you hit the target, hitting it sideways isn't a problem. It's missing the target that's the problem. And gunfights are close range anyhow.) Yes, it was non-rec'd ammo, but how much does that constrain your options?
>>Hi Tcat...
I don't consider the "problems" I experienced with the R9 as an issue because I was intentially pushing the gun beyond it's intended limits. Nor do I consider the ammo restrictions a constraint to my purpose with this weapon. Except for the odd practice session with the gun I intend to keep it in my pocket and forget about it, unless needed one day.
As a matter of fact all three glitches occurred after shots #75...and as I was reminded by the manufacturer this morning - this gun preforms best when it is properly taken down/cleaned/re-lubed every 50 shots...! So if this sort of maintenance regimen plus the ammo restrictions are beyond your tolerances - definately do NOT buy a Rohrbaugh R9...as you will not be a happy camper, guarandamnteed. If simplistic reliability is so important to you then buy a Glock 26 (I think that's it - the subcompact 9mm).
Lots to think about when contemplating an expensive purchase (The R9, not the Glock). Based on everything you have now said I have to agree with others that the R9 is probably not the gun for you. That is not a problem, but it is not a productive idea to wave the fact in folks faces around here...TW<<
-
TCat:
I have not previously responded directly to your postings, but after second thought I have decided that I should comment on the followng two comments you made with regard to my good friend, R. J. Hedley:
1. "RJ, you need some valium, me thinks."
2. "[T]he part I find interesting (beyond RJ's venom). . . ."
As for the first comment -- since you presume to prescribe a controlled substance, I must assume that you may be a physician. If so, you should know that Valium is the proprietary trade name (thereby requiring initial capitalization) adopted by Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. and the Roche Group of Switzerland for diazepam (C16H13ClN2O). You should also know that diazepam is a benzodiazepine used in the treatment of anxiety disorders, seizures, and muscle spasms, and that it is controlled as a Schedule IV substance in the United States. I know these things because I was one of the Washington attorneys who worked on the Valium scheduling proceedings back in the 1970s. I also know that my friend, R. J., has no need for any C16H13ClN2O. He does, however, share some of my own intolerances. Good whiskey in moderate amounts is usually the best medicine in those circumstances.
As for the second comment -- there is not the slightest bit of venom in R. J.'s being. He is straightforward and plain-spoken and has minimal tolerance for pretense. But venomous -- not on your life!
As the Administrator has observed, you are welcome here at the Forum. Be advised, however, that most of us who frequent this "camp fire" are here because we share an enthusiasm for what we consider to be one of the most extraordinary pistols yet produced.
RS
-
I will make a prediction. When, and if, you ever manage to make the decision to purchase a Rohrbaugh, you will not like it. And you will go on to be the biggest headache the Rohrbaugh's have ever encountered.
Keep those entertaining delusions coming, RJ. I'm generally a very laid back customer, largely because I do my research up-front. I've never contacted a manufacturer about a gun after buying (and I have a decent number.)
What I tend to be after is a very-well informed buying decision. And then, after buying, I don't sweat it. That's a decision-making style called "satisficing".
Not sweating it may be a foreign concept to you though. Give it a try. You really don't have to be unpleasant to be effective and to express your opinions.
-
Based on everything you have now said I have to agree with others that the R9 is probably not the gun for you.
Thanks, I appreciate the opinion. You may be right. I'm still deciding. There's a lot to be said for each gun (excluding the Guardians, which I really don't trust.)
I drove a very high-powered Italian sportscar for a while. It wasn't for me either; I was happier in a cheap Ford. I will contemplate longer, but I really do appreciate all the straight-up data.
DD, yes, the Kahr PM9 had a barrel recall. I wasn't aware that the R9 had a pin recall. Perhaps that's why so many (current) customers are happy while there was noise before. Happy customers usually don't make much noise. Any idea what the pin impacted?
What does IWB mean? (As in "carry IWB")
Thanks
-
O.k. O.k. Enough. I call a truce here. I would prefer not to lock this thread -- it has been linked to all over the internet.
This is a strong, supportive community. TCat, you gotta pay your dues here and earn a little respect before you start taking members to task over their strong opinions about the R-9. Your first post could be construed as hostile -- so you can expect a defensive tone. Expect the same result at the S&W Forum, the Ruger Forum, Glock Talk or elsewhere. I think you have gotten constructive answers to your questions -- lets let it go at that.
-
Since this thread has basicly turned into a free-for-all where everybody is speaking what's on their mind ;D let me add my $0.02 worth in as well :)
I purchased the MK9 (same as a PM9 except it has a steel frame) when it first came out. It was going to be my "always" gun. I wanted to like it. I tried to like it but I just couldn't. It didn't have a hammer. It was internally striker fired. And, it had no safety.
I had no clue as to what was going on in there. That's not entirely correct. I've seen the animated diagrams on how the gun functions internally. I even downloaded the animated GIF file. However, I still felt uneasy about carrying one in the pipe. Instead, more and more I found myself carrying it with an empty chamber which was not a good move tactically because when you really need a gun those few seconds that it takes to rack the slide could change the outcome of things.
As a result, the MK9 was spending more & more time in the dafe and I found myself carrying a J-frame instead. True, it also didn't have a safety but it did have a hammer that I could see rising & falling.
Eventually, I ended up selling the MK9.
I recently became the proud owner of a R9S. This gun is everything that I originally wanted the MK9 to be and more. Actually, less but in this case less is more :P
I am VERY happy with my R9S. In addition to being smaller & lighter than the Kahr, it also has a repeat striker capability which is lacking on the Kahrs.
A lot of people overlook this very important feature which is present on the Rohrbaugh but missing on the Kahrs. More likely than not, these guns will be used up-close and personal. If the gun should misfire, on the Rohrbaughs, all you have to do is pull the trigger again to drop the hammer a second time on the primer. According to Masaad, three-fifths of the time a second strike will set off most rounds.
Three-fifths ... that's better than fifty-fifty. With the Rohrbaugh I have a better than 50-50 chance of the round firing when I pull the trigger again. With the Kahrs, the striker has to be reset and if you're struggling with somebody, you are unlikely going to be able to get both hands free long enough to accomplish that task.
-
There was not a pin recall -- or any kind of a recall. There was a materials change from 440 to 17-4 PH steel. The new pin is available at no cost to any owner and is now standard equipment. The old pins are not considered bad and an upgrade is not required.
Two people experienced problems with the barrel pin that caused functioning problems. I believe those problems have been fully rectified.
IWB means "inside the waistband" and refers to a holster which attaches to the belt (by loops or clips), but the gun rides inside the belt and inside the waistband of the pants.
-
Well this is all very interesting to me. In talking with Eric today, I learned that I still have a couple of months to wait before I get my R9S. I haven't seen one, much less shot one yet. I did decide that the only way I was going to sort this gun out for myself was to buy one. If I find that it isn't for me, I'll sell it. No big deal, really-I'm not marrying it.
I have been searching all over this internet, checking into any number of forums, and comparing lots of different guns. It seems that every gun has its proponents and detractors. Plus, I haven't yet found any group that hasn't experienced some sort of problem with their "favorite". They are mechanical devices after all-they're not perfect like us humans.
I do expect that the R9 will be a challenge for me. It needs to be cleaner than I am used to. It has certain limits for the ammo that it likes.In short, it appears to be less tolerant of its operating environment than I am used to. That's the tradeoff one needs to be ready to accept with this gun and its tight tolerances. In return, I believe that you get the best caliber/size/quality package on the market. I NEED a pocket/deep concealment gun if I am to carry concealed at all. Other guns, which I have seen, are either a little bigger and, thus, a little tougher to conceal in a pocket with certain pants, or of a "lessor" caliber.
In short, I haven't yet found my "perfect" gun. Actual experience with the R9S will be my real and only guide. Hopefully, I'll be able to update you on my experience by Christmas. And to all, a good night...
-
Hi TCat:
"IWB" means "inside waistband." It refers to a type of holster worn inside the waistband of a pair of slacks. AN IWB holster is less comfortable than a belt holster, but is far easier to conceal.
-
"I did decide that the only way I was going to sort this gun out for myself was to buy one. If I find that it isn't for me, I'll sell it. No big deal, really-I'm not marrying it. " rtw
That's the way normal people do it. Like most of us here. I will try to say no more. :-X :P
~~
Thanks Gator, for calming the waters...
-
ttt!
I propose that this thread should be sticky allowing all visitors to read. Oldie but goodie!
Cheers!
-
I am STILL waiting for the refund on the remainder of the Gun Tests subscription I cancelled 5+ months ago.
-
I had to contact them several times when my subscription was cancelled.
Eventually, they did put a credit on my card account.
-
Well said. It's great to finally see someone stand up for the whole truth, and not some slanted, baised verson. It was long overdue.
DoubletapMike
-
>:(I've been reading everything I could get my hands on about guns since I was 8---now I'm 7 times that, and I found(and yes, I paid for my subscription) his reports to be slanted and boring---seemed to me that he'd pick a favorite and then show why the other one didn't measure up..... On the other hand-Mas is one of the most objective and fair evaluators I've read (I'M prejudiced because I'm an ex-cop and fhave often pestered training officers with his articles)...not surprised he could shoot it and would love to read an evaluation by him....This gun would be used at 3-10 feet more than 15 yards----and RELIABILITY is everything in a oh-sh--grabit gun.....sounds like I'm going to have to work harder-I'm not one of the elite target market but I DO have a birthday!!!!!! Happy birthday to ME--form ME!!!
-
speed-six - well, welcome from me to the forum :)
And - happy Birthday too!! (shucks, you are nearly as old as me! ) :D
-
speed-six:
Welcome to the Forum from another "Mas fan!" It's a great group of people around this campfire.
-
I have no't, as yet, ordered my Rohrbaugh pistol. I will probably soon. I thought it would be good to hear from a potential customer who was almost lost because of the article you rebutted.
Like most people now days I cruised the net before making up my mind. That article turned me off to the product so badly that I was about to buy a Kel-tec .380 instead (not that they are such great guns - but they are small). I wasn't about to spend over $1000 for something that I could not count on in a pinch. Really it wasn't even the money I considered most as I am, as they say, pretty well loaded.
I was taken in by the article and am very glad that I have been fortunate enough to be set straight by the rebuttal. It was long - and I liked that. It covered all the bases and satisfied me as to the bogus nature of the review in question. The rebuttal coupled with the enthusiasum of owners like yourselves sold me again on the idea that I must have this gun for concealment (I need a SMALL gun). If I had settled for a .380 instead, I'd forever be nervous about it's abilities to defend me. Now I don't have to compromise.
The rebuttal has done it's job and Rohrbaugh has another customer.
MARV
-
Good on ya, mate and welcome aboard when you do make
that choice. It is a wise man who listens, watches, and
changes a previous opinion.
-
I subscribed to Gun Tests based on the excellent Practical Sailor mag published by the same company -- I still maintain my Practical Sailor subscription, but think Gun Tests may be little more than a tax dodge.
As for my pup, been a dream, and a constant companion. Personally, I think we've usually maintained a pretty good decorum here, and... and DD called a truce, so I suppose I shall restrain myself.
-
I was just about to subscrid to the publication, I just got their advert in the mail.
This has just cost them one more subsciption!! :-[
Bryce
-
Old thread timely revived. 8)
-
hey guys, especially duane. i really want to thankyou for bringing the rebuttal article back from the archives. i left new york due to hostility in the medical field. i relocated to easton maryland and the quality of life has been phenomenal.
the only thing i miss about new york is going to the "fort", ie deer park. it is that little stress management testing room that just brings a smile to my face. ;D ;D ;D ;D
i have been in maryland 2 years now and am finally getting unpacked and i found my copy of the article i wrote. boy, did that feel good.
well, just wanted to thankyou for bringing another smile to the face. ;D
great site- been reading it for years
michael ward
-
MD you are lucky, LINY is crazy and I tried to move but was out voted by the Wife and Kids.
-
Hi friends, I have just joined this forum as a new member. Here is the link in which you can find the riffles with discounted rate. Make use of it..
-----------
GEORGE
sniper scopes (http://discountsniperscopes.com)
-
Im sold, I want a stelth. But how can I get one?? Maybe Mr DD has some connections for me . Thanks Bill Squillace 772-971-9100 Oh and by the way I also own a Khar 9mm Its not that accuret . Bought it years ago Ser. # 0069 Must be lucky!! carry as a backup