R-9 Review in Concealed Carry Magazine

[DDGator]

With the gracious permission of Concealed Carry Magazine (http://www.concealedcarrymag.com), my review entitled Rohrbaugh R-9: Pocket Pistol with Power from the September/October issue has been re-published on this site:

http://www.rohrbaughforum.com/ccm_r9.pdf

Please keep in mind this permission is limited to the Rohrbaugh Forum only, and may not be uploaded to another location, although it can be linked to here.

This will give all of you an opportunity to read my review and take me to task on it!  

[RJ HEDLEY]

Can't open,  check link  

[DDGator]

The link works for me -- it opens a PDF file.

[K-Man]

Works for me. Nice write up and pics.  

[RJ HEDLEY]

OK,  I'll wait for someone else to ask how to open.  

[K-Man]

Go here:

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/main.html

Download the Adobe Acrobat Reader - it's free.  (It's on the bottom of the main page.)  Then come back and click on the link provided by DDGator.

[9mil.mouse]

Nice job on the article, Duane. May I say that it's much more even handed and useful than "that other" article we discussed a while ago?    Thanks for allowing us access to it.

[TW]

>>Duane...  That was a very informative, well laid out article - great job...!  This is the first article I've seen on the R9 which really distinguishes what this gun is about and who is likely to appreciate it.  No hoopla and noise as most gun writers are prone to add these days.  It all adds up to cool beans...!...TW<<

[RJ HEDLEY]

Thanks, K
 I got it now..

[Bob79]

I read the article as well.  The cover reads "Gun Reviews" and under is listed "P-3AT" and "Rohrbaugh R-9".  The review of the P-3AT seemed more like a review in terms of looking at the gun objectively.  

Its my belief that the R-9 write-up was more of an "introduction to..." so to speak.  There was mostly information about the pistol in general, explaining what it is, rather than a true review.  

I don't think it should have been titled as a review, rather an informational article only.  I think Duane is too biased to do a true review (of the R-9).  I know I'm probably going to get blasted for this, but my purpose for this isn't to get anyone upset.  I just don't think its fair to write a "review" for a pistol that you're biased towards.  

The writing was well put together, clear, concise, and very informative, but I don't feel it was a true unbiased review, as apparent by the constant praise of the gun.  

[Richard S]

Duane:

Congratulations on an excellent article!  It is one of the most well-written, informative, and fair and balanced reviews of a new firearm which I have seen in the trade press in many years.  Based on my personal experience with my own R9s, I second your conclusions regarding the Rohrbaugh.

RS      

[Jim]

Excellent "review" Duane, and very well written...  Thanks for sharing this fine article...   Jim

[DDGator]

Bob79,

You won't get blasted.  I was waiting for this kind of response and I am not shying away from it, or I wouldn't have asked for comments.

I may, however, respond...  

First, my affiliation with the forum was noted in the article, so there was no attempt to hide any potential bias.

Writers tend to review products they are interested in and familiar with.  When was the last time your read any review in Combat Handguns or Guns or any similar magazine that was generally negative?  I honestly don't recall any -- although there may have been some.  I am not as quick to say its pandering to manufacturers as some might be, but the fact is that gun magazines don't review junk.  I would like to review a Jennings 9mm just for that reason -- except that no one cares.  Even when I have heard magazines discuss failures in a gun, they are dismissed as "break-in", etc.

Gun Tests has an appearance of "impartiality," but its mostly that.  For all the reasons discussed previously about their review of the R-9, they have no credibility with me as unbiased.  All reviews are influenced by the preconceived notions and predilictions of the author.  A review is, by its nature, not news--but opinion.  

I am unsure why you think it is not a "review," but an information piece.  After the "Specs and Function" description, I describe my criticism of the ease (or difficulty) of takedown, and give subjective impressions of the guns recoil, grip, trigger pull and accuracy.  I included a target and described my accuracy results.  I also made recommendations on how to carry it.  Finally, I tried to identify the potential buyers and make a recommendation.  What did you think was missing from this to make it a "review" -- or are you just discounting my analysis because of my percieved bias?

I am not trying to be hostile or defense -- just responding to your comments.

[Bob79]

I guess I simply disagree on a lot of your points though.  You're right that your ties to this forum and the Rohrbaugh company were noted.  So I guess this was the magazine's poor choice (my opinion) in having someone who couldn't be impartial do this particular "review".  I know we're human, and its very tough to be impartial, but when reviewing something its best to try and keep a neutral mindset.  You say that a review by its nature is opinion, but I disagree.  If I only prefer Beretta, then its best that I don't do a review on a 92F because I'm biased...plain and simple.  If I hate Fords, never owned one, will never buy one, then I shouldn't do a review of an F150.  Why shouldn't I do these reviews?  Because I'm already biased going into the situation, therefore I can't do a quality review in regards to keeping myself neutral.  

And you say that I have a "perceived bias" of you regarding the R-9, but its apparent and present.  I don't know how you can argue this one.  Just because you post notice of your affiliations, mention the high price, and say the gun has a tough take-down procedure doesn't equal being unbiased.  Speaking of the gun having a difficult take-down, I don't think that should be counted in the negative column anyways.  Take-down ease should be considered the dead last issue when developing a gun, there are MUCH more important things to worry about.  

What facts are there to support that Gun Tests is not impartial?  I know they screwed up a bunch of facts, and compared the gun to a PM9 (maybe not a true pocket gun), but does that mean they are not impartial?  If a jury sits down, listens to a case, discusses it, and comes to a verdict w/o introducing their own biases (or try honestly not to), is the verdict not impartial because they misinterpreted a rule of law?  Or are they not impartial because they wrote a generally negative review, about a gun which you HIGHLY support?  

Looking at the big picture, no one with a shred of intelligence should base their opinion of a product on any one review alone.  Several sources should be used, looked at, and a choice will be made based on probability.  

[DDGator]

Bob,

I guess we do have different perspectives.  If as you say, you have a strong preference for a Beretta 92F, does that not still influence your view on a Glock 17 you are reviewing?  We all have our own preferences and influences.  I think a firearm review has a responsibility to be completely correct on the FACTS (which I think I was), but the subjective opinions are just that -- subjective opinions.  I think mine come across with a fair degree of credibility because of the way they are written, but I leave that to the reader.

Do you see these same faults in other magazine reviews?  Do you think Masaad Ayoob has his own preferences and perceptions?  Gun writers are not scientists doing analyisis with the scientific method.

Gun Test bases its claim to fame on buying its own guns and reviewing without any influences whatsoever.  I know that is not the case.  That casts a pall over much of their claims of impartiality in my eyes.  Call it what you will -- it is still one author's opinion.  And, when you get a bunch of the facts wrong--including one that you harp on as part of your conclusion--that doesn't help either.

Are there opinions of mine that you think are way off base?

Honestly, I am not sure how much faith people do put in these reviews for all of the reasons previously described.