R-9 Review in Concealed Carry Magazine

[RJ HEDLEY]

      Is this, That complicated??

[Richard S]

It would appear to me that Bob79 has either some sort of hidden agenda or simply a little too much time on his hands.  If he has not already done so, I would suggest that he might  make arrangements to test one of the Rohrbaughs for himself.

RS

[RJ HEDLEY]

Amen to that............

[Bob79]

No I don't have a "hidden agenda", just wanted to put in my thoughts & opinions.  Just because I post with negative/alternate opinion doesn't = too much time on my hands either.  

I have seen and handled an R-9, but haven't shot it however.  Its a quality, compact, and true pocket pistol.  I'm not knocking the pistol, just pointing out something I observed.  But as I first said when posting, I was sure there was going to be backlash, this being the Rohrbaugh Forum  But guys, criticism doesn't have to be a bad thing, besides you've got this on the world wide web for everyone to see, so you can expect some criticism.  

[DDGator]

Bob,

You are welcome to voice your opinion here -- I think you realize that.  Yes, you may be criticised, but you are being critical yourself, right?

My advice is to get ahold of an R-9, try it, and see if I am right or wrong in my assessment.

[BillinPittsburgh]

Haven't had the chance to read the article yet, but on the subject of bias, let me point out an alternative test.

1)  Probability of gain or loss based on the contents of the review.

2)  Something in the review that is incorrect.

Based on the comments above, I think #2 will be tough to come by.

As for #1, Duane is not affiliated with Rohrbaugh, but does run this forum.  I suggest that anyone who thinks he profits from it should consider how much of a P.I.T.A. it can be to run an internet discussion forum.

So, I really doubt that Duane has any motivation to skew his review, or that there has been any showing that the review was actually skewed.

[R9SCarry]

Agreed Bill ........ and any review, by anyone - is perforce a personal opinion .. no more, no less.  In that respect it is always a ''take it - or leave it'' deal ... make of it what you will.

Most have learned over time from reading reviews to allow for that fact - and accept or throw out an individual's comments according to one's own judgement, if in fact that is also based on personal opinion and experience.

I take note of review data - but I do not think I have ever bought a gun based on just one review .... now take the best mix of three, then - we are perhaps going somewhere useful.

Anything I write in my ammo tests for instance - or any other appraisal is all but ''as I see it'' .... just one guy's perception ...... all in fact any review can (IMO) ever be.

[BillinPittsburgh]

I finally read the article.  Overall, it is very good.

Re:  price:  Compared to a Sig, HK P7, 1911, and many other high-end service-size pistols, the price is in the same range.  Glocks are cheaper, high-end 1911's are more expensive.

The reason most pocket pistols are so cheap is that few people take them seriously.  Visit forums dedicated to service-size weapons, and you'll find all kinds of fools and trolls.  Visit forums dedicated to high-end pocket guns (there are only 2 - North American Arms and this forum) and you'll find the vast majority are serious, knowledgeable shooters.  There's a reason for that:  it takes a serious shooter who is serious about being armed 24/7 and having a backup gun whenever possible to truly appreciate a high-end pocket gun.

[shooterjb]

Thank you for posting the article Duane. I enjoyed it and agree with your conclusions.

Frank

[sharp]

I somewhat agree with Bob79 in that Duane's article is biased.  I know if I wrote an article about a gun I had paid alot of money for would be biased as well.  I do agree that the article was very well done and I enjoyed reading it.  I don't think however that an unbiased author would give such a glowing review to the sights on the R9S.  This is the main part of the article that struck me as being biased.  Of course as Duane stated any gun review article including his, is the OPINION of the author.  I think the facts were stated quite well, and the rest was the author's opinion.

[DDGator]

Sharp,

I am not so sure that paying a lot of money for a gun makes one biased in favor of it...  I would tend to think it raises your expectations.  I got the original SHOT show special pricing on this gun and could sell it for more than I paid for it if I wanted to.

You are the first, however, to identify a specific part of the article you think is biased.  I said the sights were "quite decent" and "very serviceable" and "very useful" -- the last comment meaning as compared to an R-9 without sights.  Not exactly glowing praise.  I also said they are ever similar to the sights on a S&W fixed sight snub--something that gave a pretty accurate description in my opinion.  What part of that do you disagree with?  Do you think the sights are bad, useless or unserviceable?  Particularly as compared to equivalent pockets guns -- A Seecamp, Guardian or Kel-Tec, etc. -- I think they are pretty good.  Am I so wrong that you think my opinion is unfairly biased?  Or could other people share the same opinion?

I know this sounds defensive -- not meaning too -- just trying to address the issues being raised.

[BillinPittsburgh]

Sight preferences vary considerably, and one can conclude from other threads on this forum that many knowledgeable shooters can and do disagree about whether sights are necessary and the standard by which those sights should be judged.

[Richard S]

Duane:

These comments from self-appointed critics of your review in  Concealed Carry magazine remind me of a remark which my sainted mother once made.  (That lady spent 40 years of her life as a teacher of English grammar and composition.)  Her comment: "There are some among us who would presume to criticize not only Linclon's Gettysburg Address but also The Lord's Prayer."

Great review, Duane!

RS

[FireBreather01]

I just joined this forum. I was looking for information on the R9 and based on some other forums I have read/belong I would rate this one, even in its infancy, as in the top 3 for information and reliability relative to its particular product. Because I was considering a purchase of the Rohrbaugh I have also read many articles on the gun, including Duane's.

With that as background I must say that this article was more informative than the others and I have to disagree with Bob on many points. This article was very thorough and to describe it as "informational" rather than a review is wrong, IMHO. When have any of us seen a 'review' based on any firearm with the writer actually having significant 'field' experience? They all want to review the latest and greatest and rush to press. Duane's article answered virtually every question that I had, including many that other writers had not explored. And I say that as an experienced shooter, instructor, and long history with concealed carry - including pocket guns.

By the way, if a writer reviews something and comes to really like it - or hate it, does that make him biased? If you want a truly unbiased review, you would have to get side by side articles with one writer taking a strong 'pro' and another taking a strong 'con' view.

Just my .02 here, but I thought it was an informative piece written by someone that had more experience with a particular subject than 90% of other firearm writers have with theirs.

[DDGator]

Thanks again to all for their comments.  Its nice to get some feedback -- normally these things go to print and I never hear a word about it.

Firebreather -- I like you already, but...  How can this site not be the #1 source for info on the R-9 on the net?