R-9 Review in Concealed Carry Magazine

[FireBreather01]

I didn't mean that this forum isn't #1 for the Rohrbaugh - it is. I intended my comment to mean that relative to the specific brand or firearm that each forum represents, this is as good as any I have seen. For instance, I'm a regular on the CZ Forum and, IMO, it represents the epitome of what a forum should be. It is informative, lively - with many divergent views, topical, respectful, and full of members that go out of their way to help each other out with CZ products. I see those same characteristics here, with the R9's, which is why I registered and you've seen me with a few comments 'out of the gate'. It is impressive for such a 'young' forum. I am really looking forward to getting my own 'Mouse that Rohrs!' and contributing to the forum.

[DDGator]

Gotcha.    Juts poking a bit of fun.  I like the CZ forum as well.

[theirishguard]

Duane, Great review on the R9S. You were right on about the pistol, ammo, holsters and why one needs this type of carry gun. Tom

[sharp]

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.

Duane,
I've never had any other pocket guns or even a S&W Snubby so I haven't compared the R9S sights with any of them.  You're probably right though that it's a favorable comparison.  I do feel however that instead of "very serviceable" or "very usefull" a more accurate description would be "barely serviceable or usefull".  Even with my better than 20/20 LASIK corrected vision I have a hard time picking up the sights quickly.  Having said this I would still choose the sighted model (I did) if given a choice.  It's nice for accuracy testing at the range and I would see NO advantage to going sightless on this model (even though I don't think sights would be used in a defensive encounter with this gun).  I did not mean to knock your article at all, I was just kind of coming to Bob's defense; there's some people here who refuse to acknowledge that there MAY be a couple of short-comings with this weapon and think anyone who points this out has a "hidden agenda" or something.  I am an extremely happy and proud R9S owner and I'm sure my review would be "biased" as such, but everyone is entitled to a difference of opinion.........IMHO!

[DDGator]

Hey Sharp -- I understand.  I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I have encouraged it.

My point has been that despite the charges of extreme or unreasonable bias in my review, I have yet to have anyone identify an opinion of mine which is so off the wall as to be only the product of an unfairly biased individual.

You were the first -- with my description of the sights -- to identify anything specific.   I described them as "small" and "minimal" and, in comparison to other pocket pistols, or to an unsighted model, I do find them to be serviceable and useful.  They do not compare to the stock sights on my S&W PC 625... but who would expect them to?  I find them to be certainly as good as Guardian sights and far better than Kel-Tec P-3AT sights.

I think I have my answer -- the article is inherently considered to be biased by some because of who I am, regardless of any specifics of the content.  I would just say that if that is a measure of the worth of a review, I would stay away from gun rags altogether.  At least my percieved bias was evident from the bio on the article.

[TCat]

I think I have my answer -- the article is inherently considered to be biased by some because of who I am, regardless of any specifics of the content.

The insistence that it is a bone-solid gun, despite various reports that not all instances of it are, may be one other reason.  There's a very quick kneejerk to blame the shooter whenever reports of less-than-steller reliability are heard.  You're not the worst at this, but your report barely caveated it.  (In fairness, you did say it wasn't for the inexperienced shooter, but Incursion's tests with another forum member show that's not the issue.)

[DDGator]

First of all, my article was written months ago -- the printing process takes some time.  Second, what I reported was the reliability testing of MY gun -- the first 100+ rounds of mixed ammo -- not a single problem.

Was I supposed to have reported on second-hand internet concerns--most of which were raised by non-owners?  Or was I supposed to footnote the expereinces of Gun Tests magazine?  If someone reviews a Kahr PM9 do they have to summarize the internet trash talking about it?

I reported on the sample gun I tested -- which was rock solid.

The concerns about problems with this gun, in my opinion, are blown way out of proportion on this board.  Out of hundreds of guns shipped, I believe that 3 have had an issue where the gun was returned to the factory.  I doubt that Kahr or S&W are that much better.

[theirishguard]

All right everyone to your separate corners. I can't believe that a simple well written review about a pistol has caused all this flake. No wonder the government thinks we can't handle anything and we need to be helped and guided. One can only then wonder what starts wars! We sometimes need to get a life. My father would, at times, make a statement or comment and then sit back,watch and listen to everyone deal with it. Daune's review was just that, a report on the R9S. He stated,what in his opinion, were good as well as bad points about the gun. The new member seems to be a little judgmental about the way the review was written not whether the R9S is worth buying or not. Maybe he needs to handle and shoot one and make up his mind. "can't we all just get along". We are all reasonable complement adults that have proven that by having a license to carry.  Thats why there are Fords and Chevs. This is the Rohrbaugh forum after all.  Tom

[BillinPittsburgh]

For all that's been said about alleged bias, not one concrete example of bias has been pointed out.

[RJ HEDLEY]

It is a very nice day here in Florida, but that is only my opinion.  

[R9SCarry]

And - it's wet and gloomy here RJ - but that also, is my own sole opinion!

I doubt there is anyone - of us here - or anyone else who writes and reports - who will not be accused of some bias for some reason.

I'd reiterate just one thing I said earlier .... a review is presented ''as is'' by the author - criticism will always follow but the substance is there for grabs, to make of what one will.  It's somewhat of a ''no-win'' ... you can't please all the folks, all of the time.

Once more I thank Duane for his efforts - writing this stuff is very time consuming - I know that.  I'd venture to suggest, this thread has about gone the distance!!

[TW]

>>One of the things I like about biased = well informed writers such as Duane is that he is likely to better know the detailed problems associated with a particular gun, and therefore will be able to present a more informed account than a writer who may have a test gun for a weekend and who is probably more interested in selling magazines than info to potential gun buyers.

So Duane...thanks again for your biased= well informed account of our little hand cannon...!...TW<<

[speed-six]

   Biased, yes....knowledge does that-I think the more knowledge the writer has the more biased they have to get-that's where professionalism takes over. I wonder how "biased"  Bob79's written review of his wife would have been after his honeymoon......Did he love her-of course---but he also had lots more specific knowledge-----seems the same about the Rohrbaugh pistolette

[jarcher]

I thought that was a fine article.  It mentioned that the 9 is ammo sensitive, which is my biggest issue with the pistol.  He also mentioned that the take down is hard, which it is.  Overall I thought it was a fair review.