The Rohrbaugh Forum
Rohrbaugh Products and Accessories => Rohrbaugh R9 (all variations) => Topic started by: DDGator on November 10, 2004, 04:19:10 PM
-
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! ;)
-
Can't open, check link :'(
-
The link works for me -- it opens a PDF file.
-
Works for me. Nice write up and pics. ;D
-
OK, I'll wait for someone else to ask how to open. :'(
-
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.
-
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? ;D Thanks for allowing us access to it.
-
>>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<<
-
Thanks, K
I got it now.. :D
-
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.
-
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
-
Excellent "review" Duane, and very well written... Thanks for sharing this fine article... Jim :)
-
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... ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
??? Is this, That complicated??
-
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
-
Amen to that............
-
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 ;D 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thank you for posting the article Duane. I enjoyed it and agree with your conclusions.
Frank
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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? ;D
-
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.
-
Gotcha. ;) Juts poking a bit of fun. I like the CZ forum as well.
-
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,
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! :D
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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
-
For all that's been said about alleged bias, not one concrete example of bias has been pointed out.
-
It is a very nice day here in Florida, but that is only my opinion. ;D
-
And - it's wet and gloomy here RJ - but that also, is my own sole opinion! ;D
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!! ;) :)
-
>>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<<
-
:D 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
-
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.