The Rohrbaugh Forum
Rohrbaugh Products and Accessories => Rohrbaugh R9 (all variations) => Topic started by: Fud on January 08, 2006, 04:51:57 AM
-
There's a pretty intense debate regarding the pro's & con's of the R9 over at the Seecamp Board (http://seecamp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl/YaBB.pl?board=otherguns;action=display;num=1127653791) and it up to 8 pages already. Normally I wouldn't post a link to another board because that can be viewed as spamming by both boards but I've seen links posts here to TFL debates regarding the R9 and over at the Seecamp forum, Seecamp, himself, seems to be in favor of the dicussion so I figure that this time it would be alright to post a link to the discussion (http://seecamp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl/YaBB.pl?board=otherguns;action=display;num=1127653791).
-
Correction: make that 9 pages and counting ;)
-
Thx for heads up Alan - I wonder how many more pages it might run!!
-
Hi Chris and Alan
I guess it is as common to have a Rohrbaugh thread on a Seecamp forum as the opposite, as it is here. I decided not to agressively engage those (two) on the Seecamp forum who have a main agenda to put-down the R9. It just makes them worse. You could give them all of the logic in the world and it would not make a difference. Their minds are made up before hand - or they are just unhappy people.
Dave
-
Some folks don't operate on logic Dave - look at the anti gun brigade!!
Indeed no point in wasting valuable energies in some cases - in fact on occasions, I have found folks can dig a deep hole in the end - and bury themselves!
Whatever - ain't pleasin' everyone, ever :)
-
Hm, I have been toying with the idea of getting a Seecamp .32 or .380 for a while. I have read good and bad about them, but I'm thinking they probably are just fine. I see a bunch of the .32 around at prices that vary from about $325 to $500+, which is pretty funny. I am guessing the .380s are still hard to come by...
How does the recoil of a .380 compare to a R9? I don't mind the R9 recoil although I woulden't shoot it all day! The Seecamp .380 is a blow back, so I would not be suprised if the recoil was actually stronger.
-
From what I've been told, the LWS 380 felt recoil is probably a bit worse than the R9. It was described as sharper and more straight back than the R9, but that may vary with the individual.
The wait time on them from the factory is 1 year or a little more.
I just ordered an LWS 32 which I should get in about a week. If I like it, I may eventually get an LWS 380. I sure would like to shoot one first though.
-
How does the recoil of a .380 compare to a R9?
Depends on the package that it comes in. A .380 Rohrbaugh would feel like a pussycat compared to a R9.
If I like it, I may eventually get an LWS 380. I sure would like to shoot one first though.
I would like to get a new stainless Seecamp .25 but unfortunately they have been discontinued and from what I've seen, the older models weren't stainless.
-
Very interesting discussion. I must say that the idea of keyholing does bother me a bit. It seems like a shame to spend near $1000 on a gun that can't put the bullets on target without tumble, regardless of the size of it. However, that being said, mine is on order and so I'll get to evaluate this for myself soon.
-
df - re tumble aspects - I wrote up a page on the FAQ about Tumbling (http://www.acbsystems.com/boards/rohrbaugh/basefile/tumbling.htm) - which includes a perspective given me by Karl.
I can see why it can happen and it is not a flaw in design or fault of the gun per se - it is a possible side effect of a necessary design consideration - and affects things with some ammo.
It does not bother me - if my bullet has yawed a smidgeon over a few feet on the way to making a BG have a very bad day!! :P
-
It has overall been a good discussion on the Seecamp board,IMO.. ;D
Everyone loves a fine piece of craftmanship!! 8)
I have owned a .32 LWS for a LONG time it seems..
Love it, and love my pup!! Just 2 different guns..
Really want the .380 Seecamp though!! ;) 8)
On the keyholing "problem"
I have not noticed any of this with the R9s..
But have on occassion with my .32 LWS-STHPs.. ;)
I don't sweat it.. 8)
Brenden
-
Really want the .380 Seecamp though!! ;) 8)
On the keyholing "problem"
I have not noticed any of this with the R9s..
But have on occassion with my .32 LWS-STHPs.. ;)
I don't sweat it.. 8)
Brenden
I, too, want a .380 Seecamp.
As to keyholing, given the purpose and useful range of a defensive pocket gun, I don't sweat it either. A keyholed bullet will just produce a slightly larger entry hole in the BG. That will be his problem, not mine.
-
I have been following the thread on the Seecamp forum. It is quite interesting and pretty objective overall.
As was mentioned previously, I think that folks who like the R9 and Seecamp just like small, quality pistols. They each have their niche, and they both are very high quality products.
It is really quite refreshing to follow the dialogue in these forums. We all have our personal preferences and some difference of opinion always come up, but I really like the civility both here and on the Seecamp site.
-
I can only guess, more folks have been visiting the FAQ site because of that - hits went up by a staggering 600 or so in last week or so!!!! :o
-
Is is OK to love Rohrbaughs AND Seecamps? I sure do.
-
Is is OK to love Rohrbaughs AND Seecamps? I sure do.
I believe there is actually some type of requirement for this!! ;) 8)
Both are finely made "tools" ;D
Brenden
-
If one has a R9s and wants another pocket pistol, My vote is for the Seecamp .32. It is about half the cost of the .380 and you will not lose much in velocity and is easier to get.
Tom
-
If one has a R9s and wants another pocket pistol, My vote is for the Seecamp .32. It is about half the cost of the .380 and you will not lose much in velocity and is easier to get.
Tom
That was my reasoning too. :)
-
Is is OK to love Rohrbaughs AND Seecamps?....
Murray, I believe most of us do!
-
I believe there is actually some type of requirement for this!! ;) 8)
Both are finely made "tools" ;D
Brenden
Agreed! My wife appropriated and carries the Seecamp .32 with old ivory grips which I used to call my "dress-blue Sunday gun."
-
Hey, theirishguard, if you think there isn't much difference between the .32 and a full house 9 mm (which is hardly what I would call a great defensive cartridge to begin with) you better take a look at real world stop stats and quit reading wherever you saw that tidbit. I've carried and, unfortunately, had to use handguns for over 35 years, and the Rohrbaugh and the .357 Scandium S&W's are the only 2 "pocket pistols" I would even consider to protect me and my family. Sorry but .32s and .380s just don't cut it, particularly where people wear heavy clothes. (The 9mm is pretty marginal in that case too, actually.)
-
As I read his post, Tom ("theirishguard") was not contending that there "isn't much difference between the .32 and a full house 9 mm." Instead, he seems to be advising that, "If one has a R9s [9mm] and wants another pocket pistol," one might select the Seecamp .32 over the Seecamp .380 due to considerations of cost, availability, and relatively comparable ballistics (.32 ACP vs. 380 ACP).
I believe in Robert Ruark's advice to "use enough gun," and at any given time I will carry the largest caliber handgun which I can effectively conceal. However, on those occasions when circumstances have required me to carry a weapon chambered for .380 ACP or .32 ACP, I have not felt inadequately armed. If in real estate the rule is "location, location, location," with small-caliber defensive handguns I believe the rule is "placement, placement, placement" combined with double or triple taps.
Without intending to fan the age-old caliber/one-shot-stop debate, the following article contains some interesting statistics in Sheet 1 of Table 2, to which Tom may have been referring in his previous post:
van Maanen, Maarten: "Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow 'Data Base': An Evaluation Over Time." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 9-13: Fall, 1999, reprinted with express written consent from the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) and the author at http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
-
Twostar and Richard, OK, I agree that a .32 and .380 are marginial calibers. Having said that, there is not that much difference between the .32 and .380, so for cost and availablity the .32 would be a good choice, if one is going to carry a pocket pistol.
I agree the 9mm is better, even if it is marginial, but we can't carry all the time a hand cannon ie: .45, .357, .44, .40 & etc.
So, with that said a R9s or a Seecamp in .32 would be much better than not carrying.
Tom
-
Tom:
That's how I read your earlier post, and I completely agree.
-
Before my Rohrbaugh I carried a .25 caliber Berretta when I could not carry my .38 S&W snubby. A lot of guys would say all they carry is .45's. Funny how a majority of the time they were unarmed when I always had at least my 25 on me.
I am thankful now I do have my R9 to carry now though. I do feel better armed.
-
bigyimmy, thats about it.
Tom
-
Funny thing is a just bought a Glock model 30 which is a mid frame .45 caliber. Great gun. I shoot it well. When I leave the house 98% of the time I carry the R9. Carrying a gun is a hassle and Rohrbaugh just makes it more bearable.
-
I'm no youngster and let me tell you it gets harder and harder to carry as you get older. I pretty much can only pocket carry anymore.
I wore a J-frame in an ankle holster everyday for 25+ years, sometimes for up to 16 hours a day. Today, even 30 minutes of it hurts my ankle bone and cuts off my circulation. IWB carry cuts into my hip and spare tire. SOB (small of back) carry would be great if I could still reach my pistol back there.
I feel confident with my R9S and/or LWS .32. I will feel a little better with my LWS .380 when it arrives but until then my carry combo serves me well. Besides, the upside of my aging is that I have had many years of practice and am a pretty good shot.