The Rohrbaugh Forum

Rohrbaugh Products and Accessories => Rohrbaugh R9 (all variations) => Topic started by: hoobens on September 04, 2009, 12:19:15 PM

Title: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc.
Post by: hoobens on September 04, 2009, 12:19:15 PM
Hello,
    I am new to this forum. I've three questions for discussion:

- Does Rohrbaugh make a MA compliant model?
- How many guns do they make a year ( they don't report to atf, I believe )?
- and, How does the R-9 compare to a Seecamp .32 ( which by the way is MA compliant )?
 Many Thanks,
Bill H.
whh@post.com
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: yankee2500 on September 04, 2009, 02:03:43 PM
 Bill, welcome to the forum. I do not know anything about MA
other than they are a gun unfriendly stste, and I'm glad I don't live in a gun unfriendly state any more.
 (I moved from NY :( to NC ;D) I don't think I have ever read how many guns are produced per year by Rohrbaugh, one of the other members who has more knowledge of the company may have the answer.
John
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: kjtrains on September 04, 2009, 02:39:15 PM
Welcome to the forum, Bill.  I don't know the answers to your questions, but am sure there are folks here that can.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Richard S on September 04, 2009, 03:32:30 PM
hoobens:

First of all, welcome to the Forum.

As for a comparison of the Seecamp LWS32 and the Rohrbaugh R9, each one is at the top of its caliber but the two calibers are vastly different in capability. Treatises have been written on the subject, but here is a quick summary which may be of interest:

[size=10].32 Automatic Colt Pistol (ACP) - AKA 7.65mm Browning
Initially introduced in europe in 1899, this semi-rimmed centerfire cartridge came to the United States in 1903 when Colt introduced its "Pocket Model" semiautomatic pistol. Also referred to as the .32 Auto, the .32 ACP was introduced with a 71 grain full metal jacket bullet at a muzzle velocity of slightly over 900 fps with around 130 foot pounds of muzzle energy. Like the .25 ACP, the .32 ACP is considered by many as too weak to be an effective self-defense round. But it has been an extremely popular caliber, notably by the fact that practically all minor and major manufacturers of autoloading handguns in the world have built millions of small pocket autoloaders in .32 ACP.

9mm Parabellum - AKA 9mm Luger, 9mm NATO
This cartridge was introduced in 1902 along with the Luger semi-automatic pistol. The pistol and cartridge was first adopted by the German Navy in 1904 and then by the German Army in 1908. This cartridge has since been adopted by the military of practically every non-Communist power. It has become the most popular and widely-used handgun cartridge in the world. Performance wise, the 9mm cartridge has somewhat more power than the .38 Special but falls well short of the .357 Magnum. A typical 115 grain bullet will have an average muzzle velocity of 1200 fps and a muzzle energy around 350 ft-lbs.[/size]

http://www.rattlesnakeridge.org/Ammo.html

With regard to the operation and comparative size and weight of the two pistols:

Seecamp LWS32 .32 ACP
Operation: DAO
Capacity: 6 +1
Overall Length: 4.25”
Height: 3.25”
Width: 0.86”
Weight Empty: 11.5 oz.
Weight Fully Loaded 13 oz.

Rohrbaugh 9mm (9 x 19 mm)
Operation: DAO
Capacity: 6 +1
Overall Length: 5.2”
Height: 3.7”
Width: 0.91”
Weight Empty: 14.3 oz.
Weight Fully Loaded 17 oz.

Chart comparison of pocket pistols:

http://www.mouseguns.com/PocketAutoComparison.pdf

I do not know how many pistols Rohrbaugh produces each year -- only that demand seems to exceed supply.

With regard to the R9 in Massachusetts, I would call the company. I do not see the R9 listed on the latest published roster of firearms approved by that state:

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/approved_firearms_roster_08_2009.pdf
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Reinz on September 04, 2009, 04:51:27 PM
Welcome Hoobens!

Richard just about summed it up.

But if I may add, in my opinion, the Rohrbaugh made the Seecamp obsolete.  And I own a 25, and 32 Seecamp.  I see no need for a 380 now.
An exception of course would be if you knew you were walking into a "deep cover" situation and needed something smaller.
Or - if you are a collector/gun addict and must have more fine firearms.

Good Luck in your Quest

Reinz
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: ACP on September 06, 2009, 08:08:52 PM
Bill,

Welcome to the forum. Yankee's story is not unlike my own. I lived in a gun unfriendly state and now live in a gun friendly state; the only state in the country that does not require a CCW. It is the right of all citizens, providing they are not felons and pass the NICS check, to legally carry.

Hint: My state borders Massachusetts. Don't have an answer for you. I NEVER go to Mass or NY; the statutory dungheaps of the Second Amendment.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: hdjeff on September 06, 2009, 10:50:09 PM
Just curious why so many think of NY the same way ACP does. I've lived in NY my entire life. I have bought all of the handguns I've ever wanted and have been carrying concealed anywhere I've wanted since 1976. MY R9s never leaves my pocket.
Jeff
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: tracker on September 06, 2009, 11:25:12 PM
Jeff,
Glad to hear you are a happy carry camper. I have the impression that the rules vary considerably in N.Y. depending on the county; and then the boroughs of NYC are a different animal with very limited carry privileges.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: hdjeff on September 07, 2009, 08:23:19 PM
That's true, Tracker. I tend to think of NYC as a different state. They are very restrictive. But where I live in upstate NY, firearms are very common and no problem what-so-ever. I'd hate for everyone to equate the entire state with NYC.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: tracker on September 07, 2009, 09:18:26 PM
Thanks for clarifying the N.Y. perception. I lived in CT. for 15 yrs. and worked in NYC for three and JFK the rest of the time. Both of my children work in NYC but guns are not part of their lives. I didn't even own a gun until moving back to Texas.

I had a feeling that the shooter on the L.I.R.R. with the Glock tipped the balance forever against guns in NYC and the boroughs.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: ACP on September 07, 2009, 09:55:34 PM
WRONG!!!
If you are a Certified Pistol Instructor with 25 years of experience in NJ and move to NYS you cannot even APPLY for a handgun permit until after you have lived there for one year. Then, you must have 5 NYS witnesses who will testify to your character who have known you for 5 years!!! Do the math.

If you are a native of NYS, different story. Me? I quit NYS after 9 months and moved to Vermont. I stand by what I said as to NYS; albeit the fact that the nightmare is restricted to idiots like me who thought they were moving to an Adirondak gun paradise, only to find that I had ended up in hell.

Don't get me wrong. NJ sucks too, but I thought I was leaving all that behind me when I moved to NYS; the stupidest move of my life.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: tracker on September 07, 2009, 10:19:43 PM
ACP,
Why didn't you check into the N.Y. laws before you moved there? We all make mistakes and years ago I wouldn't have even thought of checking on these things but I would now. On the other hand i don't have any urgent plans to move to the N.E., regardless of the state laws.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Richard S on September 07, 2009, 10:57:44 PM
I worked in various countries of West Africa for four years in the 1990s. To paraphrase John Connor, who said it well in one of his American Hangunner columns, there are three types of countries in West Africa: (1) those in which you are apt to be shot if you are found to be carrying a weapon; (2) those in which you are apt to be shot if you are found NOT to be carrying a weapon; and (3) those in which both (1) and (2) apply. As a result, the only sure thing is that the only parties who will have weapons there are: (1) the "authorities"; (2) the "thugs" [the members of groups (1) and (2) being often commingled]; and (3) those who would prefer to abide by local law but who elect to go armed with extreme discretion and at their own great peril.

It is my profound hope that our Second Amendment will be preserved so as to prevent such "confusion" from evolving in our own beloved country. In that regard, and in my seventh decade of life, I pray that those of the generation now coming to power in our system of government will not be so consumed with the trivial comforts of modern-day existence as to forget how fragile and easily lost are the foundations upon which our civil liberties have been forged and maintained at so great a cost for so many who have gone before.  
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: tracker on September 07, 2009, 11:15:49 PM
Patrick Henry couldn't have said it more eloquently. I think he was from Virginia, wasn't he?
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: DTM_39 on September 08, 2009, 09:32:50 AM
If there were a couple more guns on the LIRR that day a massacre would not have happened.  I'm not saying it would have been a good day for anyone but there would have been less carnage. Instead it was one nut slaughtering sheep.  We can thank our genius politicians and the sheeple that put them there for our inability to defend ourselves.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: ACP on September 08, 2009, 09:38:25 AM
Concur with my stupidity as to not checking laws prior to my move. The small town to which I moved was less than a quarter mile from Vermont border and was strategically located to where my brother lives in Vermont.

What's worse is my FFL in NJ knew where I was moving to and was not aware that NYC laws had reared its head in NYS. Thank you schumer.

 In order to get my handguns legally moved from NJ I had them shipped to my brother. My brother, an MD, had never fired a gun in his life but could legally go through background check and own them because he was a citizen of Vermont.

With all my credentials and quadruple background check, (from a state neighboring NYS), I was disallowed from handgun ownership in the manner described above. Since moving to Vermont I have obtained multiple non-resident permits and I swear that I will NEVER AGAIN surrender my right to carry legally.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: theirishguard on September 08, 2009, 12:38:39 PM
here here  it's always better when you have a choice  Tom
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: ACP on September 08, 2009, 01:14:38 PM
I will never forget phoning my FFL friend in NJ when I left the sheriff's office in NYS, after having learned that I could not legally own a handgun in New York State.

My FFL friend had a family summer home, on the Vermont side of the NY border, near which I had moved. The lake was created from the same aquifers that fed Lake George and Lake Champlain. He, too, was shocked when I told him what had happened.

For those of you who hail from a gun friendly state and who will never be confronted by the horror of NJ and NY gun laws, count your blessings.

Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Mike_OTDP on September 09, 2009, 11:09:11 AM
Back to the OP....

The Rohrbaugh is significantly larger than the Seecamp.  It's a pants pocket gun, not a vest pocket gun.  That extra inch in length and height makes a difference.  On the other hand, the Rohrbaugh IS a true pocket gun.  It'll do the deep concealment job.

The Rohrbaugh has a LOT more recoil than the Seecamp.  An LWS-32 is not terribly hard to do a double-tap with, while the R9 is a handful.  Not extremely painful to shoot, just a lot of muzzle climb.  It's a gun you practice with LAST, and for very few rounds of ammo - because a long range session is likely to build a flinch that will take months to eradicate.

On the other hand, the Seecamp has a fair trigger...that of the Rohrbaugh is outstanding.  Comparable to a good S&W revolver.

I like them both.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: yankee2500 on September 09, 2009, 05:59:30 PM
My referance to NY not being as Gun friendly as NC are based on the pain in the a** method of buying a pistol, go to the permit dept. get a purchase coupon make your purchase go back to the permit dept and register it, and thy are all listed on the back of the permit. In the county I was from (Erie) you could only get one purchase coupon at a time, and even with a permit they usually would only allow you to carry for hunting and target shooting. And without a pistol permit you can not even buy a pistol in NY. Here in NC to purchase a pistol you only need a drivers lic. and a purchase permit, and can get up to four a day, to carry you need a CCW and with it can purchase a pistol or several by showing the CCW and filling out the forms, pay and go shoot. Total cost for a CCW here is about $140 including your course, it cost more than that in NY 20+ years ago, and I don't think it has gotten cheaper.
John
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: ACP on September 09, 2009, 09:34:50 PM
NJ is similar to NY. However, now that I am a proud Vermonter, what is a purchase permit?
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: hdjeff on September 09, 2009, 11:05:28 PM
One of the problems with NY is how different counties within the state operate. There is not much consistency. In my county (Saratoga), it costs about $165 for a new CCW. (my wife just got hers). You have to purchase a handgun, fill out an amendment form with the local Sheriff's dept., wait about a week for your purchase stub, then go pick up your new handgun. They are all restricted now to hunting and target, but that is not enforced. There did not used to be any restrictions back when I got mine(1976).
Upon retirement(about 5 years), I too am looking at NC or West Virginia.
I can get a lot more scooter riding in!
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: tracker on September 09, 2009, 11:49:04 PM
That is not just a problem; that is an individual stranglehold fiefdom. It sounds like every county law enforcement official tightens their own rope. I can't imagine living under those restrictive conditions.  
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: theirishguard on September 10, 2009, 12:13:09 PM
why put up with any kind of purchase permit ???why should any government-control what is bought and sold? >:(  Tom
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: tracker on September 10, 2009, 12:47:22 PM
Are we becoming the U.S.S.A?
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: ACP on September 10, 2009, 07:53:04 PM
mr. obama has invited us to measure him by the company he keeps. How many czars are there now? Is it 30 or 40? And, are the majority of them not in love with the soviet model of government?

I lived in Washington County, NY (for 9 1/2 months) before I killed my lease and moved to Vermont. The point made above as to the discretionary behavior of the sheriff is true.

I don't know if the (defacto) 5 year waiting period was the sheriff's doing or the state of new york. Again, I was told I would have to wait one year to apply for a handgun permit and be required to furnish 5 new york citizens who could testify to my character over a 5 year period.

Remedy: The day I obtained my valid Vermont driver's license, I could buy a handgun and legally carry it.

Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Reinz on September 11, 2009, 08:51:43 PM
Quote
Back to the OP....

The Rohrbaugh is significantly larger than the Seecamp.  It's a pants pocket gun, not a vest pocket gun.  That extra inch in length and height makes a difference.  On the other hand, the Rohrbaugh IS a true pocket gun.  It'll do the deep concealment job.

The Rohrbaugh has a LOT more recoil than the Seecamp.  An LWS-32 is not terribly hard to do a double-tap with, while the R9 is a handful.  Not extremely painful to shoot, just a lot of muzzle climb.  It's a gun you practice with LAST, and for very few rounds of ammo - because a long range session is likely to build a flinch that will take months to eradicate.

On the other hand, the Seecamp has a fair trigger...that of the Rohrbaugh is outstanding.  Comparable to a good S&W revolver.

I like them both.


I agree with most said , but respectfully disagree about the part about long range sessions  building a flinch that will take month's to eradicate.

I'm no John Wayne.  Years of shooting 44mag and high volume 45acp gave me serious nerve damage and carple tunnel- both hands, elbows, shoulders.

But I believe proper range training can PREVENT flinching  with the R9.  It's called CONCENTRATION.
Come on now, it's only a 9, and I am recoil sensitive now, and I have no problems whatsoever, even with double taps.

I am not a big man, average size -  5-10/190, medium sized hands.

Recoil is not a problem with the R9, in fact, I see no problems with the R9.

Cheers

Reinz
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: captalny on September 20, 2009, 11:37:36 AM
Quote

I had a feeling that the shooter on the L.I.R.R. with the Glock tipped the balance forever against guns in NYC and the boroughs.

The handgun used was a Ruger P85...............
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: tracker on September 20, 2009, 12:00:29 PM
Thanks for that correction; I have since read that it was a P89. The shooting at Luby's cafeteria involved a P89 and a Glock.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Chief-USN on September 21, 2009, 12:01:09 PM
 I Live in Florida. Years ago getting a concealed carry license was more difficult here.  Crime rate climbed. They lowered the difficulty in getting a CCW and crime rate dropped. Go Figure!  Since I am retired military I was not required to go through the trining process, only to supply , forms, fingerprints, and passport photo. (Plus $75.00 of Course)
  If you are not military or former law enforcement the training consists of 2-3 hours of classroom instruction on laws and advice. And the License is recognized by 24 other states. My wife has hers as well. (She carries a S&W 642)
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: ACP on September 21, 2009, 02:18:36 PM
Chief,

Florida and Texas are regarded as the CCW "bellweather states" as their laws shifted the burden from a citizen's having to prove his worthiness of carrying a gun to the state's burden of having to prove why a citizen ought not be permitted to carry concealed.

There are states that will never learn this lesson in which criminals adore gun laws while politicians, (who hate guns), seek to disarm their political foes. That would be us.

New Jersey, New York.....Never Again.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Reinz on September 21, 2009, 03:43:41 PM
I apologize if I come across narrow minded.  
To those of you living in "yankeeland"; i.e. NY. NJ. why do you stay with such harsh restrainsts  on your freedoms?

I understand jobs pay more, but then cost of living is more as well.

I turned down job promotions in my previous life because I would not move to NY to work at the home office, even though it was "temporary"; 1-2 years.
 And I paid the price of "going nowhere".

Freedom  and peace of mind is just worth so much more to me than money.

If it is family, I still don't get it.  Mine moved to California, which is almost as bad concealed carry wise.  Attitudes, cultures, thats a whole another story.
I stayed in Texas.

It payed off.

Carry what you want, as many as you want!
No harm, no foul.

Reinz
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Chief-USN on September 21, 2009, 05:05:34 PM
 Yes, I remember 20 years or so ago when I applied for a Civilian CCW in Florida I had to explain why I felt I "needed" to carry. Now that is not the case.  I talked with someone in the CCW department in Florida and they told me they are slammed. About a 60 day wait at this time to get the licenses out. Florida is actually almost encouraging people to get their CCW.

Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Reinz on September 21, 2009, 06:22:43 PM
Yeah, Fl is pretty awesome.  Remember back in the 90's with all the tourist rental car "bump/crash and rob"  due to rental car stickers on the cars.
The bad guys now knew for sure who had cash on them.

Well the tourist trade was falling off, so Fla allowed people to do "mail-in'' CCW's!

What a concept!  mail in , out of state CCW's.  

And it only took a couple of weeks before your trip - no red tape- assuming you were clean.

Very successful, got the crime back down, stickers off the cars and tourism back up.


Reinz

Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: ACP on September 21, 2009, 07:38:54 PM
Reinz,

Good point as to why one would live in NJ or NY. I paid the price for remaining in NJ but I am consoled that it was both job and (ultimately) care giving to my father full time.

I waited until middle age and financial comfort to carry legally and, as I have stated, I will never go back.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Reinz on September 23, 2009, 04:35:07 PM
ACP - I understand, having to care for a family member.  That is a complicated, honorable issue.

And we all know why you won't go back, good thinking.


Reinz
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: ACP on September 23, 2009, 05:44:19 PM
Thank you. It was one of the most difficult and rewarding things I have ever done. The trend, over time, has been very favorable: pay dues, reap reward.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Chief-USN on September 24, 2009, 07:48:46 AM
Or, "What goes around, Comes around " this time in a good way :)
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: mefly2 on September 24, 2009, 01:41:13 PM
Quote
MY R9s never leaves my pocket.
Jeff

Wow, that has to be hard on the gun and the washing machine ... when laundered.  Mine should be here tomorrow, but I think that I will remove it from pocket or cleaning ... LOL
I finally took the "plunge".
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: kjtrains on September 24, 2009, 05:07:04 PM
Welcome to the forum.  Enjoy.
Title: Re: Rohrbaugh v Seecamp, MA Compliant, #s made,etc
Post by: Richard S on September 26, 2009, 09:45:45 AM
myflyjeep:

Welcome to the Forum and congratulations on selecting the R9. With regard to your new R9, prepare to be amazed.  8)