R-9 v. Lightweight Snub

[DDGator]

In my internet travels, I hear lots of talk about the R-9 and its role in pocket-pistoldom.   I have no trouble engaging the pundits who say they prefer their Kahr PM-9.... different size guns in my opinion.

More and more, I hear people say they would prefer to carry a lightweight revolver (ala S&W 642 or maybe even "the Beast" 340).  

Now... being basically a revolver guy -- I find it hard to argue with the merits of a lightweight j-frame for pocket carry.  I know my thoughts on this issue, but I am curious as to the forum's general take on the very specific question of the R-9 v. say, a S&W 642.  

Its a bit of a rehash of the revolver v. semi debate, but with some bit of a twist since the R-9 more similar to a snubby than comparing say a Glock 19 to a S&W Model 19.

Is the R-9 a "modern" snub?  What do you see as the advantages of a semi-auto in the R-9 type configuration?  Is the two round increase in capacity worth any trade-off?  Is there any trade-off?

I am interested to hear the opinions of this learned group.

[R9SCarry]

As I think you know Duane - I also am very much a revo man - always have been.  But with carry certain choices need made and for me certain criteria need met.

One which is obvious with R9 is capacity - 6+1 is better than my five in SP-101 (OK - let's imagine it is a lightweight!).  As we are talking pocket I'll leave out the SIG and 15+1!!  Might be argued that a revo can (indeed) be stoked with heavy loads, so more ''oomph'' than a 9mm - however, I rate controllability and rapid fire potential so we can forget that aspect.

Second real biggie for me is profile - and a revo even if light does not cut it - too much bulge for my liking.  The R9 is wonderfully flat all over and I am not over bothered by weight either - I mean R9 outweighs KelTec plastic, obviously.

So for me while never ill at ease with a revo - the R9 ''has it'' for me as pocket par excellence

[Newt]

Never been a wheel gun man myself and as Chris said profile and capacity put the R9 over the Rev.. Hell, the R9 in a Graham or Hedley pocket holster is like putting my wallet in my pocket, this package would be very hard to beat!

[Richard S]

Lord knows, I don't want to engage in a semi/revo debate.  The truth is that I have rarely seen a handgun, or any gun for that matter, which I did not admire.  But for me, in this day and age, a small semi-automatic pistol, capable of being carried in a pocket (legally, of course), entirely concealed from the prying eyes of what John Connor has called "the sheeple,"* is often the answer.  

On those occasions when I can carry whatever weapon I choose, it will be a 1911 .45 ACP.  Otherwise, I must rely on a pocket gun.  The imprint of any revolver of serious caliber carried in the pocket, even one of the light-weight J-Frames, is problematic for me.  Until the Rohrbaugh 9mm came along, I relied on the Guardian .380.  These days I consider the R9s, in a Hedley holster, to be "state of the art."  

___

*  "Sheeple: Sheep-like people, many of whom deny the existence of wolves, and vote to pull the teeth of the sheepdogs who protect the flock."  Connor, J., Guncrank Diaries, AMERICAN HANDGUNNER (July/August 2005), at 24.

[RA_Bakken]

As far as the R9 being the "modern snub", it's hard for me to say yet.  Certainly I hope so, as that would mean countless thousands of sales for the R brothers.  

There IS something to be said for the confidence of knowing that anytime, anywhere, your revo will perform the function it's meant to perform.  (Wait, that was my old firearms instructor speaking!  :-)  That being said, I've always been partial to autos myself.  But it seems to take more care and caution to maintain an auto in "fighting trim" -- you can't just leave it alone indefinitely like a good trusty revo.  Gotta rotate mags, and the rest.

As for revolvers, I'm partial to the Ruger simply because of the beefy construction.  Still have some Security Six models, 2 3/4" barrels.  GREAT gun.

Interesting to note Karl Rohrbaugh's attitude on the subject - the R9 is "the derringer of the 21st century."   Derringers bring to mind flat, unnoticed hideout guns, suddenly brought to bear in the most intimate, deadly encounters.  

As has been stated, the revolver does tend to stick out more in one's pocket -- for me that's an indictment of my love for eating, I suppose.  But the smaller, the flatter, the better for me.  As RS stated, if possible, the 1911 .45 is the best choice for me too.  But it's not often I can pull that off, even with my 3" Kimber Ultra CDP.  So the highest calibre, best quality, small flat handgun is what I need - oh and with the largest bore in the smallest space.

The Rohrbaugh fits the bill in a very unique way.  It's eclipsed my Seecamp and Kel-Tec .32's in fact.  I'm not turning back either.

- Spectro  

[Aglifter]

I own a 642 hammerless, which I like, and an R9s, which I actually carry.  Unfortunately, S&W has switched to some cheap, Uncle Mikes grips which make the grip so short that it is a rather inaccurate gun, for me -- my father's J-frame shoots fine, and once I put some extended pachmeyer grips on it, it shoots well.  If it wasn't for the bulge in the pocket, I'd carry the 357 lightweight, as I'm not really that worried about 5 shots v. 7 shots, and they can both be reloaded about equally as fast -- however, the reloaders are bulky, and it weighs the same as the Rohrbaugh, with the extended grips.  I should mention that I almost always have my 1911, and a few clips in my briefcase, so I just need the pocket gun to get me to that.  I still keep the J-frame in the truck -- mainly because I'm not worried about it not working, as long as it stays in it's nice, clean little pouch, and I don't like the idea of a big caliber being used in a car -- I think there's less chance of ricchet from a 38, especially since i keep it loaded w. glasers.

Brad

[rtw]

I really like the S&W 642. I've rented one at a range several times now and when I can find an older gun, I'll buy it. I won't carry it on me as a CCW piece, however. For that role, I prefer the R9--the flatness helps a lot.

The revolver appeal in part is due to the fact that I can feel like I could leave it in a drawer or glove box for an almost infinite time and still count on it to fire. I don't know if that is really true, but that is the sense I get from my readings.

I don't know if the same can be said about an auto.

[Richard S]

rtw:

In my experience [as I dive for cover], semi-automatic pistols have one thing in common with women -- you have to pay loving attention to them.  

[theirishguard]

I'm for the semi auto pistol, because it is flat and easier to carry un-seen. A small .45acp ie: officers model & etc is just the ticket. A wheel gun is just too thick. My first choice is a Colt Defender or Officers model, light weight, tricked out. A Ruger Speed Six in the truck, it's less expensive if stolen. However, there are times and conditions that we don't carry because the piece is to big, heavy or bulky. That's why the R9 is just right, small, flat and easy to conceal no matter what we are wearing and in a reasonable caliber to do the job.  Also the amount of rounds can be important. If a wheel gun goes down or does not work it is almost impossible to fix on the spot.  But it is nice to have a choice.    Tom

[DDGator]

Thanks guys, for your thoughts.  I think the R-9 serves a simialr role and function to a lightweight J-frame.

I am not sure the 7 v. 5 rounds is much different, but it depends if you plan to engage multiple targets or not, I guess.  And who knows?

Speed of reload is not much different in these guns (especially if you shoot the R-9 until slide-lock... er... "click"), although the reloads carry easier on the R-9.  Speed strips would be about the same, but add to the time required for loading.

Sounds like we just about all agree that the biggest difference is the flatness of the profile -- very important for a pocket gun.  

Interesting consensus.  Thanks to all who responded.