The Rohrbaugh Forum
Rohrbaugh Products and Accessories => Rohrbaugh R9 (all variations) => Topic started by: mjt on May 30, 2005, 09:19:53 AM
-
I have read several threads here that addressed the issue of bullet instability, tumble, etc. and there is debate about how much this matters. It seems that the main concern is whether the bullet penetrates and does the damage that a 9mm round should, or whether the instability compromises the effects the round has. This seems like a question that could be addressed empirically. It would be interesting to compare the penetration of these bullets against that from other bullets fired out of similar caliber guns or even smaller caliber guns (for example, what is the penetration of the standard 9mm out of the Rohrbaugh vs. the penetration of a .380 fired out of another pocket pistol, a +P .38, etc.).
One way this might be settled is with some comparison gel or wetpack tests in which these rounds are compared. Has anyone seen this kind of test anywhere?
-
All my tests (accessible thru some links on FAQ site) were short range wet pack. Main interest was bullet performance thru different varieties.
I agree some longer range comparisons plus different cals would be well interesting. Trouble is - well for me - the time it takes to set it all up.
Even on shorter range wetpack tests, there some examples of recovered bullets where ''peel back'' was either incomplete or asymmetrical - suggestive of tumble perhaps. Forget details without checking.
However - let's think short range again here re defensive use .... the recovery depth of the poorer examples was IIRC very close to that produced by the near perfect examples like Gold Dots. They DID DAMAGE!!
We may worry about penetration - maybe too even be concerned whether our std pressure 9mm's will in fact expand at all (clothing issues). Then too - some folks worry about over penetration too with 9mm!.
So where does that leave us?
For me - it leaves me knowing that even if I have a slight tumble, the prejudicial effect on accuracy and/or damage production is gonna be small. Remember as I keep stressing - CLOSE range - by which I'll place the limit at 7 yards.
If at a later time, there is some change in the gun's design that can eliminate this then great - but meanwhile I am not going to concern myself overly.
I see some necessary compromize in design within the R9 - one reason as I see it, for the large freebore - the root of the problem. Perhaps an advance in material spec's one day might just permit a reduction in said freebore - because of chamber pressure tolerance being higher - we'll see. Meantime, I accept what I have.
Incidentally - at a shoot on Saturday - coupla folks tried the R9 - and with basic WWB FMJ - at about 7 to 10 yards - I saw no tumble evidence in approx 18 shots. I think ammo OAL is a major factor - increasing or decreasing the ''jump''.
-
All my tests (accessible thru some links on FAQ site) were short range wet pack.
Incidentally - at a shoot on Saturday - coupla folks tried the R9 - and with basic WWB FMJ - at about 7 to 10 yards - I saw no tumble evidence in approx 18 shots. I think ammo OAL is a major factor - increasing or decreasing the ''jump''.
(http://www.acbsystems.com/boards/thr/r9s-tests-03/images/targets/wwb-115jhp.jpg)
-
No idea if any difference in factors - but Saturday was #2 R9 and - of course - a totally different batch of WWB. Tests on FAQ are from #1 R9.
Not looking to explain difference but as I said out of 18 shots on paper - I could see none that showed other than clear round holes.! That was fact!
-
Well, I'm calling Rohrbaugh tomorrow and register my concern. I've got two 50 round boxes of Win 115 STHP ordered. When I get it, I'm going to the range with some white paper plates and document every kind of ammo I have on hand and I have quite a few different types (unfortunately mostly 147 grain which is damn fine SD ammo in std pressure form! Ya, that's a sore point with me!)
I'll send you some Gold Dot 147 and some more Win Ranger T 147 for your #2 gun to try if you are so inclined. The heavier rounds seem to exhibit it more.
Oh, right, I forgot. I wasn't going to post on this anymore. 8)
-
If I can - I will try and run another test - leaving out the wetpack aspect which is very time consuming but - just some shooting of paper to get some more data. I have some 135 Hydrashocks left - just a very few, but nothing heavier.
Quite a few Blazer 115's I kept aside and some Gold Dots too - again 124 heaviest. That's about it right now.
-
See my other thread where I didn't post, just made notes. http://www.rohrbaughforum.com/YaBB.cgi?board=R9S;action=display;num=1116641383;start=24#24
The tangle web woven is becoming unravelled.
The ammo with the lightest weight and longest OAL out to stablize the best. Longest OAL alone isn't enough. Bullets under 115 grn are likely too short. 124 GD could very well be the sweet spot.
-
I have found a 9mm pistol which I can almost absolutely, positively guarantee will not be likely to "tumble" its bullets. It can be had for the paltry sum of $3,750.00, and even comes with a flap holster for those who do not prefer the option of pocket carry.
Without further ado, ;) here it is:
http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/pr4551.htm
-
Hehe Richard - that's a given, and with that length barrel, well - just the prob of concealment! ;D Oh and - financing! :o :P
-
FYI - This is probably old news here, but;
I read a Gun-Tests review of the R9s vs. PM9 and they seem to think the tumbling is due to insufficient rifling twist rate:
http://www.kahr.com/review_gtc_0804.html
"Unfortunately, we had other problems with the Rohrbaugh. We noticed clear indications of bullets striking sideways at a range of 10 yards, with all three types of our main test ammo. There were two partially sideways strikes with Speer’s Lawman, one with PMC’s FMJ, and two with Winchester’s BEB ammo. In most cases the tipped bullet struck well away from the main group. We noticed the Rohrbaugh’s 3-inch barrel had, visibly, about half the twist rate of the Kahr’s barrel. This undoubtedly led to insufficient stabilization of the bullets, and resultant sideways bullet strikes. We guess the low twist rate was used to slightly diminish felt recoil or twist in the hand. But we’d rather have a bit more twist and kick to the gun and have all our bullets strike head-on, particularly those that are designed to open, which must at least strike head-on in order for that to happen. There are no guarantees a firefight will take place at ranges where accuracy just does not matter, so we always prefer all the accuracy we can get."
-
FYI - This is probably old news here, but;
I read a Gun-Tests review of the R9s vs. PM9 and they seem to think the tumbling is due to insufficient rifling twist rate:
Yup, old news. Rohrbaugh's "rebuttal" isn't very convincing. I took some "measurements" and the "industry standard" for 9mm doesn't seem to be 1:16.
http://www.rohrbaughforum.com/YaBB.cgi?board=R9S;action=display;num=1116641383;start=24#24
PS: I called Maria today. She's going to have Karl call me back sometime today. She mentioned something about me having an "early number" and "possible changes in production"... If it wasn't for Chris's second gun not keyholing WWB, I wouldn't give this much hope.
PPS: Maria called back. She talked with Karl (who is the main guy these days at the plant) and he said, "Early serial number gun, hmm, have him send it back, we made some tweaks since then." I post again AFTER it gets back in a couple of weeks (I'm guessing).
-
Very interesting that the "earlier" models have this tumbling isssue...
What number is your Rohrbaugh? I have #531 and have also had problems w/ tumbling--i wonder how far back (or forward) this issue runs...?
R157
it was an early number (Feb '05), but a late delivery due to as Maria said "anodyzing problems".
-
I am the proud owner of R9s No. 132. It doesn't "tumble" its bullets. It doesn't "keyhole" its bullets. It has always made neat, clean, precise, round 9mm holes in its targets with the various ammunition types I have fed it -- Gold Dot (115 & 124), Golden Saber (147), and the ubiquitious Winchester "White Box" (115).
I have not yet (thank God!) had to use my Rohrbaugh to shoot anything which was shooting back at me. However, reflecting now upon my life from the vantage point of my seventh decade, there are at least two occasions -- both back in what Joseph Conrad once described as the "Heart of Darkness" -- when my survival might not have been so much the result of pure luck if I had been able to have a Rohrbaugh in my pocket.
RS
-
I am the proud owner of R9s No. 132. It doesn't "tumble" its bullets. It doesn't "keyhole" its bullets. It has always made neat, clean, precise, round 9mm holes in its targets with the various ammunition types I have fed it -- Gold Dot (115 & 124), Golden Saber (147), and the ubiquitious Winchester "White Box" (115).
Excellent. There is hope, then, that mine will also when it gets back from its little visit back home... GS 147 are some of the best rounds I have tested in my old Kahr PM9, BTW. I use Win Ranger T 147 because I could get a case of them cheaper (but it is also a good SD round).
-
Excellent. There is hope, then, that mine will also when it gets back from its little visit back home... GS 147 are some of the best rounds I have tested in my old Kahr PM9, BTW. I use Win Ranger T 147 because I could get a case of them cheaper (but it is also a good SD round).
Interim news. Sent in via FEDEX Overnight to factory on 6/1. Per Maria it was evaluated by Karl and others at an offsite range and the fix is to "run a new barrel on the machines when the current run is finished..." It will likely be next week before I hear anything else.
Now that I type this I'm confused why they need to setup the machine different to run a new barrel for my pistol? Thoughts?
Perhaps there is a later overall design change and my early serial number gun requires an early style barrel (with whatever magic they've done to straighten out the keyholes -- more twist? less freebore?).
Others? I'll ask Maria next week.
Gee, I miss the little fellow. I'm tired of running around with this BLOCK 26 IWB...
-
Hi Dan - I will be very interested to know the final info - hope the wait is not too long.
-
Interim news. Sent in via FEDEX Overnight to factory on 6/1. Per Maria it was evaluated by Karl and others at an offsite range and the fix is to "run a new barrel on the machines when the current run is finished..." It will likely be next week before I hear anything else.
Now that I type this I'm confused why they need to setup the machine different to run a new barrel for my pistol? Thoughts?
Perhaps there is a later overall design change and my early serial number gun requires an early style barrel (with whatever magic they've done to straighten out the keyholes -- more twist? less freebore?).
Others? I'll ask Maria next week.
Gee, I miss the little fellow. I'm tired of running around with this BLOCK 26 IWB...
Ok, update. I spoke with Maria and she said Karl would be calling me back, and he DID! It was truly an honor to speak to the President of the company and Chief Designer of my little R9S. Karl is truly a customer-focused person, and he thanked me for bringing this problem to his attention. We spoke a long time, and he related his experience and philosophy regarding firearms, firearms manufacture, ammo, shooting, and so on. He explained his reasoning behind the barrel design elements and said that he would be working with experts in the industry to see what can be done to fix my reported problem. He wants me to be a satisfied customer; he also wants his pistol design to be the very best and sees fixing this problem as one more way achieve that.
BTW: no more BLOCK in my waistband. It was relegated to the bedroom. I now have a S&W 940 (9MM) snubby in my pocket...
-
It is great Karl called you back dmobrien - it shows what a great company we are dealing with.
What I didn't get out of your post is if Karl is saying this is a posssible design problem in all guns made to date, or something that just happened to your pistol. My guess it is all pistols otherwise just redo your barrel.
On the "Frame Wear Thread" it seems to be the same were all early guns may have the same problem and if sent in they will do something to the gun.
This is the usual problem with a new gun (or any quality product) - it takes awhile to get the unexpected to expected. My R9 is still about two months away for delivery and I'm sure it will still have a few things. The only way to get around this is wait several years and who wants to do that.
At the same time all those who already have the gun want it to be perfect. So what happens if there is a fix for something like bullet tumble, frame wear, and etc. If all sent them back for updates the company would be overwhelmed and lose their profit edge, small as it may be. Just wondering.
-
What I didn't get out of your post is if Karl is saying this is a posssible design problem in all guns made to date, or something that just happened to your pistol. My guess it is all pistols otherwise just redo your barrel.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be obtuse. It's a problem for me as a customer so he wants to solve my problem first and foremost. I want to be able to shoot 147 grn ammo (brand to me doesn't matter). What he plans on doing globally, I don't know. For example, Chris has two guns. One seems to exhibit with WWB 115, the other doesn't. It is a problem for Chris? I don't know. It's not necessarily a design problem, but rather the consequences of design choices they made to fit their overall design criteria.
At the same time all those who already have the gun want it to be perfect. So what happens if there is a fix for something like bullet tumble, frame wear, and etc. If all sent them back for updates the company would be overwhelmed and lose their profit edge, small as it may be. Just wondering.
I don't want my R9S to be perfect (what does that mean exactly). I do want it to shoot in a reliable manner 147 grn SD ammo. Many on this board seem satisified with their current R9 functionality. Heck, Kahr had a PM9 barrel recall to "fix" functioning with some JHP ammo. Many owners felt there wasn't a problem their PM9 and so never bothered with the time and expense of sending it back.
When Glock makes design changes to their pistol, do they recall every pistol made? Heck, they don't even call major problem like frame rail breakage a "recall", but rather a voluntary upgrade. Many owners just shoot them until they break (if they even do break).
-
Dan,
I guess "perfect" is in the eye of the owner. For you it would be that 147 grain ammo does not tumble. This is reasonable especially if you're using a hollow point. Some others may not mind a round tumble here and there. As was noted by someone there seems to even be a few tumbles in the video R9S Chris was nice enough to provide.
Wasn't talking about any kind of recall. Just some items that Rohrbaugh may take of in later guns that are cosmetic or minor functioning may bother someone who has an earlier design enough to want it taken care of. A good example is the slide wear thread. This really bothers some and others it doesn't.
Many own, or desire to, the R9 because it is special and very high quality. Reading the posts for many months make me believe many form a kind of attachment to their pup. I will probably do the same when mine arrives. So as Rohrbaugh continues to upgrade the R9, as people like yourself bring to their attention areas of concern, will those with guns not having the upgrades be satisfied. Depends of the owner. Of course could just buy an extra every year. Starting to ramble. Hope your problem is solved Dan.
-
Hi Dan - I will be very interested to know the final info - hope the wait is not too long.
My R9S came back 1/31/06. I've not tested, but Karl assures me it's fixed. I'll get out to the range next week so I can get used to it again. More later.
-
Hi Dan - ain't ''seen'' ya in a while.
Yes indeed - hope all is well with the returned pup - and hope therefore you'll be able to report back thusly!!