Just wondering...

[Michigunner]

Good points, Aglifter.  We need to get more comfortable experience with the R9.

That's why I'm hopeful they will have a .380 barrel and magazine for the R9 owners.

I know someone could say: Why didn't we get a .380 Auto in the first place?

Well, because the R9 is a gem of a gun.  It has high power in a small package!  I couldn't resist the idea.

Bill

[sslater]

Michigunner,
I'd thought I'd like to see a .380 conversion kit for the R9 also.  Lots of talk about a .380 ACP in the "Two New Models" thread.

Last night I dug out my handy-dandy NRA Fact Book and looked up the specs for the .380 vs. 9mm Parabellum.  Even though the .380 ACP was originally called the 9mm Kurtz or 9 mm Short, there are quite a few differences in the cartridge dimensions.

Barrel / chamber dims could be easily accomodated; magazine would require new one with extended feed lips, new follower and spring.  Biggest problem I can see is the breech face.  .380 ACP rim diameter is only 0.374", while 9mm Parabellum rim is 0.394.  I slid a .380 ACP round under the extractor of my R9S.  There's barely enough rim for the extractor to grab.  That would mean at least an extractor change to one with a longer hook.  Considering the Rohrbaugh quality standards, we're probably talking about a new slide as well.
Maybe we could use the old, tired 250 round recoil springs from 9mm practice.  That'd save about $4....

sslater  

[Michigunner]

sslater,

Good point about the extractor, and possible slide change.  I sure wasn't thinking about that.

Now it's starting to sound like some real money.

I may start looking around for specs on the so-called reduced recoil ammunition.

Bill

[dfsutton]

I don't think I'd chip in for one. If I had that amount of money to spend on a .22 LR practice Rohrbaugh, I'd just buy 2 of the R9s and carry one and shoot one for practice.