Need Imput From R9s Owners

[BradS]

 I.m new to the forum and thought I would seek information from the proverbial "horses mouth".
 I currently carry a J frame as a BUG. I had a Khar MK9 for a while and found it to be well built and accurate, but sold it to finance another project.
  I also had a Seecamp .380 and found it to be very nicely build, however I was not near as accurate with the Seecamp as with the MK9.
  Once again I have been toying with the idea of changing my BUG to match the calliber of my off duty STI and am considering the R9S. My dilemma, my last name isn't Trump and I don't have the money to "test" a new gun.
  I was very impressed with the build quality of the Seecamp and don't expect anything less with the R9S.
  What are the advantages of the R9S over my J frame or even the MK9, to justify the added expense of the R9S?
 All opinions and replys greatly appreciated.

[UpOn2Wheels]

Hi Brad:

First, welcome to the forum.  As you probably already know, this forum has a wealth of information on the care and feeding of an R9.  Since the gun represents a major investment, it's a worthwhile exercise to read up on all of the R9 pros and cons before making a purchase decision.

I can only give you my reasons for choosing an R9 over a J frame or a Kahr:

- I wanted to keep my handguns to 2 calibers (9mm and 45), and a J frame would have added a third.
- The R9 is thinner than a J frame, and gives you 7 rounds in the gun and six in a spare mag.  Spare mags are easier to carry (IMO) than speed loaders.
- Kahr was out of the question, strictly from personal bias.
- The R9 is more friendly to pocket carry.

Understand that the R9 is not a range gun, and that is has "special needs" in terms of ammo and maintenance.  I'm very happy with mine and wind up carrying it more often than any other gun.

Good luck on your decision!

Kurt

[BradS]

Kurt,
 Thanks for your informative reply. My plan was to keep my handgun  calibers to either the 9MM or .45, but after reading the postings on the upcoming R.380 I may have to reconsider.
  The main carry for the BUG would be while on duty and a "go to the 7-11" store gun.
  The R9 or the R.380 ?

[BradS]

  I have owned and carried a Kahr MK9 and found the recoil controllable and the gun very accurate at 15 yards.
  Can anyone give me a comparison between the MK9 and the R9 ?

[firewalker]

      I have owned 2 kahrs .both were 9mm, the PM and the TP series. They were both fine firearms. The TP series was a joy to shoot, The PM series was not as fun but still manageable.
      Negatives on Kahr. Even being a very small firearm, it is very thick. It does not have second strike ability on a miss-fired round. It has a shape that recoils in a flip of the muzzle. (i prefer a torque recoil). And the deal breaker that made me sell both Kahrs was the magazine and mag release button. The magazine has a low cut in the forward section for bullet feeding which allows for spare magazines to shed a bullet or 2 in my pockets. A few times the magazine release would press wrong when concealed and partially release while holstered.  The finial straw is the ugliest handgun ever made goes to the GLOCK, i considered a kahr a shrunk glock .
      The R9, It has very pleasing style lines, Fits the hand very well, and is very thin. It will slide in and out of a pocket with out snagging anything. Has second strike ability, The mag release is not in a place to be accidentally engaged.  With the light weight it will not sag and print like other firearms.
        The negatives, Ammo sensitive, but i am willing to feed it what it likes. Cost is high, we pay a dear price for our Pup but in my opinion it is worth the $.
       Shoot ability, I like the smooth trigger pull much better on
 the R9. A good trigger is a thing of beauty. Recoil is subjective, But it takes practice to tame the torque recoil.
       Maintenance and changing out springs, on the R9 you have to understand that the springs need changing at regular times as well as lube. This is not a bad thing either because i believe with to many guns we let this go until it stops functioning.
      The last Item of concern is no +P or +P+ ammo. very good defensive ammo exists for regular pressure 9mm. When i carried a SC 342. it was carried with a 38 special load because the magnum loads were unmanageable.
        This is all just my opinion, The short comings of the Kahr i could not over come, The short comings of the R9 are well worth the trade offs.

Frederick
      

[BradS]

 I was curious, I viewed a you tube video of Mr Rohrbaugh demoing the R9. He stated the R9 was a gun that was to be shot little and carried a lot.
  Did the reference to carried little mean the gun would not not hold up to prolonged shooting ?

[Richard S]

BradS:

First of all, permit me to welcome you to the Forum.

If you have not already done so, you may find it helpful to review the excellent FAQ web site which "R9SCarry" has compiled for the R9:

http://www.acbsystems.com/boards/rohrbaugh/

I understand the comment by Karl Rohrbaugh which you mention to be simply an affirmation that the R9 was designed as a close-quarters self-defense weapon and not as a competition or recreational handgun. I took delivery of my own R9 in May 2004. It has never malfunctioned and has become my "24/7" gun.

The choice of an "always gun" is an entirely personal decision. My choice is the R9. Good luck with yours.

[size=10][Edited to correct spacing error.][/size]

[harrydog]

I was curious, I viewed a you tube video of Mr Rohrbaugh demoing the R9. He stated the R9 was a gun that was to be shot little and carried a lot.
  Did the reference to carried little mean the gun would not not hold up to prolonged shooting ?

This has been discussed here in the forum many times. The R9, being about as small as a 6-round 9mm can possibly be, is not the most pleasant gun to shoot, so for most people, long range sessions of 100 rounds or more are not going to happen. Once the gun is tested and deemed reliable with your carry ammo, it is really only necessary to shoot a mag or two every month or two, just to maintain a feel for the gun. If shooting large amounts of ammo at the range is your intention, there are much better choices of pistols for that purpose.
Will the R9 hold up to prolonged shooting? The fact that the R9 is so small, has an aluminum frame, and is shooting a fairly potent round, means that it can't be expected to last for 100,000+ rounds the way a full size steel 1911 can.
There is at least one R9 has been shot in excess of 5,000 rounds with no ill effect. To date, I don't know of anyone who has shot more than that through their R9 so no one really knows what the average lifespan of the gun will be. But it has a lifetime warranty and if you do manage to shoot it enough to break it, I'm sure it will be repaired or replaced in an expeditious manner.
Here's how I see it. You put 100 or 200 rounds through the gun to insure it's reliability. After that, 200 rounds per year is enough to maintain a good feel for the gun. At that rate it would take you about 25 years to reach the 5,000 round mark.