Best first pocket gun

[Chinook]

I need to get a concealed carry gun that I will CARRY.  I have a wonderful Kimber custom compact that I love to shoot but even though I have an excellent carry holster, i find I seldom carry it.  I need a POCKET pistol.  I would like to get the most firepower I can handle; it's probably better to have less and practice more...  And I like to keep life simple by only having one (even though this precludes side-by-side photo shoots!!).  I was ready to get a Seecamp 32 but was talked out of the 32 as too little firepower.

Here's my shortlist: R-9 Stealth, Kahr PM9 and NAA black widow in 22mag.  Only quality here; and I do like stainless steel!!

This is a Rohrbaugh forum so I am hoping to be encouraged to spend the big bucks for the R-9.  But is it really worth all the extra cost over the Kahr???  I have a trusted friend who says the "firepower" of the little 22mag is better than even a .32NAA and also a .380.  Hence, it's inclusion in the list of 9s.

Is the R-9 easier to shoot than a Seacamp 380 (too uncomfortable for me to do a lot of practice)?  Any other comments?

Many thanks!

[ccoorreeyy]

Welcome Chinook!

I have a Black Widow that I carry often on my ankle and I like it very much!  I would not say that it is better than a 32 or a 380 though.  Today's ammo choices are excelent and I would recomend both over the 22mag.  I also have seecamps in 32 & 380 and LOVE them.    They, like the Rohrbaughs, are top of the line, finely made and supported pocket pistols.  I can't see you going wrong with eithor Seecamp 32/380 or a Rohrbaugh.  I'm from the school of get one of each, but if I had to pick only one from your requirements of "most firepower" it would have to be the R9.  

[Chinook]

Thanks for the input!  Everyone I shoot with has multiple carry weapons (one guy I talked to today has 5 naa 22s of various configuration and he was quite surprised at my thought that one might be enough!!).  The problem I have with the naa 22mag is the single action (cock, fire, cock, fire, etc).  Probably OK for Wyatt Earp but even in my wildest dreams, I won't get as much practice as him...

Which leaves 2 questions:

1. What is so special about the R9 that it justifies such a cost premium.  I have no problem with paying for quality and if the R9 is better than the Kahr, I'll get it.

2. I have experience with the "bite" of the Seacamp .380 and did not like it.  How does the R-9 compare?

Thanks again.

[ccoorreeyy]

I have found that my Rohrbaughs don't bite as bad as my Seecamp 380.  That being said there not like shooting a 22.  If I had to rate the recoil between the two the R9 would be about 80% of the LWS380.  That is most likley because of the trigger finger "slap" with the seecamp.  I don't get that with the R9.  I like the Kahr pm's and most of the current one's work great.  They don't fit the pocket as good as a R9.  The size difference is small but very noticable in your pocket.  The cool factor is VERY high with the Rohrbaughs.  

[Chinook]

This is exactly the information I was looking for.  Thanks.

I know there are other forums better suited for this question but since I started this string, I'll just carry on...

1. Are all R9s mechanically the same; in other words, do I need to buy a new or newly new one or would an older one be exactly the same?

2. The Seacamps used to be ammo-sensitive.  How about the R9s?

Thanks again

[CaptBW]

Both the Seecamp and the R9 are ammo sensitive because they push the limits in a handgun.

My R9 devours 115 Gold Dots and 115 WWB. With this ammo it has always been 100%.

I am not aware of any mechanical changes in the R9, other than updated recoil springs and magazine springs. These are easily replaced.

Hope this helps.

[Richard S]

Chinook:

I just saw that you had joined us at the campfire. Welcome!

To help you with your decision, and under the theory that a picture is worth a thousand words, permit me here to present an unenhanced photograph taken last month of R9 No. 132, now completing its fourth year of flawless service as what I consider to be the finest pocket pistol yet produced:

[dawkind]

I carried a 1st Gen Seecamp for over 11 years and, yes, the Owners Manual stated to use Silver-Tips and the mags even had a spacer in the back so that ball ammo would not even load.

The 2nd Gen Seecamps do not have this restriction and will feed just about anything, as will the .380 versions. I was lucky enough to accquire a .380 Seecamp when they first came out (72nd one produced), after having one on order for several years, have carried and shot it for over 3 years now and it has been flawless.

My FFL contacted me today and told me to expect my R9S Stealth at the end of this week.  

I have been VERY happy with my Seecamps and now look forward to getting a Rohrbaugh. I'm not and never have been a real big 9mm fan but if I can get that caliber in a pocket-pistol sized format to back-up my daily carry .45acp or always have at hand, it works for me.  

[Chinook]

Thanks, Richard.  No one can deny that it's a thing of beauty!  If only I were not so concerned about it's "bite".

My dilemma is common:  Should I ever, God forbid, have to draw and defend myself and/or my family, the R9 would be my choice to have.  But would I have shot it enough to be proficient with it?

I'm actually leaning toward the NAA 22 mag (Black Widow) because I can get it with a 22LR cylinder and be assured to hours of comfortable practice.  It's a much smaller (although faster) bullet; it's single action; much less desirable at the ultimate need.

I think I mentioned that I had experience with a Seacamp 380 and I did not like it (the "bite", that is).  And I'd actually rather have the performance of a 22mag than anything less than a 380.

One of the R9 users felt that the R9 had a more manageable bite than the Seacamp 380 but I can't see how it could be much less.

I need to get past this hurdle!!

Thanks again...

[CaptBW]

I have both the Seecamp .380 and the R9. The R9 is more comfortable to shoot.

[Chinook]

At the danger of wearing out my welcome on this forum, can you somehow quantify "more comfortable to shoot"?  Is there something about the shape of the R9 that allows it to be less punishing?  Also, I might say that squeezing my hand in a wooden vise is less painful than using a steel vice.  But the pain is much less in a styrofoam vise.  A silly example, but it makes a point.

Let me ask this, "can you easily shoot 40 rounds with the R9 and not have discomfort in your hand?

Kindest regards

[Richard S]

Chinook:

The difference in the two pistols is in their recoil design. There have been treatises written on this subject, but there are basically two types of recoil design in semi-automatic pistols: (1) blowback, and (2) locked breech. There are several variations on each one of these designs, and some pistols have aspects of both. The subject is extremely complex, but nearly all semi-automatic pistols can generally be divided into the two categories -- blowback and locked breech. That being stated, the Seecamp is a blowback pistol while the Rohrbaugh has a locked-breech design.

Expressed generally, in the blowback system there is no positive lock between the slide and the barrel of the weapon. The mass of the slide and force of its recoil spring (a double spring with the Seecamp) act to keep the breech closed. The expanding gases from the fired cartridge overcome this inertia and "blow back" the breech. The breech must be kept closed until the round has left the barrel and gas pressures have subsided. To remain practical this system is limited in semi-automatic pistols to relatively low-pressure rounds such as the .22 LR, .25 ACP, .32 ACP, and .380 ACP. While a larger caliber blowback pistol could be designed and produced, its felt recoil would be extreme and the recoil spring would have to be so strong that a person of normal strength would have difficulty manually operating the slide. As a result, semi-automatic pistols designed to use the larger and more powerful cartridges, such as 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, etc., will employ some form of locked-breech action. In such a design, the slide cannot move back until the barrel unlocks due to the initial recoil impulse. The recoil spring in such a weapon needs only to be strong enough to cycle the action once the breech is unlocked. A significant amount of the recoil impulse created by the fired round is dissipated in unlocking the breech of the pistol. Hence, a blowback pistol chambered for .380 ACP may produce more felt recoil than a 9mm pistol with a locked-breech system.

If I have made any errors in this post, some of our Forum members with engineering or physics backgrounds should be able to correct them and explain the concepts in better detail.

And to answer your specific question, I have been able to shoot over 60 rounds at a session with my R9 before my right hand starts to complain.

[size=10][Edited to correct typographical and syntax errors.][/size]

[dawkind]

Richard is spot-on with his treatsie and I will admit that the .380 Seecamp is no fun at all to shoot.

It is a bit more than just blow-back though in it has a crenulated chamber meaning there is a groove cut around the inside of the chamber that the cartridge brass 'flows' into when fired. This helps retard the slide movement until the projectile leaves the bore and the pressure subsides enough to let the slide move to the rear.

I just wanted to throw this in about the Seecamp but I also want to add that the NAA, even in .22lr, is really no fun to shoot for any length of time. I've had a Freedom Arms 'Casul's Improvement' in .22lr for many years  and they are quite snappy what with almost no grip.....I imagine that the .22mag has the much larger grip.

Good luck and good shooting with your choice...

[theirishguard]

get the R9 you wouldn't look back.   Tom

[grayfeathers]

For all those complaing about painfull recoil, I have to ask if you are wearing quality shooting gloves. That can make all the difference in shooting comfort. I can fire many rounds through my Seecamp 380 & Rohrbaugh with gloves. With out my gloves, I am done after 2 mags.