Author Topic: Rohrbaugh article  (Read 4141 times)

Offline tacticalnarc

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Rohrbaugh article
« on: December 04, 2005, 06:56:34 PM »
This from the Fall 2005 Gun List Holiday Gift Guide:

                              Rohrbaugh              


                                                 The little Rohrbaugh 9 mm pistol has been standardized with a revised frame. Pistols with the new frames have fired 5,000 rounds without a problem. Serial numbers for the revised-frame pistols now have an "R" prefix. The all-metal pistol weighs 12.8 ounces, and measures 5.2 X 3.7 inches. Carbon-fiber grips are now standard. Still, two models are offered, the Model R9 (without sights) and the Model R9S (with sights). With a capacity of six plus one, the Rohrbaugh is the smallest, lightest, flattest 9 mm pistol made. Reportedly, it has received attention from troops going to Iraq because it can be carried inconspicuously and uses military 9 mm ammunition.    

                                                                                    
I have to admit, that it was the last sentence that caught my eye. Has anyone else heard of an R9 being used in the Holy War? This is a subject near and dear to me. As a young Marine I proudly dragged my Glock 17 with me to Desert Storm. Many of us took our own pistols. When we got in country and the Battalion Commander found out we had our own sidearms, they were promptly confiscated. We were lucky that the Colonel was a Vietnam veteran. There was no punitive action and the guns were returned when we got back to Camp Pendleton. I'm told that personal guns are still frowned upon except in elite units. Even still, I doubt that a $1000 gun with limited availability and iffy reliability is a viable choice. Also 9 mm NATO is loaded to what would be considered + P, which is contrary to factory recommendations. Any thoughts?


« Last Edit: December 04, 2005, 07:03:11 PM by tacticalnarc »

Offline DDGator

  • Forum Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
    • The Rohrbaugh Forum
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2005, 09:38:47 PM »
Hmmm.  I recall one of the brothers telling me that there was some "government interest," but I assumed it was law enforcement.

I can't imagine the R-9 being used for military purposes -- especially in the sandbox.  Now -- I wouldn't mind secreting one in a pocket of my BDUs... but those things are so big you could carry a bigger gun.

And... I am not sure I can let the "iffy reliability" comment go without pointing out that many of the R-9s here are 100% so far.  ;)
Duane (DDGator)
Rohrbaugh Forum Administrator
E-mail: Admin-at-RohrbaughForum.com

Offline CaptBW

  • Master
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2005, 11:41:56 PM »
Yes!  100%.  No "iffy" here.
ACTA NON VERBA




Offline Richard S

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5772
  • Nemo me impune lacessit.
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2005, 08:50:05 AM »
100% here also.
(1963-1967) "GO ARMY!"

Offline Erich

  • Expert
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2005, 09:49:19 AM »
Personally, I'd be hesitant to run warm NATO-spec ammo through my R9s . . . too close to the "no +P" warning.

Offline Skyhook

  • Expert
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2005, 10:17:10 AM »
Anyone else pick up on this: "The little Rohrbaugh 9 mm pistol has been standardized with a revised frame." ?

Could someone with 'inside' kindly elaborate on those 'revisements'??

Offline theirishguard

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
  • In Memoriam: 1941 to 2013
    • irishguardfirearmsltd.com
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2005, 10:31:55 AM »
This sounds like the writer was confused or did not know what he was writing about.
Tom
Tom Watson, DVC , Quis Separabit ,  Who dares wins, Utrinque Paratus

Offline Newt

  • Master
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
  • NRA Benefactor Member & Cert. Pistol Instructor
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2005, 11:42:22 AM »
I have one with the "R" prefix that I know is the same ser.# as another without the prefix and was told that the "R" prefix does denote a change, what the change is I don't know. I also have a early one without the R and both are flawless at this point.
No matter how you struggle and strive, you will never get out of this world alive.

Offline Michigunner

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2005, 12:23:14 PM »
My R35x has been working just fine.

Offline harrydog

  • Master
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2005, 06:31:27 PM »
I was under the impression that NATO spec ammo was basically +P+ since it's higher pressure than +P.

Offline tacticalnarc

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2005, 07:05:17 PM »
I was curious about the "revised" frame comment myself. I'd hoped someone could shed light on the change(s).

The paragraph that I was referring to was taken from a larger article titled "Finding Your Perfect Semiauto Handgun" the author was listed as John Mallory. It was a review of the latest offerings from most of the major manufacturers.

I did not mean to insult anyone's gun by implying that the R9's were less than perfect. I was specifically referring to that environment. If you have not operated in that area, it is difficult to describe how desert sand has a way of working itself into every little nook and cranny. We had to clean our weapons every day in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait even if they hadn't been shot. We learned to use as little lube as possible. A gun that requires a generous coating of grease to function is at a distinct disadvantage since dirt is going to stick to the lube like a magnet. This is not an issue for private citizens interested in self defense, since the gun will be clean and the round count is likely to be low. In addition, very small semi-automatic pistols are inherently less reliable than larger guns. No matter how well you make a gun you can't ignore the fact that that the combination of greater recoil and an abbreviated grip has the potential to cause the shooter to induce grip related malfunctions. These are commonly written off as "limp wristing" and shooter error on the training range. Real fights are fluid, dynamic, rapidly evolving situations. There is a very real chance that you won't have a perfect grip on such a small gun, particularly if you've been injured or you're already wrestling with a determined adversary. I hope this helps.

Offline Brenden

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Farmie!!!
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2005, 07:18:31 PM »
 8)
Quote
Hmmm.  I recall one of the brothers telling me that there was some "government interest," but I assumed it was law enforcement.

I can't imagine the R-9 being used for military purposes -- especially in the sandbox.  Now -- I wouldn't mind secreting one in a pocket of my BDUs... but those things are so big you could carry a bigger gun.

And... I am not sure I can let the "iffy reliability" comment go without pointing out that many of the R-9s here are 100% so far.  ;)

Duane,

When I spoke to Karl,I believe he said that a Police agency in Germany was using the R9?
I do not think that the Military would be real interested in the pup-but as a pocket "rocket" there would be nothing wrong with it.. ;)
NRA Life Patron Member
GOA
Molon Labe

Offline Aglifter

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
  • Thanks and Gig 'em
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2005, 12:26:21 AM »
I don't see how the Bros. R could fill a government order?  Unless it was for a special purpose -- I know one of the machine shops back home was hired to make special parts for some M-16s... only an order of ~100
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Offline jarcher

  • Master
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2005, 01:23:38 AM »
Quote
I was under the impression that NATO spec ammo was basically +P+ since it's higher pressure than +P.

I was just tod by a firearms design engineer this weekend that NATO ammo is nearly +P+.  I really hope no one is putting NATO 9mm through a R9.

Offline jarcher

  • Master
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Rohrbaugh article
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2005, 01:26:30 AM »
Quote
If you have not operated in that area, it is difficult to describe how desert sand has a way of working itself into every little nook and cranny.

I would think that the very tight fit and high tolerances of the R9 would be a huge problem in a desert.  The AK47, because the tolerances are so low, works well.  It's not accurate, but it runs with sand in it.