Rohrbaugh's Rebuttal to Gun Tests -- Read It Here

[DDGator]

Rohrbaugh Firearms has sent the following letter to Mr. Winkle in response to his recent review of the R-9s in Gun Tests magazine.   The following is the letter in its entirety.  My thanks to the Rohrbaughs for permitting us to post it here.


ROHRBAUGH FIREARMS CORPORATION
PO Box 785
Bayport, NY
11705

7/29/04

Dear Mr. Winkle,

I am writing this letter in rebuttal to your most recent review of the Kahr PM9 and the Rohrbaugh R9S.  I am gravely disappointed with your lack of journalism knowledge, due to the obvious point that you should check to make sure your facts are correct, before you actually set your story to print.  Since your article is full of erroneous information that is now propagated and perpetuated, I feel that I must point out these flaws and provide the correct information.  I am sure you would wish to have accurate information to validate your article.  I must say that I have taken offense to the lack of research, whether to read the instruction manual or contact our office with any questions.

One must preface this rebuttal by stating that the Rohrbaugh was designed specifically to fulfill a need in the pocket handgun industry. The true pocket handgun industry, not a design that gets close.  Due to physics, one can only make the gun as small as the cartridge. Literally, the gun was drawn around a  9mm cartridge.  Because of space limitations, several items were “too big” to fit and compromised the design reasoning.

Fact 1:  I have been a subscriber for approximately one year, and I do read your magazine from cover to cover.  Of interest, is your statement in which you categorically claim that you purchase all firearms so “as not to be beholden to anyone”.  I am assuming that this is your magazine’s claim to fame and subsequently has been repeated in the industry.  Yet, the R9S you reviewed was sent to you from the factory as a testing and evaluation piece.  I should know, since I am the one who sent it to you.  Subsequently, you returned the piece after your evaluation.  Nowhere, at any time did you purchase the firearm. I would think, since your reputation is such that you purchase firearms, you would have had a disclaimer in the article that you did not purchase the piece and clarify your position.

Since you did not purchase this piece, you were sent one magazine.  All Rohrbaugh pistols are sent with two magazines, one lock, an instruction manual and a lockable carrying case.  You seemed distraught by the fact that only one magazine was provided and that thought was evident by the amount of verbiage that was used throughout the article.  

I feel that at this point in the letter, I should point out a very salient fact (while we are at the beginning) - the pistol that was tested, by GUN TESTS, was the exact same one, Serial #R170 (see photos in the American Handgunner and the photo in GT,) that was tested approximately a month prior, by AH, and then sent to you.  Ironically they seemed to have a different opinion of the function, accuracy and reliability.  I might also point out that Serial #R170 was also tested by Massad Ayoob approximately one week ago at a workshop in Long Island, after you returned it to our factory. His opinion regarding the accuracy and reliability did not seem to match yours.

Now I could go into various descriptions, “in my estimation” of you and your report, but I shall stick to the obvious mistakes.

(Continued)

[DDGator]

Fact 2:  Normally, when I receive a new firearm, I review the manual to understand its characteristics. A simple perusal of the manual reveals several important points of this particular weapon.  I should know, since I wrote the manual.  First and foremost, there are only 16 major parts plus springs and pins.  We design by the principle of KISS.  The Rohrbaugh is double action only, not “SO CALLED double action only”, as you report.  Either it is or it isn’t.  I researched several gun digests and could not find this particular mechanical action that you describe.

 I am sure you realize that the Rohrbaugh is essentially a 21st century revolver- i.e. hammer impact with full trigger pull and does not require a safety.  This design has been prevalent for almost 150 years.  A design that has been tested by time.  On the other hand, the Kahr is a striker setup.

The trigger pull on the Rohrbaugh is an excellent mechanical design in the simplicity and the smoothness. I congratulate your photography, as I cannot remember ever seeing, in print or picture, the trigger spring and trigger bar.  However, since I have over 5000 rounds through one of our test guns, I need to report that it is silky smooth and continues as such.  

Fact 3:  After test firing so many rounds, I have come to develop the proper grip for this pistol and can report that it can be shot with three fingers in a comfortable fashion.  The ergonomics and orthopedic design actually sets the piece deeper into the hand for better absorption of the recoil and better force distribution into the forearm. I also know this because I am an orthopedic surgeon.  Mauling of the hand is not a word that is appropriate for this firearm.  

Fact 4:  Because the Rohrbaugh is a true DAO, the trigger reset of the R9 is, and will be, longer after the first shot than the Kahr, which is not true DAO.  After getting the feel, double and triple taps are easily accomplished.  Regarding ammunition choices, the R9 is designed with limited breech dimension and will not run all ammunition, nor has it been claimed.  Due to breech size, the feed ramp is at a higher angle than other larger pistols and subsequently cannot feed the longer 147-grain truncated cone.  Research by actual R9 owners, (see the RohrbaughForum.com and www.TheHighRoad.org for results) has shown that HIGH QUALITY ammunition has been flawless.  I submit that the frangible ammunition choices and the Winchester BEB were inadequate; however, the reviewer had no problems with the Speer GoldDot 115 and 124-grain bullets.  These have been reviewed elsewhere and chronographed well and reported to be a fine choice.  You don’t feed a Ferrari, 87-octane fuel.

Fact 5:  Keyholeing.  Nowhere else, in our testing nor current reviews has this ever been reported.  Only with lesser quality ammunition was this seen and was commented, by you, that the ammunition was a probable culprit in those incidents, yet you perpetuated the fact that the rifling was the issue.  It was alluded that the rifling in the barrel was inadequate.  Our rifling is a 1:16 right hand twist - a standard for 9mm in the industry.   Funny, this was also listed in the owner’s manual.  Ironically, Roy Huntington and Mickey Fowler did not seem to have an issue, and consistently shot 2½-inch groups at 25 yards.  I personally witnessed Mr. Ayoob place 6 headshots at 10 yards into a regulation IPSC target that could be covered by a silver dollar.  Now this was the same gun in all tests, and Mr. Ayoob’s test was the gun that you returned.  Imagine, the exact same gun fired by different hands - different results.  There is no planned designed to limit the twist to decrease the recoil.  I submit that the ammunition choices, or just “flinching” caused your problem.  This has never been reported by us or other owners.  On the other hand, we were able to hit golf balls at 25 feet, so I submit that the accuracy is pretty good.

Fact 6:  Your description of the size as “slightly smaller” does not do the pistol justice, nor does the angle of the photography on page 11, in which the guns are side by side.  True pictures reveal the exact size differences. (please see the RohrbaughForum.com in which Mr. R.J. Hedley and R9SCarry show direct comparisons)  Thank you for noting the difference in weight; however, I do believe you scale needs to be recalibrated.  The R9 weighs 12.8 oz. without a mag and 14.3 oz. with an empty mag. This information has been reproduced by other independent researchers.   Again, you continue to harp on one magazine, where two are supplied to customers that purchase the R9.  

(Continued)

[DDGator]

Fact 7:  NOWHERE, and I repeat NOWHERE, is any plastic or polymer used in this firearm, except the follower in the magazine, which, technically, is not built into this gun.  I specifically refer to page 13, in which you state that the grip panels were made of a stiff, light, and durable polymer. The material is called CARBON FIBER!  A simple review of the manual shows this information, or a call to the company would have easily answered this conundrum. Another misinformed statement regards the grip screws. It is stated that they are made of aluminum.  Actually, they are stainless steel. By the way, at no time did a reviewer contact our office with any questions or comments.  I guess they already knew the answers, but I would question the credibility of the reviewer who could not tell the difference between steel and aluminum. By the way, the reason that there was wear on the screw holes was that this was the same R9, Serial #R170 used by previous examiners.

Fact 8:  Take down was a bitch.  I agree that the first time it is true; however, with some practice and experience it gets much easier, as it would for anything new.  No one ever said the first time is the easiest in anything and can be daunting at times. The first time one takes apart a Colt .45 or a Luger or whatever, it certainly gets easier as you gain experience with the design. Practice makes perfect.  Just like no one shoots “x” ring the first time they shoot a gun.  

Fact 9:  The hammer is not flush.  It resides in a recessed area at the back of the slide to prevent slam fire and cover drop-testing requirements. Ours was tested to 12 feet without incident.  The trigger activates the hammer to bring it out of its chamber.

Fact 10:  Where does it state that firearms need or require a slide lock?  This design is by purpose to maintain the thinness for concealability and the smoothness for ease of engagement.  When the action hits, and adrenaline is flowing, you will not realize whether the slide lock is present or not, nor will you care.

In all fairness, you do state that some shooters did like the R9, but you never reported how many shooters actually fired the piece and for how long. This is an acquired taste. Mr. Ordorica states that he generally does not like 9mm and seems to have been biased.  Being in the medical field, medical reporting must be done in a scientific non-biased fashion based on accurate collection of data, accurate facts and accurate interpretation of the facts to draw a conclusion.  I would expect that this should carry over to other fields and would hope that our industry can be held to a high standard.  Now, I could rant and rave, but I would like to think I am better than that.  If our firearm was evaluated accurately, compared apples to apples, and was found to be second place, then so be it.  I can live with that conclusion.  Of course, all of this “is in my estimation”.

In conclusion, I hope that the errors generated by this article are now revealed and corrected.  You have my permission to print this corrected information in your errata. Please feel free to contact me at orthoward@optonline.net for any questions or comments you may have.  We, at Rohrbaugh, are striving to produce a quality and reliable product and pride ourselves that we listen to our customer’s feedback, both positive and negative, to be used for constructive purposes.

Very truly yours,
 
Michael Ward
VP Marketing and Operations

cc:  www.RohrbaughForum.com
www.TheFiringLine.com
www.TheHighRoad.org
www.KTOG.org

[shelb]

I hope you do not mind responses here, but BRAVO.  I really appreciate the Rohrbaugh crew taking the time to address facts  

[FJC]

I love the fact that it is the SAME GUN in all these reviews...should help quiet down the "Well, their QC must be spotty, some guns are good and some are bad" chatter...

[BillinPittsburgh]

In the past, I have found that Gun Tests produced more accurate reviews than a lot of the competition.  As I posted on the North American Arms forum, I disagreed with the reasoning supporting their conclusions.  Now, having read the above, my opinion of them has dropped several notches.

One of the things I was waiting to see before I buy a Rohrbaugh was the life span of such a potent, lightweight gun.  5,000 rounds through a test piece goes a long way towards addressing my concerns.  My other concern was the lack of availability of tritium sights, which was addressed in another thread on this forum.

After a less than stellar review of the North American Arms .32NAA, Gun Tests printed the rebuttal from Cor-Bon but not the one from North American Arms.  Whether or not I see the above letter printed in its entirety in the next issue or 2 will go a long way towards determining whether they regain credibility with me.

Re:  Recoil:  My North American Arms .380's recoil can be quite uncomfortable if I grab the gun exactly like I would any other, but becomes significantly more comfortable if I shift the backstrap over towards the knuckles.  Maybe Gun Tests didn't figure out the best way to hold the Rohrbaugh?

[R9SCarry]

Indeed, Bravo to Michael .. and dangit - an orthopoedic surgeon too --- quite a guy. Wow.

A brilliant letter - tempted tho he must have been to include invective it was just a well measured, factual and clearly constructed rebuttal.  I cannot fault any of his statements and certainly - if all this was thru #170 ... and that up to 5,000 rounds .. I 'd say that for sure ... that GT report has a strong smell of fish.  So very many inconsistencies.

As was said - heck - they could have cleared up a number of simple errors by the expedient of calling Rohrbaugh to find out.  So easy but no - make a big deal of certain things and screw up on facts.

Is there such a thing as ''gun libel''??  George ... I know - made that up!  But - the article painted aspects of the gun in a sufficiently bad light to lose the gun sales ..... smearing its name almost.

I have said before and in fact this echoes Michael's last statement ..... I am a fierce defender of this gun but at the same time, not in Rohrbaugh's employ and so if  I see or find a negative I'll say so - that would be honest reportage.  Based however on measured fact rather than lack of or mis information.

Thx Duane for posting that - more than glad to have been able to read it.  Kudos to Michael Ward.

[RJ HEDLEY]

"....your statement in which you categorically claim that you purchase all firearms so “as not to be beholden to anyone”."
                     [quote from the Rohrbaugh letter]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 I was contacted once by Gun Test Magazine, asking how they would be able to get a holster for some sort of test / evaluation.  I was aware of the above stated policy, so I told them where and how to order.  
 
If they ever ordered, I am unaware of it.  Guarding that budget, I guess.  

I have *given away* quite a few holsters to Magazine "product testers" over the years.  Only had one publish.   They get a lot of neat stuff that way, I suppose.

[jimacp]

I have no connection with Rohrbaugh, except that I have purchased on of their R9S. I do not defend a gun or anything else I purchase "just because I purchased it". In fact, I have NO PROBLEM complaining about a new purchase...go to the S&W forum and read about my purchase of a Scandium revolver I had problems with.  In fact, I consider the internet the great CUSTOMER EQUALIZER for poor customer service or products. With that said, the R9S has met every expectation I had of the gun and more (except for the ugly blue grips IMO ).  The gun has been totally FLAWLESS after 500 rounds, with no keyholing that I can see. I have a Gun Test subscription. After reading their article I was disturbed at the
obvious "one magazine" inaccuracy which was blatantly not accurate. I had previously been disturbed about similar inaccuracies in other articles such as the Wilson KZ45 COMPACT comes with a 10 round magazine. That also is not accurate. These are blatant inaccuracies I noticed right off the bat. It made me wonder what else was inaccurate in their evaluations.  Now that I read they do NOT purchase their firearms as they claim, that is the final straw and I wil immediately be cancelling my subscription to Gun Test. This isn't some rahrah allegiance for Rohrbaugh...this is for the fact that  I have noticed several basic inaccuracies in Gun Test articles, and now I find they lie to us about their purchase of guns. That INFURIATES me and it should everyone else as well.  F@#$ them!!  Thank you Rohrbaugh for making your product. You apparently read this forum since you had seen RJ Hedley and P9SCarry's post. I wish you every success and I know I am just one person, but I, and everyone else who owns one I imagine, will be complimenting your product to the people who haven't tried it yet.

[pocketman]

 

[BillinPittsburgh]

R9SCarry,

To answer your question, Rohrbaugh would have to show:

1)  Gun Tests made a false statement.

2)  They knew or recklessly disregarded whether the statement was false (I assume that Rohrbaugh is a "public figure" for purposes of public comment based on their advertising).

3)  The false statement was published.

In the case of libel, damages generally don't have to be proven.

[GeorgeH]

Both RJ and Bill can vouch that when I like something, I really like it.

As to the reply, I really like it. But, and there is always a but, I doubt that it will be published for two reasons: Its tone and length.

We, and by that I mean everyone at Rohrbaugh and here on this board, reacted viscerally to the Gun Tests review because of its factual inaccuracy (read--bullshit). I would have preferred a shorter response which just corrected the facts without commentary.  Sometimes it is just better to let the facts speak for itself.

By the way, I use to subscribe to Gun Tests. I let it lapse because I wasn't relying on it very much. But, this review will hurt Rohrbaugh, exactly how much is yet to be seen. Let us see what the other reviewers will say about this gun.

[gunner930]

 Hello fellow members, I just joined this forum. When I read the rebuttal, I had to join so I could state how very, very pleased I am with my R-9s! I own several compact DAO pistols, the R-9s being the largest except for an AMT 45acp Back-Up.
 Not even counting my AMT, as we all know how the action is on them, my R-9s absolutely amazed me by having the best DAO action of any pistol I've ever fired. The trigger pull is wonderfully smooth! It puts my N.A.A. 380 to shame. Although I've only had it for 2 days, what little I've fired it, I've found it to be as accurate as many pistols I've fired in single action mode. The DAO pull seems to make very little, if any difference in firing this gun accurately.
 Thanks to everyone at Rohrbaugh for designing and producing such a fine firearm! I think and hope we'll all see many more calibers come from them, which also have such fine quality and fuction as the R-9's I'd love to see a 45acp the size of the AMT Back-up with the function of the R-9. What a gun that would be!  

[Richard S]

What a great rebuttal Dr. Michael Ward presented to that useless, misleading, and self-serving  piece of drivel published by Gun Tests!  Lo, how the pompous are deflated.

Thanks for posting that letter here, Duane.  It has made my day!  (Now, I think I'll go out to the range and run a box of Golden Sabers through my R9s just so I can field-strip the little masterpiece when I get home.)

RS

[R9SCarry]

Gunner .. welcome to the forum ... and the ''owner's club'' ...  

George .... I take your point on the letter's length but have an ambivalence on it - in as much as yes, shorter would have been useful if it were to be published but, to be honest, I really think Michael had to lay all the cards on the table.

Facts do speak for themselves but - in this case, the shere panoply of errors did I think need addressed as singularities .. thus of course in the end, the letter did reach epic proportions.

Overall, and even if it does not get published (would they in fact even bother to publish a shorter one I ask myself!!?) ..... I am pleased we have it to read ..... and hope it gets exposure on the net such that it can redress the balance somewhat for many who have been duped (IMO!).