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

[RJ HEDLEY]

Bandit

What are you trying to find ? Mr Ward referred to a lot of things.

[MurrayNevada]

Bandit:
There are a number of pictures in this forum showing a direct comparison.

[gunner930]

 Does anyone have a pair of glasses i could borrow?  

[Richard S]

Gunner:

Keep the faith.  And welcome to the Forum.

RS

[gunner930]

 Thanks for the welcome Richard and everyone else here! I'm learning alot from all of you. Always Faithfull.....

[TCat]

I'm wondering how many of you actually read the article.  It wasn't nearly as much a hatchet job as the response in this thread makes it sound.

They did point out repeatedly that the Rohrbaugh is smaller and preferred by some of their testers.  They didn't state that the screw was aluminum, just that they hoped it wasn't.  They didn't make a big deal out of accuracy, but keep in mind that the keyholing seems entirely consistent with how finicky the Rohrbaugh is to ammo.

And, as to why they didn't purchase one when their policy is that they do... read some of the other messages in this forum.  It's not easy to get your hands on one quickly.  The options in this case were either pay an extreme premium over list, not review it at all or get a press gun.  Perhaps in the future the press gun should come packaged as if for sale, but even the single magazine was not made a big issue of.

I've been seriously considering a Rohrbaugh myself.  It would fit nicely to my set of odd smaller guns, including a Firestar M43 and a Colt Mustang PocketLite.  But the ammo restrictions and the need to stay in practice to avoid jams (which is well documented in a lot of places, including an interview with one of the brothers who notes that this is not a gun for novices) may place it out of my comfort range... in exactly the same way a Ferrari is out of my comfort range; fantastic, unbeatable tool if you'll put the time and training and effort into using it it's way.  Trouble is, I tend to want to use them my way.  

[DDGator]

Tcat,

Welcome to the forum.

Most people on this thread did read the entire review -- in fact, it was posted here for a while before it was removed for copyright reasons.

This place of full of early adopters and Rohrbaugh enthusiasts who are very happy with their R-9s, so an enthusiastic response is to be expected.  I have debated the PM9 v. R-9 issue to death here and in other forums and I still do not believe they are quite in the same class -- its an unfair comparison in many ways.

The R-9 is not quite so finicky as people may lead you to believe.  It is clearly a handfull to shoot -- those (like me) who want to shoot premium 9mm ammo out of an 11 oz. gun tend to get what they deserve -- i.e., be careful what you ask for you just might get it!

[9mil.mouse]

Hi TCat,

I did read the article, and I was actually pretty shocked by it.  

I had been shooting my Rohrbaugh for a couple of months, and was completely satisfied with its performance out of the box. No failures to extract, no failures to fire, accuracy "as good as I am" and the only drawbacks I  noticed with the Rohrbaugh were ones I expected. It is a small, light, pistol, and recoil is noticeable but manageable, the trigger pull is long like a double action wheelgun, but very smooth.

Personally, I haven't found my own Rohrbaugh to be finicky about ammo, I have just always shot quality ammo in the Rohrbaugh and my other guns, and I think that goes a long way toward allowing any gun to perform at its best.

I did feel the article used the fact that they had received only one magazine as an unfair black mark against the Rohrbaugh and to me that indicated some unfortunate ignorance on the part of the reviewer, since all purchased Rohrbaughs come with two mags.

Well, anyway, those are my thoughts and honest reactions to your post, none of this is directed at you. In fact, welcome to the group.    

[TCat]

Thanks for the welcomes.  Yes, early adopters tend to be very enthusiastic and dogmatic even, regardless of arena.  And people who buy premium-priced items also tend to be very defensive, again regardless of arena... e.g. Mac computers, McIntosh or tube-based audio equipment, BMW autos, anything where a premium was paid and it's difficult to quantify the benefit based on the cost.

So clearly the R9 fans will be overly defensive, being as it's both a new item and brand and a premium-priced item.

What I'm trying to discern for myself is the actual frustration value of the weapon.  My others are bone-solid-reliable and easy to use, although some of this is due to extensive reworking.  The word on the web (i.e. at less partisan gun fora) is that the P9 has the following disadvantages, relative to many other similar weapons (e.g. Guardian series, Seecamp, Kahr PM9, Firestar, etc.:

• Prone to stovepipes, relative to others.  Not that it will happen all the time, but it's a lot more likely with an R9 than a LWS380 or PM9 or M43, etc.
  
• Not +P rated.  Which is not a problem if you buy and stick to a single recommended model of ammo as suggested, but may be a problem if you fancy a particular line.  This is similar to Seecamp,  but annoys me.  I still am a fan of (and have quite a bit of) Black Talons for example.  My HiPower was carefully ramped to be able to reliably handle Cor-Bons.  (Over a decade ago, I hasten to point out.)
• Difficult strip-and-reassemble.  Nobody has disputed this.  It's an issue for me; I despise, and won't use, guns I can't easily clean after.
• Very technique-dependent.  I don't have it handy, but I read an interview with the creator/co-founder, who was very clear that this is a shooter's gun and that less-serious shooters should not bother; it will be too unreliable and hard to use.  I don't practice enough for that, unless I qualify on account of lots of shooting in the 80s.
  
• High-Maintanence, in that you are urged to replace the spring every 500 rounds.  That's perhaps reasonable but it's gotta add up!
• Expensive.  Not really an issue but paying a lot for something that will annoy you, well, that reminds me of marriage.

In fairness, there are a lot of good things said on the web fora about the R9 also:

• Smallest 9mm out there. By a lot more than the measurements make you think.  Lots smaller than the PM9.
• Excellent accuracy if you use the correct ammo and good technique
• Very cool, feels really high quality
• Reliability isn't an issue if you pay attention and do everything right.  Failures are your fault for doing it wrong and using the wrong (not cheap, just not correct) ammo

But that does bring me back to how much convenience I wish to sacrifice for my next gun.  I don't marry them, I don't train frequently with them (although I do go to the range enough to stay competent), I do expect them to be wife-friendly (meaning she shouldn't need to learn a lot to use them).  I think the Gun Tests article was largely aimed at non-partisan users like me, not dedicated gun nuts who probably have purchased four guns this year.  And all the Gun Tests report said was about what I read online in fora anyhow.  
Which still has me lusting after a P9s, but considering swapping the smaller size for the friendliness in ammo/use/stripping/price of the PM9 or something else.  

I'll keep watching.  Perhaps I'll wind up agreeing that concerns are overblown.  But it is a lot to spend on a gamble.

[jimacp]

Most people who post their opinions about guns base those opinions on their limited, personal experience with one gun that they happen to own, or have tried, or that a friend owns, etc.  This limited experience is especially true of a gun such as the Rohrbaugh, which is new and still scarce. Obviously, this limited experience may be a useful tidbit of information, but it is hardly the basis to draw a definitive conclusion. So, with that said, I can only offer my own personal tidbit...I have fired @ 650 rounds through my personal R9s without ANY failures of ANY kind. All my shooting was with 124 and 115 gr. gold dots, and PMC.  Should you buy the gun based on my personal experince..of course not!  However, remember you are basically doing the same thing if you depend on an article in a magazine such as gun tests. You are hearing their opinion based on their limited, one gun experience. My problem with gun tests magazine is that they routinely, in my opinion, mis-state basic, crucial information. Consider their recent article describing the S&W 4040 as having a TITANIUM frame!!!  Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that S&W might use titanium for the cylinders of some of their lightweight revolvers, but the frames of those same revolvers, and the frame of the 4040 pistol, are made of scandium (actually, a little scandium and a lot of aluminum).  There is no such thing as a titanium framed 4040, although I would love to have one if they made it and I could afford it! Anyway, just an example...and there are many others!!!  Personally, I did read their article on the R9s and it did seem to me they made a fairly big deal out of the incorrect statement that the gun comes with one magazine. As far as gun test magazine is concerned, I think you have to agree that, as I pointed out above,  any evaluation based on one example is suspect based on sample size. While its interesting and informative to hear about individual experiences. the net forums are full of those without paying for a subscription.  If I am going to pay, then at least I expect them (gun tests) to get the background and basic information about the gun correct! Otherwise, what they offer is worth no more than reading about my experience with my R9s, and I'm not charging you to convey that  !  I think it is much more informative and valid to consider the collective experiences offered on boards such as this one than it is to base a decision on one writer's experience...whether that writer be me or the gun test author. It appears to me that while a few people are reporting problems, collectively the information regarding the R9s is as follows:
     1.   With exception of people who have pin problems regarding the older type pin, the R9 is generally reported as exceptionally reliable,especially compared to other pocket guns of equal size;
     2.   You will not have key hole problems if you use correct ammo...Gold Dot seems to be one such ammo;
     3.   If you do have problems Rohrbaugh will definitely stand behind their product and make it right;
     4.   R9 is for people to whom size matters....there is little point in buying an R9 if you don't need a very small but powerful  POCKET pistol;
     5.  the guns are expensive and hard to find.

Personally, I don't consider the Kahr to be comparable as a POCKET gun. I do consider the S&W 340, and the Seecamp 380 to be more appropriate competitors, although the S&W is obviously a revolver, and the Seecamp is of a lesser caliber. At least they are both high quality, reasonable options as pocket guns, while the Kahr is too big IMO for say shorts or summer clothes pockets.  Not that it can't be done..its just not optimal.  Am I trying to defend my purchase...maybe...but the fact remains that I personally have not had ANY problem, and the gun carries extremely well. And if gun tests had asked me, I could have told them the R9 DOES come with 2 magazines, the Wilsom KZ Compact has a 9 round magazine, rather than 10 as they reported, the s&w 4040 IS not MADE OF TITANIUM, ETC, ETC, ETC....

    

[Jim]

Well said JimACP.....  I must say, at this point, I don't care if I have to use the R9S as a blunt force weapon!!!!  Mine will be here by the end of this month... and I just can't wait!!!  Let her jump, rip, and snort,  I'm ready for her!!!  I'm retired so disassembly time shouldn't be a problem!!!  I love Gold Dots and have lots of em!!!  I love pee wee guns that have tight tolorences and this one appears to be very tight!!

This fine looking weapon may not be right for everyone, but it will be for me, sight on seen!!!!  I will shoot it well as I am dedicated to do so!!!  I have spent 859.00 on many many things through out my life that haven't been nearly as impressive as the Rohrbaugh!!!

A happy R9S fellow forum member, you bet cha!!!!

An objective evaluation of the R9S, Nah, I don't even have it yet!!!  However, sometimes a fellow just knows whats right and this gun is very right for me.............

You guys have a great Sunday and thanks for all your super posts....   Jim, (in the thumb of Mi.)

[Richard S]

Jimacp:

Great post!  My experience with the Rohrbaugh is similar to yours.  I consider my R9s to be one of the finest pistols I have ever owned.

RS

[DDGator]

Well, first its an "R"-9, but -- as for the rest:

* Prone to stovepipes, relative to others.  Not that it will happen all the time, but it's a lot more likely with an R9 than a LWS380 or PM9 or M43, etc.

The failures noted in this gun (due mostly to use of the wrong ammo) were not in the nature of a stovepipe to my knowledge.  Any internet chatter about that is wrong or misleading in my opinion.  Heck, the NAA Guardians stovepipe on the last round of every magazine and NAA has billed it as a "hold open" feature!  PM9s have their share of problems too, as you probably have read.  I don't know what an M43 is.


Not +P rated.

Nope.  Not designed to be.  This gun was designed to be the smallest possible 9mm pocket gun.  This invovled a serious negotiation with the unchanging laws of physics.  Rohrbaugh, in cooperation with Wolff Springs, experimented by trial and error, and shaved every last .1 inch off this slide and spring combo to get this done.  9mm +P pressures would have required a bigger gun.  If you MUST have +P, this is not your gun -- buy a bigger PM9.

Difficult strip-and-reassemble.  Nobody has disputed this.  It's an issue for me; I despise, and won't use, guns I can't easily clean after.

Its not as easy as a Glock.  Not that much harder than a CZ to me -- except it requires a punch.  More straightforward than a 1911.  The first time is the hardest.  Using any of the tools described on this board would help a lot.  Its not that big a deal to me, and I am no home gunsmith and not particularly mechanically inclined.

Very technique-dependent.  I don't have it handy, but I read an interview with the creator/co-founder, who was very clear that this is a shooter's gun and that less-serious shooters should not bother; it will be too unreliable and hard to use.  I don't practice enough for that, unless I qualify on account of lots of shooting in the 80s.

I read the same interview -- and didn't think that was what he meant.  I think he meant that shooting full-pressure 9mm ammo in an 11 oz. gun is not for new shooters.  The gun is not technique dependant in my opinion.  I have tried to limp wrist this gun and cannot.  Yes -- lots of shooting in the 80s will be fine, so long as you can maintain trigger control on a small gun and not develop bad habits -- like a flinch.

High-Maintanence, in that you are urged to replace the spring every 500 rounds.  That's perhaps reasonable but it's gotta add up!

No different than the Seecamp.  Its unavoidable in a gun this small -- the spring wears rapidly.  500 rounds is a convervative estimate for obvious reasons.  Changing a spring is not high maintenace in my opinion.  Its an easy function when field stripping the gun.  One spare comes with the gun.  If you shoot your R-9 more than 1000 rounds, you have earned a free spring.  I will send you one.

Expensive.  Not really an issue but paying a lot for something that will annoy you, well, that reminds me of marriage.

I have been through this extensively here and elsewhere.  This guns costs a lot to make -- all top quality materials made in a small low-volume factory with a lot of hand fitting and assembly.  No plastic or MIM or cast parts.  Its almost a semi-custom piece.  Its also the smallest pocket 9mm available, and a lot of R&D went into that process.  By all means, if you think it will annoy you -- don't spend the money.


I should also point out -- you say we are over-enthusiastic about our guns. Maybe so.  Keep in mind, however, that much of the internet criticism you hear is also a product of human nature -- people who don't have the latest and greatest or think they can't afford it are overly critical.  Call it jealously or whatever, but the guy who scraped to afford his PM9 wants to drag down the R-9 because he doesn't have one.  I see all sorts of negatism about this gun from people who have never seen one.  Such is life.  Personally, I think anyone who can afford a $600 Kahr can buy a $900 Rohrbaugh if they really want one.

The R-9 is a high performance sports car.  It costs more, but it is made to outperform everything in its class -- if you even consider it to be in a class with any other gun out there.  You have to feed it premium fuel and keep it clean (but not unreasonably so).  When used for its intended purpose -- it is a fantastic tool.  Don't feed your Ferrari regular gas, don't forget to change the oil, and don't try to haul plywood home from Home Depot.

[R9SCarry]

Good posts ..... which have covered a lot.

Let me just add ...... repeating what I put on my test #3 web site report, following discussion with Karl ..... it bears further exposure IMO, and includes some personal comments.

[size=13]The design of the barrel is such that there is a significant freebore of 0.250" - the reason for which being pressure control. As we all know I think, the 9mm Parabellum round is a high pressure round, even at standard pressures. This small delay before bullet engagement with rifling permits the immediate pressure peak to dissipate to a safer level - sparing the barrel/slide mechanism some extreme trauma. This is both desirable and necessary with the design of such a small gun using this round.

Further to this - it can probably be imagined therefore that not every bullet of every type will engage the rifling with absolute symmetry, per the example above. This then also explains why there are occasions also where a perceptible degree of bullet tumble is seen after exit from the gun.

I have stated elsewhere - this gives me no cause for concern, seeing as the likelhood of long range engagements is remote. It being much more likely that ''things'' would be happening within ten feet or so. At this distance I doubt if an assailant is going to make much complaint if he is hit by a 100% stable bullet - or one which started to tumble a little![/size]

[GeorgeH]

Hi TCat:


You raised some interesting points. I understand them all, except for the stovepipe, which is new to me. My R9s has not experienced any stovepipes yet. And I haven't heard about it being a problem with others.

I've also read the replies to your post, and found them interesting as well.

But, you are comparing apples to oranges. When comparing the R9 to other firearms, there are only two competitors in the marketplace: The NAA Guardian 380 and the Seecamp 380.  There is no comparable 9mm pocketgun. The Firestorm, Kahr PM 9, et cetera are compact firearms, but not pocketguns.

I have always used, over the last 14 years or so, frangible ammo in my pocketguns so to maximize their ability to cause injury to an assailant. Both Magsafe Defender and RBCD are standard pressure cartridges and it makes little difference to me that the gun isn't rated for +P. Yes, having the gun rated for +P would help in marketing, but Seecamp, didn't miss any meals selling a pistol designed for a single specific brand of ammo, and I own 3 Seecamps.

As to cost, have you priced a mid-level side by side shotgun or good quality rifle. If you have, then you know that the Rohrbaugh is cheap in comparison. While CNC maching is used to build the parts, the gun is hand assembled--one at a time--by one person and not an assembly line. When you look at other hand build guns, like Clark, Ed Brown, you will see that the cost is at least a third higher than the Rohrbaugh.

Yes, the Rohrbaugh is expensive when compared to mass produced guns, but then it was not intended to compete with those firearms.

The only reason that I bought the Rohrbaugh was that it is the smallest 9mm on the market. I wanted a small 9mm pocketgun. If there was a mass produced version as small or smaller, I would have bought it instead.