I have been following a thread on GlockTalk (yeah..I know) where I lurk sometimes. People are really bashing the R9.
Bashing is not unique to Rohrbaugh pistols. It happens with many relatively high-priced items: Swiss watches, BMWs, single-malt scotch, handmade knives ... the list goes on and on.
To understand the phenomenon, keep in mind that a consumer who decides to buy a particular item pays money in exchange for TWO kinds of benefits:
1. Functional Benefits
-- The ability of a purchased product or service to do what it’s supposed to do. This tends to be objective, in the sense that function can tested and measured. However, different consumers seek different functional benefits.
2. Emotional Benefits
-- The degree to which buyers feel better about themselves (or the world) after purchasing a product or service. This tends to be subjective, in the sense that it's highly personal.
When you see folks "bashing" a product, it's typically because THEY perceive a significant mismatch between the selling price and the value of the functional and emotional benefits.
Consider the happy purchaser of a new R9. He or she finds lots of functional benefits in a small, lightweight, well-made, reliable, all metal, 9mm pocket pistol with a smooth trigger. The price tag seems reasonable: after all, there are many customized 1911s -- and limited production revolvers -- out there that cost more than an R9. Compared to a Wilson 1911, an R9 is ... almost inexpensive.
The new R9 owner also receives emotional benefits: pride of ownership, delight that the R9 is precision made and hand tuned, the fun of showing "the pup" to others (including folks at the range), and the happiness of participating in this forum as an owner.
Next, consider the happy Glock purchaser who chooses the Baby Glock after rejecting the R9. We can assume that he or she perceived much less functional benefit in the R9 compared to the Glock. In fact, he or she probably decided that three of the R9's characteristics contribute NEGATIVE benefit to the equation:
1. The R9's somewhat "finicky" ammo tastes.
2. The R9's restriction against shooting +P ammo.
3. The requirement to replace the recoil spring after 200 rounds.
To this Glock purchaser, the R9's high price (compared to a Glock or Springfield XD or a Ruger LCP) seems WAY out of line. How can a pistol with so many "shortcomings" be so expensive?
And so, he or she presumes that people who buy R9s didn't do enough homework or -- more likely -- were swayed by emotions (e.g. they bought their Rohrbaughs as "status symbols" or because they have more money than sense).
I believe that many (most?) "bashers fall into this group of folks." They don't see themselves as bashers -- but rather as "honest observers of the truth" that a Baby Glock will do a better job than an R9 of shooting a carload of mixed ammo during a LONG range session.
Bottom line: "bashers" don't understand what makes the R9 worth having ... and never will. But, they are often fun to talk to.
Ron
