Is a R9 for me? Easier to pocket than a J frame?

[kip42]

I carry a Glock 21 or 30. In my training Glocks have the fewest problems and more often then not keep ticking while others start to fail. With that said I have a 1911 and appreciate fine guns but the purpose of my pocket gun is strictly a hardcore reliable defensive pistol. I took a 4 day pistol class inwhich those who didnt come with Glocks ended up renting them because their guns went down. I used to be hardcore 1911 type of guy but  after a few class Glock really grew on me.

Now for the purpose of  this thread. I allways keep a pistol in my right front pocket for my support hand. My training has taught me that double feeds suck, and there are just some times that a backup gun is the ticket. With that said I carry my primary for my left strong hand drawl and a front pocket support back up. In any case the pocket gun is the last gun I take off.

I bought a Kahr 380 and paid 700 when it first came out. While pretty it is a piece of junk. I went back to carrying my tried and true Ruger LCP.

My concerns with the R9 are the lack of sights which make it harder to rack the slide on your boot heel and belt for one hande manipulation. Also makes mid range shots or low light harder. I have also read that you have to change the springs more often on the R9's. I like guns that run dry and dirty. Will the R9 run dry and after you throw it in some dirt? The kahr needs to be oiled to run. And when mine was clean it still didnt run but thats another story. I dont want to waist more money but rather wish to obtain the ultimate pocket gun.

For my purposes should I wait for the Sig mini 9mm to come out or stick with my LCP. Since I front pocket carry in regular cut jeans, shorts, and slacks with the R9 be much harder than an LCP to conceal?

How about the R9 compared to a S&W 340pd revolver? Which would be easier to pocket? FYI my training taught me that a revolver is sometimes better for CQB backup. The fact of going out of battery in the clintch range gives it an advantage. I would still prefer the slightly better ballistics of the mini 9mm and more importantly the ability to carry a reload on the holster such as with the Stellar Rigs pocket with spare mag kydex holster.

I shoot slower with a laser BUT when I shoot one handed point with my weak hand a laser actually improves my speed. Thats another concern I have with the R9.

The new ruger LC9 and similar size Keltec would be perfect but it is too large. I cant conceal a Glock 26/27 in my front pocket. Anything in its size category might as well justify me carrying one since my Glock 27 is 10 rounds of .40.

[yankee2500]

kip42,  Welcome to the group.
  The R9 s easier to pocket than a 340PD, I have an R9 and had a 340PD.
  You mention the lack of sights on the R9, there is a sighted and non sighted model. Although not very large they are there.


I am sorry to hear about the P380, I have one and it is and has been 100% reliable since day one.
  The Sig mini 9 is over 20oz empty.
The R9 weighs more than the LCP and is a little larger but is 9mm rather than 380.
I had my R9 finished with NP3 by Robar and use very little lube and could probably get by with none, as far as throwing it in the dirt I have no idea.

John

[chameleon]

I have an R9 (no sights) and I also have a S&W 340PD.
The 340 sees very little carry time, pocket or waistband.
The R9 w/o sights is many times my primary and a Seecamp 380 is in my strong side pocket.
Aside from your need for sights the R9 would work just swell.
As I grew older, I downsized my EDC guns, say what you want, but I'm sure I'm not the minority.The timing was perfect for me when Rohrbaugh introduced the R9 9mm. It is light, accurate and for me it has been reliable. Will I do a four or five day training class with it? No I won't.

It sounds like you have much training under your belt and maybe you need something a little more substantial as your back-up than an R9 or 340PD can offer.

[kjtrains]

kip42.  Welcome to the Forum.  I highly recommend the R9 and hope you find what you're looking for.  Check out the dogs blinking.  

[DDGator]

My Kahr P-380 has been great -- no problems at all.

The factory doesn't suggest you run the R-9 dry, or drop it in the dirt.  Some fine tolerances and precision are necessary in this tiny package for a 9mm.  I don't think the R-9 is going to continue to perform throuagh a "Glock-like" torture test.

However, I don't think a 340PD is either.  You can run it dry, but a little sand or a good hard fall on concrete can really screw up a wheelgun.

The revolver/semi-auto debate is as old as the hills.  You have to decide what parts of the equation are more important to you.  The R-9 will certainly be flatter and easier to carry.  The ballistics edge depends upon what loads you carry.  Reloading speed is probably about the same.  Reliability is probably a toss-up too.

I carry both from time to time, although my J-frame is a bodyguard or bobbed hammer 36 carried with +P ammo.

[Jack_F]

J frame pistols are too large for dress pants and snug fitting jeans.

A Kel tec 380 would be a cheap reliable gun.

[kip42]

How often do you have to replace the recoil springs? Are R9's ammo picky? Can I run +P ammo like Speer Gold Dots +p+ and Buffalo Bore +p Hardcast rounds?

[tracker]

Welcome, kip42. There should be no +P or anything other than standard pressure ever used in the R9 and the recoil springs are recommended changing every 200 rds. or so.

[Richard S]

How often do you have to replace the recoil springs? Are R9's ammo picky? Can I run +P ammo like Speer Gold Dots +p+ and Buffalo Bore +p Hardcast rounds?

Kip:

Welcome to the campfire!

I replace my R9's outer recoil springs about every 200 rounds. At $6.00 or so a piece, I have a lot of them on hand.

R9s can be particular regarding their fodder. Speer Gold Dots seem get the majority vote around here, followed by Winchester Silver Tips. A few of us, myself included, are partial to Remington Golden Sabers.

As to +P or +P+ ammunition -- no. The R9 is the smallest and lightest semiautomatic pistol yet designed for the 9mm Parabellum caretridge. It is not designed for +P or +P+ ammunition.

I consider the R9 to be a work of functional art. I've been carrying mine on a daily basis for what will be seven years in May. It is in my opinion quite simply the finest pocket pistol yet designed.

Good luck with your choice and again, welcome.

Edit: Another thing -- given the minimal tolerances of the R9, they like to be kept clean and well lubricated and do not like to be run hot. In other words, at the range, let the piece cool down a bit between strings of fire.

[Aglifter]

The pup's a pocket gun, not a duty gun.  I've carried it, w.o. cleaning it, for over 18 months before, and its always fired just fine.  

Its not rated for +p or +p+, but as much as it recoils, I don't think you need more of it.  I suspect the gun might be able take a limited amount of it, but unless its an emergency (EG, I'm pulling ammo out of my G17 to run in it) I won't try it.  

However, it does recoil much less than a 340PD - I've only fired the old, Ti cylinder version, but w. 357s the recoil's just too severe - they make great 38s, but I really suggest shooting one before depending on one - my shot-to-shot times were absurdly slow w. a lightweight 357.  

I've used either superlube or Brian Enos's Slide Glide to lube my carry guns, and haven't had any problems - for the long-term abuse of the pup, I've always used grease.  

A pup will tolerate far more dirt and abuse than a wheel gun.

 It takes a surprisingly small impact to a revolver to disable it, if its on the cylinder.  

As far as racking on a boot, etc, you might be able to figure out a way to do that, but I would think that any set of sights substantial enough to permit that would really interfere w. the ability to pocket carry a gun*.  

*I do have some pants in which I've pocket carried a P7 or a 329 NG - though usually just the 329NG - which is currently at S&W being repaired after a fall from my belt to the ground disabled it.  

When I started shooting competitively, I quickly abandoned the idea of carrying a compact gun (my G29) and switched to full-size guns.  The Rohrbaugh is a excellent example of the art of the possible.  A G17 is a superior choice, except that there is a tendency to leave it behind, where I even keep the pup in my PJs/Bathrobe.

[Richard S]

Now that is what I call an excellent review of the R9's purpose and use!

[kjtrains]

I agree.  Aglifter; great review.  I learned a few things myself. Read it again just to be sure.  Thanks.

[yankee2500]

Aglifter, Impressive review, and the 340PD is a definitely a hard knocking boomer with full power 357 ammo.

John

[Reinz]

kip42 - welcome to the forum.

While the members were very thorough, I would like to chip in with the information that you provided.

You stated that the R9 would possibly be your back up gun.  If so, using the sights to rack the slide would be great on a "wish list", but as Aglifter stated, it could hamper the draw.  And remember, this is The BUG.

As far as the outer recoil spring goes, that is a maintenance issue.  You know that going in.

Ammo - you always want to find out what works best.  And as far as + P goes, studies have shown that there is just not much increase in performance in barrels over 3 inches, so that issue is mute.

Finally as a personal testamony from someone who has carried concealed for over 30 years; I had always continuously searched gun shows, gun shops, and pawn shops for the Holy Grail of Pocket Pistols.   That being heap big power in a small package.
As soon as I first laid eyes on the Rohrbaugh I knew I had finally found it and I bought it immediately and have not looked back.


Good Luck in your search and I hope you are as successful as I was.

[BytorJr]

Reinz, I think (but could be wrong) that +P doesn't make that much difference in a barrel UNDER 3 inches.  

Looking at Federal HST 9mm 124g and their +P, it's 50 ft/sec difference coming out of a 4" barrel.  Not much, as you say.  Approximately 32 lb-ft more energy too in the +P.

I'd say coming out of the R9, the difference would be much less due to the probability not all the powder would have burned.