Need your input please

[Chihuahua TN]

Now maybe That is more wothwhile to get upset about, then a few cosmetic marks in the barrel of a belly gun.

My sentiments exactly!!

I understand peoples issues with quality control and paying top dollar for a barrel that has “chatter.” I think the bottom line is missed that this is the smallest pocket 9mm gun currently made. Designed as back up carry gun to “carry and not shoot very often.”

My daily carry has CF grips and typical carry ware, the guns functions and is reliable.  The barrel “chatter” it’s a non-issue at the distances for what the gun was designed for.

I mean no offence by this but the “chatter” is irrelevant in the designed function the gun serves for me. That function is a back pocket carry gun, no other production 9mm is as concealable. Bottom Line
Mike

[Quiet1]

This caused me to carefully inspect my barrel and it has heavy "tool marks" on the lands it's entire length.  I was happy as a clam with my R9s before reading this thread.  It just goes to illustrate the point I suppose, that ignorance is indeed bliss.

BYW mine was purchased new, has been 100% perfect with those.  Never a hiccup.  So, while I'm not happy about the crappy finishing of the rifling I suppose that I'll just live with it.  But, I agree with Tracker and others. This is a problem and should be corrected.

Sorry, since I seemed to have restirred this pot again with my rolling eyes, allow me to expound as to the cause of their rolling.

First, I have quoted excerpts from my original post.  They include that my pistol DOES function well and that I intend to keep it but that Rohrbaugh should be looking at ways to improve their rifling.

Has anyone thought by chance, that maybe, just maybe those rough marks may by accident "grip"  and "bite down" on the bullet and actually HELP stabilze the bullet BETTER before and/or as it leaves the barrel ?   Especially being a short barrel, that IS pretty important.

Now the Crown has to be mar-free, that can throw things off.

We have all read exempleary range reports on the incredible accracy of these little guns.  Pretty amazing huh?  So what if my barrel is not a purdy as my Smith or Colt - I can shoot it just about as good!  BFD.

Now a partial quote from a fellow forum member to which I respond:

What bothers me about some of the posts in this thread that simply extolling the virtues of the pistol, and dismiss the tooling marks, and there are many, is the inability to concede that as much as you love and support the product, it does have a problem.  The problem may not bother you and that's fine.  I respect that.  If you're 100% pleased and willing to accept some "flaws", I'm good with it.

However, (you knew there was a "however" coming didn't you? )  IMO to simply blindly follow and support a product or a person, as much as you like and admire it, or them, without some independent thinking and critical analysis and willingness to "see" and accept "facts" at face value is, akin to me, as Drinking the Koolaid.  In terms of products, (and people) many, many examples come to mind. Oh how I remember the old, hard core GM, Chrysler and Ford advocates back in the early 70's.      

So, while I don't disagree with those of you saying "Get over it.  It's a great gun"  I agree more with those who are saying, "For the kind of money that these pistols sell for, this problem should be studied and resolved"

Also, if, as has been suggested, there's any testing that should be done it should be by the manufacturer and the onus of posting proof, that there is NO potential negative effects that will result from the tool marks in the rifling, should be theirs.  Not the consumers.

Just my $0.02 worth.  YMMV  

[Robar233]

Quiet1,

 Well said. I am willing to bet this "problem" will be resolved at the factory in time.

[Reinz]

Also, if, as has been suggested, there's any testing that should be done it should be by the manufacturer and the onus of posting proof, that there is NO potential negative effects that will result from the tool marks in the rifling, should be theirs.  Not the consumers.

Just my $0.02 worth.  YMMV  

I respectfully ask you, would you believe the manufactuer if they came out and said they tested the "bad" barrels and said they are Ok ?  

They have actually already made a statement saying that the marks don't hurt anything.  

[DDGator]

What problems would you think tool marks in the rifling woud cause?

The guns are very accurate.  Do we need more accuracy from a pocket gun with minimal sights?

It seems at best this is a cosmetic issue.  But, its hard for me even to call this a cosmetic issue since you have to disassemble the gun and use a bore light to make out the marks.

I think we are stretching things a bit to call this a workmanship issue.  There is more workmanship in this gun than most anything you will find at this price.  Do you guys inspect the inside of the grip panels for small scratches too?

Customers are paying a higher than average price for the R-9 and getting a much better than average product in my opinion.  No one says the guns are perfect or beyond reproach in any way.  Quality and price are always a trade off.  Karl would like to make guns that are even higher quality, but the market is too limited.  Despite what you may think the margins are on these guns, I can assure you no one is getting rich making R-9s.

For those who never noticed this issue or cared until it was pointed out to them, I would say -- who cares?  For those who haven't yet taken delivery, I would say look at the barrel before you accept the gun if it's important to you.

I won't call it a "problem" - but that is just me.

Update: I spoke with Eric.  The factory is aware of this, and they are still looking into it.  This is cosmetic at best, and does not affect safety or function in any way.  When there is more information, I will pass it along.

[yankee2500]

Duane,
   Thanks for the first hand info.
   I have never done a bore inspection on either of my pups and agree with you that it is cosmetic and as long as there are no safety issues I don't care.
 I can also understand the concerns about how it should look and hopefully there will be a resolution to the issue in the near future, weather it will please those who are concerned is another story.

[ACP]

 I am with tracker on this issue. Duane's comments notwithstanding, I could care less whether this is regarded as "cosmetic' coming out of the factory as it augers towards the possibility of additional negativity down the road.

Further, I am not comfortable with the "buy back" policy of the factory as that clearly suggests a posture unwilling to deal with root cause. If this is such a non-issue, as suggested by some on this string, why is the factory buying back the guns?

If this problem were associated with a Kel-Tec my response would be "what do you expect?" However, from an R9, I would be unhappy were this to happen to me.

"Looking for trouble" is not difficult; it will find you every time. That is not what this is about; at least for me. We share a great deal of praise for our beloved R9 on these pages. This is not a time for our praise to morph into scorn. It is a time, however, to ask the factory to do a better job, categorically, as it relates to this matter.

[DDGator]

I guess our opinions can vary about whether this is really an issue or not.

Let me say the factory does not have a "buy back" policy.  I think they may have bought back two guns ever.

I think it is commendable that they will step up and buy back a gun when they know that they won't otherwise be able to make the the customer happy.  They would rather take a big loss on the gun than have a dissatisfied customer when nothing else will work.  Once they buy back a gun, it cannot be resold as new.

My understanding is that they haven't been able to address this issue easily or quickly.  You can't just run out to Wal-Mart and buy a new barrel reamer, assuming you could afford it.  And, you can't hand polish tool marks out of a rifled barrel.  So -- there is no easy fix.

That being said, they are working on it.  I will let you know when there is more definitive information.  No one cares more about the quality of these guns than the guys with their names on the slide--of that, I have no doubt.

[ccoorreeyy]

I think I have read a quite a bit more buy backs than two.

[ccoorreeyy]

I think I have read a quite a bit more buy backs than two.

[Robar233]

All,

 This thread has taken on a life of its own. This is the only forum that I read on a regular basis and is the only one I belong to. I think the back and forth on this topic is the true purpose of a forum. We have shared our opinions of a topic we all clearly care a great deal about.
 The R9 is a outstanding pistol. The form and function of this "pocket pistol" are its greatest virtues. I hope you all enjoy your pistols as much as I enjoy mine. Hopefully it will be your DCW too and you only have to shot it at the range!
Robar233

[MRC]

I disagree with the statement that this is strictly cosmetic and liken it to machine marks on the frame and hidden by the grip panels.  The barrel is a working part of the gun.  As an engineer, I think about the bullet being pushed down the barrel by expanding gases and high pressures and what these "tool marks" are doing to this process.

In my opinion a better comparison is a scratched cyllinder wall in my car engine.

[yankee2500]

I'm not saying the machine marks should be there or are acceptable. For a weapon designed for use at about ten feet or less they will have zero effect on anything important (accuracy, ballistics, bullet expansion) at it's intended use distance.
   If this were a target rifle and being used for six hundred yard bullseye shooting it would be a whole different story.
  I think if you were to do some chronograph testing at ten feet with a perfect barrel and the worst R9 barrel thats being talked about the difference would be no more than the standard deviation from perfect barrel to perfect barrel.

[RickP]

I disagree with the statement that this is strictly cosmetic and liken it to machine marks on the frame and hidden by the grip panels.  The barrel is a working part of the gun.  As an engineer, I think about the bullet being pushed down the barrel by expanding gases and high pressures and what these "tool marks" are doing to this process.

In my opinion a better comparison is a scratched cyllinder wall in my car engine.

A scratched cylinder wall in your engine would destroy the rings and ruin performance. R9s work just fine with funky barrels. After reading all this I checked my barrel. I did not see any noticeable tool marks and feel somehow deprived.

Rick

[yankee2500]

Rick,
  Maybe someone would be willing to trade you barrels.