We don't shoot them regularly? Who says?
Well first if you had read a little closer you would have noted that I said I was copying those paragraphs from another thread because I thought it was fitting with some themes expressed here. So, while it may have been apt, it was a response to a comment in another thread.
Second you are the one that said you opted to stop shooting at 101 rounds at the range because it "wasn't fun." A 101 rounds per session (unless one is having rather frequent sessions) is not shooting "a lot." Do you recall writing:
As I've mentioned, I shot 101 rounds on my first range trip. I stopped because it wasn't fun. I'd started on the 3rd box, but gave it up. It's a pocket pistol, and a good one.
Out of curiosity how often do you shoot it? On average how many rounds do you fire in a training session? What is your training regiment with that gun? How many training courses have you completed with? The afore mentioned are not tasks for range guns they are tasks for defensive guns.
Well, it's been explained many times and if you won't listen, then it will always be beyond you.
What has been explained many times? Why you don't shoot it a lot or why one buys a defensive gun without the intent to shoot it? Or what?
Since you wanted to criticize grammar in this thread I’ll point out that the above is not a sentence. BTW I’m sure my post is full of errors I don’t have time to proof read it. That’s why normally I don’t take people to task on it either.
I think you just like to hear yourself talk in an attempt to claim superiority of some sort.
Well that's an interesting theory. I'm sure it helps you to be dismissive of any type of legitimate discussion or critiques.
Do you really think that every single person who bought a Rohrbaugh is somehow rich and stupid at the same time?
I don’t think you have to be rich to buy one first of all. They really are not that expensive generally and they certainly aren’t on the high end of firearms prices by any means. We are not talking about fine English doubles.
I also don’t think you have to be stupid per se to buy one and nothing I wrote suggested that. I think if you read my comments without being defensive you would find that what I wrote is the type of person that buys them is attracted to them by a particular set of features. They seem like that Rohrbaughs are very small, rather light, and chambered in 9mm NATO.
Further, what I said was that if one has different criteria they are unlikely to be wooed by the Rohrbaugh. If you are after a primary EDC then it is not an attractive option. Why? Tiny pocket guns in general are just not very good primary carry guns period. As we have all noted and no one disputes there are times when that might be all you one carry and so you do because they are a big step up from no gun. That said, I have observed that many people who make a habit of pocket carry seem to identify many more situations as “pocket carry only” than do those who habitually carry another way. I’d wager the vast majority of people who buy little pocket guns would be rather hard pressed to perform at an acceptable level with them under stress. There is no need to argue in circles. The proof is in the pudding as they say. Take your Rohrbaugh out and do some of the type of shooting that best simulates defensive shooting. See if you can perform at an adequate level. There is no other debate. Most people need a lot of practice even with a duty sized weapon to be able to do so.
As you have stated the Rohrbaugh is a pocket pistol. It is only fair to evaluate it in that light and in terms of how well it serves that role. So how does it stack up against other pocket pistols? If one determines that a pocket pistol is desirable should that lead them to the Rohrbaugh? It didn’t for me because I found something I believe fits that role better.
The first thing that people bring up in advocating for the Rohrbaugh is that you can have a gun chambered in 9mm instead of .380 in the same size weapon. That sounds appealing, but as I discussed above this is somewhat less convincing argument when looked at critically. Take your Rohrbaugh and shoot it over your chronograph. The tiny gun suffers from significant velocity loss. Silvertips and Speer gold dots, the recommended ammo for what is undeniably a rather ammo sensitive gun get about 1000 FPS in the 124 grain loading and 1050 in a 115 grain loading. You pick up nearly 300 FPS with a 4” gun. Thus it is folly to think that you are getting 9mm performance yet it fits in you pocket. Many a Rohrbaugh fan will tell you that though. From what I have seen Gold dots still tend to give very good expansion even with the reduction in velocity. However, I’ve seen hydro shocks and gold sabers fail to open out of the Rohrbaugh. A 90 grain gold dot will be north of 900 FPS out of a LCP. Double taps load with the same bullet gets you around 1030. So is 20 FPS and 25 grains really a notable ballistic advantage? IMHO no it is not very meaningful at all. I think a lot of people place far too much stock in the fact it is chambered in 9x19
If there is no notable ballistic advantage then that leaves use to evaluate it with the other common pocket pistols on nearly even terms. If I need to fire I want to be able to make multiple fast hits. This is much more likely to be a dispositive factor in how an incident goes than 25 grains and 20 fps. There are a number of pocket guns that I find it easier to make followup shots with than the Rohrbaugh. The Rohrbaugh like the P3AT/LCP has a horribly high bore axis which means there is a lot of leverage to rock the gun back in your hand. This causes more muzzle rise and perceived recoil which means slower split times. Don’t take my work for it; use a shot timer, which you likely already are if you are serious about being able to use your gun. I found the colt Mustang to be much easier to make fast follow ups with. It is out of production and cost very near what the Rohrbaugh does. The Sig 238 in virtually the same. Much of what I’ll say about it could be said of other pocket pistols as well, say the Kahr 380.
Accuracy with the Rohrbaugh is likely to be mechanically accurate enough for defensive purposes. The bigger issue is how well can one shoot it, particularly under stress. Small guns are harder to shoot well and that will be the case for all of them. The Rohrbaugh’s sights vary depending on the model (either you have them or you don’t). The RS has pretty rudimentary sights. The sights on many pocket pistols just suck (e.g. the LCP). None that I have experienced are better than the Novaks that can be had on a Mustang. The Sig 238 has decent sights. The Kahr’s are workable At some ranges sights may not need to come into play. However, one is unlikely to dictate the details of the situation that requires them to use their carry gun. I would rather have sights (and good ones at that) than not, even on my BUG, and certainly if it is the only gun I have. Also of note is that the Rohrbaugh sights would make it very hard to do one handed clearance drills (the LCPs wont work either) there is not a lot of width on the edge of the ejection port to catch the slide to rack it either. With the Mustang I use the sights and with the LCP I use the ejection port. Of course all this presumes you have something hard to rack it on. Say a good stiff belt or a hard edge of a holster or mag pouch. You could run a strip of grip tape down the slide but I imagine many Rohrbaugh owners wouldn’t care to do that.
Size and weight. The Rohrbaugh is adequately small and light for pocket carry. It is pretty much the same size and weight as a Mustang. The LCP and kahr and the like are lighter but I am not of the opinion that it is significantly advantageous. In my experience that they are slightly less noticeable to carry but I do not think the difference would influence me much picking one over the other.
The Rohrbaugh is rather well made and a nice feat of engineering to put the 9x19 in such a small package. I do not think it is the best pocket pistol available, and that is without factoring in price in anyway. If a warts and all realistic look at a firearm upsets you I’m sorry. If your gun can do what you ask of it then that’s what counts (although I think it is wise for all of us to make sure we are asking the right things of them). For me the Rohrbaugh doesn’t best fulfill what I want even a pocket gun to do. The Mustang is a more usable gun that I can shoot and run better and more easily that trumps negligible 25 grains of bullet weight and less than 100 FPS every time. It is also a gun I do not mind shooting for extended periods of time and or with high round counts. Further it has much more commonality with my bigger guns. Consistency is good.
Other people I suspect have other criteria. And will come to different conclusions. Note that IMTHEDUKE has both a mustang and a Rohrbaugh and prefers his Rohrbaugh. That is fine. Like I said the only real measure is performance, everything else is theory and noise. If you are not training and using your gun in a manner that allows you to assess that performance then having a RS9 or LCP or PM9 etc is unlikely to matter much.
