Small Auto Comparison

[Bobo]

P95Carry,

Oh and Bob - a favor please. I would very much like to post that image on my Rohrbaugh R9 FAQ site - it makes for a most useful reference. Would you object?

No problem the chart is open for anyone to use. BTW what is the URL to your Rohrbaugh site?

I have just added info on the Kahr MK series and will update the chart as soon as as I send this reply. So you might want hang in there for a few minutes.

 

[P95Carry]

Ahhh - OK thanks, will check back in later. Will this be the one above but over-written? Just so as I make sure I have the latest. Or maybe post latest as separate entity?

The link is in my sig line

 

[Bobo]

P95Carry,

After I asked for your site's URL I read ALL of your reply. Duuuuuuuuuuh!!

 

[Bobo]

P95carry,

Ahhh - OK thanks, will check back in later. Will this be the one above but over-written? Just so as I make sure I have the latest. Or maybe post latest as separate entity?

Yes, the one above, but updated.

 

[P95Carry]

Got it Bob - and thx again. I will hope to place that on the FAQ site later on today.

 

[ABBOBERG]

The only correction I would make is that the Kahr PM9 is 5.6" overall length, not 5.3" which is the slide length (I have measured this).

 

[Bobo]

ABBOBERG,

The only correction I would make is that the Kahr PM9 is 5.6" overall length, not 5.3" which is the slide length (I have measured this).

I believe you, but there is something odd about that. The Kahr 2005 catalog says 5.3". I don't know why there is a discrepancy. Is yours an older gun or something?

 

[P95Carry]

Bob - I have put a reduced size pic on the R9 FAQ site and with a link to the full size version. I did convert to grayscale as the color component was not really enough to matter - so it got my file size down just a tad more.

Thanks again.

 

[Bobo]

P95Carry,

It looks really good. The smaller version is still quite readable. You're right about the color not being very important. Thanks for offering it to others through your site. BTW your site has a lot of very useful info. I have it bookmarked.

 

[P95Carry]

Thx for taking a peek Bob - everything is about info sharing IMO - we all help each other. One of the things that makes us gunnies such reasonable folks!!

 

[ABBOBERG]

Bobo:

No, my PM9 is last year's model. If you are going to use a 4"x4" rectangular box as a reference, which I think is a great idea, then you should probably list the "rectangular size" of the gun, which many manufacturers do. Two exceptions are Kahr and Glock, which list the slide length instead of "rectangular size". I personally believe rectangular size is more honest, because the grip on some guns, like Glocks, can extend a ways beyond the back of the slide. On a Glock 17, for example, the rectangular length is more than 1/2" longer than the slide length.

 

[Bobo]

ABBOBERG,

I agree with you when you say, "I personally believe rectangular size is more honest," (than slide length).

I am listing all pistols in "Overall Length", which I believe is what you refer to as "rectangular size". If you will notice the attachment of the excerpt from Kahr's 2005 catalog, you will see that they use the term "Length OA" which I assumed, maybe wrongly, meant "Length OverAll". Maybe it is actually slide length, but if so, what does "OA" mean? Possibly they made a mistake in terms in their catalog.

Also, I assume, again maybe wrongly, that Height refers to "Overall" or "Rectangular" height including standard sights, magazine releases as in the Rohrgaugh, and any other protuberances.

As far as Width is concerned, some manufacturers list "slide width" and some list "overall width". I don't think this is quite as important in most cases, because the difference is generally insignificant.

I also think "Loaded Weight" would be more honest and realistic than "Empty Weight", but that's what most manufacturers use. Maybe they think it fools us into thinking their guns are lighter (and shorter), when in reality all it does is make them appear dishonest.

Who carries a gun, especially a CW "unloaded" anyway?

I know you can't get a really accurate loaded weight due to different weights in rounds, but they could give an approximate weight using "standard" ball ammo. A few grains here or there would not be significant when considering how much weight you would be really carrying in your pocket. But a fully loaded magazine and one in the chamber as most CW's are carried is significant additional weight. Especially the weight of the magazine plus 10+1 of 9mm as in the Kel-Tec P-11, or even 5+1 of 40 S&W as in the Kahr!

I certainly would like the chart to be as accurate as possible. I have relied on manufacturers' information for everything I have published in the chart. If their information is in error or incomplete, then I will have to rely on folks like you to fill in the gaps and correct the errors.

I thank you for pursuing this. I will update the chart to reflect your information. I will add something to the "Notes" in the chart to show the discrepancy in the Kahrs.

 

[Bobo]

Here is the latest update of the chart with the Kahr discrepancies noted.

Thanks to ABBOBERG.

=========================================================
I moved the 4" square to the butt end as ABBOBERG suggested.
I personally like it better this way. It really shows the difference between the end of the slide (slide length) and the true length of the gun. And as ABBOBERG said, it really shows how much more the barrel sticks out.

 

[ABBOBERG]

Bobo:

I appreciate you using my info and making the chart as accurate as possible. I had actually printed out a dimensional drawing of the Kahr PM9 off their website, and the horizontal length of the gun clearly showed them measuring the slide length. This measurement is also shown that way in the Glock literature. I am sure the Kahr PM40 is also longer than they state.

As far as gun weight, I agree with you in that I think the manufacturers of high-cap pistols don't want to seem heavier, so they state the empty weight - the Kel-tec P11 is a good example of this. I don't like it when manufacturers state the weight of the gun without the magazine, such as Glock does, because it is misleading, and it forces people to add the magazine weight listed separately.

As far as thickness is concerned, they tend to use slide width to cover up the protruding slide release. I say that the "slide release overall width" be included for pocket pistols since they will be poking in to you!

 

[Bobo]

ABBOBERG,

All gun specifications should be given with the gun in normal operational mode; i.e. fully loaded with standard ammo. Unloaded weight would be useful too, but not nearly as useful as fully loaded. The dimensional measurements should be overall, rectangular measurements with the magazine inserted. This does not have to include available options such as sights, high-cap magazines, finger extensions, grips, etc.

It must include the magazine and the number of rounds it holds fully loaded with "standard" ball ammo.

BTW I wonder if anyone has seen any info on the total weight of one round of "standard" ball in various sizes of ammo. With this info and the weight of the magazine we could come pretty close to the true carry-weight of any gun. All I'd need for the present chart is:
.32 ACP
.32 NAA
.380 ACP
9 x 19 mm
.40 S&W
and of course the magazine weights for each gun.

Hopefully, someone with an accurate scale and the proper ammo could supply this info. Or if it's already available, someone will share it.

I'd love to add that to the chart. It would be quite a meaningful eye-opener. Especially for guns like the Kel-Tec P-11

 

[Bobo]

One thing that I may not have mentioned clearly is:
All dimensions should be the largest standard dimension. It should include sights, slide locks, beavertails, hammers, finger extensions (if standard), magazines, magazine locks, grips, etc., i.e. any standard (not optional) protuberances.

 

[ABBOBERG]

Bobo,

I just thought of one more possible improvement - have the 4x4 rectangle align with the back of the gun. That way, people can visually see the difference between slide length and overall length, and you get most of the gun inside the rectangle - only the barrel sticks out.

 

[P95Carry]

Bob - I can't supply all the info you'd need for this possible further update but - I do have ball ammo for .380, 9mm, and maybe some .32 - oh hang on, that 32 S&W. I have of course mags for R9 - we can weigh one. Mags too for P3AT.

I know my R9 when ''stoked'' with 6+1 of GD 124 ... weighs in at almost exactly 17 ounces.

Let's see if we have enough folks to fill these gaps. I think NAA 32 might be hardest info to get. One or two folks on Rohrbaugh Forum have some good pocket guns - including a Seecamp i think.

 

[Bobo]

ABBOBERG,

I'll put a chart up with the 4" square align on the butt and we see how it looks. Then we can take an informal vote.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
P95Carry,

Any info you can provide will give us a start. Once I get enough info to do Loaded Weights on most of the guns I'll do another update.

 

[Bobo]

I updated the file in reply #38 to the square-in-the-butt version.
To save bandwidth I changed the file in the older reply (#38) rather than adding another version to the thread.

 

[P95Carry]

I have saved latest update for now.

I may not get to this tonight now and will be out a fair but tomorrow - but when I can - will do following -

Weigh - typical ball 9mm and .380,

Weigh - mags for R9 and P3AT ...

Weigh mags full with ball max capacity and then check final all-up wight of each gun with full load, including one in the tube.

Hope someone else can weigh up some NAA .32 and std .32acp.

I reckon too - your current chart is maybe about as full as it can be - could be a case for another auxiliary chart with extra info. Whatever works!

 

[Candiru]

albanian said:
From your list, I really like the looks of the Roarbaugh. If there was a chance of getting one for about $600, I would buy one. Almost $1000 is too expensive for a gun that has no track record and may or may not work. I have been burned too many times by the latest and greatest new pistol to spend that kind of jack on a new toy.

I was tempted by the Rohrbaugh, but its price dissuaded me and I went with a Kahr PM9. Good thing, too, judging by this review.

Felonious Monk said:
I'd love to see some revo's built smaller than J-frames and larger than the little .22 poppers whose name escapes me for some reason right now...they make the Black Widow among others. NAA! That's it!
Someday...

I've noticed that you and I share remarkably similar tastes in carry pieces and gun wish-lists. I would love to see a small break-top revolver somewhere around the .32 neighborhood.

 

[P95Carry]

I should point out - Kahr has somewhat ''latched on'' the R9 test and exploited it IMO. Probably quite predictable.

Following the original material the was a rebuttal from Rohbaugh - addressing problems and inconsistencies in the Gun Test review. It should be read before taking the Gun Test info at face value.

The Sept/Oct American Handgunner ran a review also - which was felt to be much better balanced. Discussion of this is Here - on Rohrbaugh forum which further balances the books I feel.

 

[Candiru]

Following the original material the was a rebuttal from Rohbaugh - addressing problems and inconsistencies in the Gun Test review. It should be read before taking the Gun Test info at face value.

Interesting. My main beef with most gun reviews are that they are not rigorous or consistent, which seems to be the case here. My preference still stands, but it's good to get the facts.

 

[GunGoBoom]

Wow, I want to thank you very much; that is most helpful to me in my current search for a new pocket pistol - great job; love the rectangle thing also.

Suggestions:

1. I would like to see where the Kahr MK9 fits into the mix. Although it's heavier, isn't it a smidge smaller than the PM9 & PM40?

2. No biggie, but personally I'd nix the P11 in the comparison - I think the Rohrbaugh/Kahr PM have the absolute max dimensions for any reasonable pocket gun, and if you have the P11, you'd almost have to start including others of its size as well, no?

3. It would be nice if the recommended ammo limitations are shown with each gun....for example, the Rohrbaugh is limited to standard pressure (no +P), and the Seecamps are quite finicky, aren't they? I.e. Winchester silvertips only will cycle reliably - is that the 32 or both the 32 and 380? Bottom line, ammo limitations shown would be nice. Also, is it spelled Seecamp, or Seacamp, as you spelled it?

Thanks again.