Why not Rohrbaugh?
- Thread starter Shmackey
- Start date
- Status
JohnBT
Member
"I defy anybody to see a difference in terms of workmanship, fitting or quality of build when it is compared to pistols as pedestrian as a Glock or a Beretta."
Just because you can't see a difference doesn't mean there isn't at least one. Have you seen your eye doc recently?
For instance, did you notice that Glocks don't have metal frames? Did you notice that those two pistols you mentioned are huge compared to an R9? You didn't? Jeez, almost anybody can design a full-sized pistol that works.
It's the R&D that's so costly when it comes to making a tiny pistol that will handle 9mm ammo (if you can get it to work after years of development => speaking of Boberg.) Doesn't anybody know anything anymore about design costs and manufacturing or did we ship the knowledge to China too?
I see the Kimber Solo is undergoing design changes as we speak. They goofed on the mag release and are still waiting on a part that will work. Good designs take time and money.
Just because you can't see a difference doesn't mean there isn't at least one. Have you seen your eye doc recently?
For instance, did you notice that Glocks don't have metal frames? Did you notice that those two pistols you mentioned are huge compared to an R9? You didn't? Jeez, almost anybody can design a full-sized pistol that works.
It's the R&D that's so costly when it comes to making a tiny pistol that will handle 9mm ammo (if you can get it to work after years of development => speaking of Boberg.) Doesn't anybody know anything anymore about design costs and manufacturing or did we ship the knowledge to China too?
I see the Kimber Solo is undergoing design changes as we speak. They goofed on the mag release and are still waiting on a part that will work. Good designs take time and money.
verdun59
Member
John, I've been reading this on - going debate for days. I think you have done a masterful job, but alas there are some who will never grasp what you are saying. I think you need to realize that in this life you are issued only so many words; ergo why waste them.
By the way do you ever go over to Dominion to shoot?
By the way do you ever go over to Dominion to shoot?
SwampWolf
Member
Thanks. I knew it looked wrong when I wrote it. Will edit.
SwampWolf
Member
And what does metal vs plastic or large vs small have a darn thing to do with "workmanship, fitting or quality of build"? Those are the three attributes I mentioned and you don't need a magnifying glass to see any difference in terms of these qualities on the pistols I arbitrarily referenced because there aren't any.
Looks like you're "fitting in" just fine.
JohnBT
Member
"And what does metal vs plastic or large vs small have a darn thing to do with "workmanship, fitting or quality of build"? Those are the three attributes I mentioned and you don't need a magnifying glass to see any difference in terms of these qualities on the pistols I arbitrarily referenced because there aren't any."
Of course there are differences. You just don't see them or they aren't important to you. At least you aren't claiming cheaper guns are better just because they're cheaper.
You don't think the materials used in building a gun have any bearing on the final quality? The selection of the raw materials to be used is the first step in the workman or designer building something. You don't think building a tiny 9mm at the very edge of what will reliably function (slide mass, spring weight/size, chamber pressure, etc.) involves workmanship and a lot of work on the quality of the design and the build? You can't use cheap materials and overbuild a tiny gun or it won't be tiny. (Where's that joke about nobody needing a Ruger smaller than a canned ham?)
We must be talking about different things. Lots of people see the value and quality of a Rohrbaugh. I don't insist everyone see it, but I refuse to buy into the idea that an R9 is no different at all than a Kahr or a Jennings. Or a Glock or an FNP-9. A Kahr might not be much different, but there are some differences.
Of course there are differences. You just don't see them or they aren't important to you. At least you aren't claiming cheaper guns are better just because they're cheaper.
You don't think the materials used in building a gun have any bearing on the final quality? The selection of the raw materials to be used is the first step in the workman or designer building something. You don't think building a tiny 9mm at the very edge of what will reliably function (slide mass, spring weight/size, chamber pressure, etc.) involves workmanship and a lot of work on the quality of the design and the build? You can't use cheap materials and overbuild a tiny gun or it won't be tiny. (Where's that joke about nobody needing a Ruger smaller than a canned ham?)
We must be talking about different things. Lots of people see the value and quality of a Rohrbaugh. I don't insist everyone see it, but I refuse to buy into the idea that an R9 is no different at all than a Kahr or a Jennings. Or a Glock or an FNP-9. A Kahr might not be much different, but there are some differences.
JohnBT
Member
"I defy anybody to see a difference "
Didn't think anybody would defy you, did you? Surprise.
Didn't think anybody would defy you, did you? Surprise.
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
I for one believe it is made of fine materials and workmanship..
but that, in itself does not make it a fine firearm., Like I said before, it does not matter if they are made from fine materials . It must function as good or better to me than those costing much less, especially when our lives are on the line. This is not a Perazzi Shotgun that one is using to hunt game. There are too many people having reliability issues with this pistol and for that kind of money it should work flawlessly , regardless of the kind of materials and workmanship it has. I have beautiful Colt Pythons and appreciate fine workmanship such as the Rohrbaugh R9 that I wanted to buy. But , this gun must function very well, if it is to protect a person . And based on my findings and the findings of others , it has not measured up.
but that, in itself does not make it a fine firearm., Like I said before, it does not matter if they are made from fine materials . It must function as good or better to me than those costing much less, especially when our lives are on the line. This is not a Perazzi Shotgun that one is using to hunt game. There are too many people having reliability issues with this pistol and for that kind of money it should work flawlessly , regardless of the kind of materials and workmanship it has. I have beautiful Colt Pythons and appreciate fine workmanship such as the Rohrbaugh R9 that I wanted to buy. But , this gun must function very well, if it is to protect a person . And based on my findings and the findings of others , it has not measured up.
Guns and more
member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,929
I'd like an R-9.
The dilemma is this. I'd like a lot of new firearms.
I love my Seecamp, and it's a somewhat pricey firearm too.
I'd love an EMP, but not at $1100.
We all make choices. Right now, a $1000 + gun is not justified.
Maybe someday, I'll get both of those.
The dilemma is this. I'd like a lot of new firearms.
I love my Seecamp, and it's a somewhat pricey firearm too.
I'd love an EMP, but not at $1100.
We all make choices. Right now, a $1000 + gun is not justified.
Maybe someday, I'll get both of those.
SwampWolf
Member
If a given material is appropriate to the design parameters and intended use of the pistol then the properties of said material have no bearing whatsoever on "the final quality" of the gun. HK pistols are made from a plastic derivative and yet no one I know considers them anything less than a quality pistol. For those that believe steel is the "best" material for making a pistol, one has to wonder where aluminum fits into the equation. One of the reasons Glock and HK and Smith & Wesson and Ruger and SIG as well as host of other firearm manufacturers (Rohrbaugh comes to mind
) make pistols out of plastic and/or aluminum is simply to save weight, and, for many people, saving weight on a pistol that is carried all day in a pocket or a holster is a good thing.If building a small(er) pistol around a given cartridge, be it a .380, a 9mm, a .40 S&W or a .45 ACP, necessarily makes it more costly to build than an equivalent bigger framed pistol, why don't the smallest .380s, 9mms, .40 S&Ws and .45 ACP pistols made by other companies cost more (much more in the context of the price of a Rohrbaugh) than their equivalent stablemates? How much smaller can you make pistols chambered in .380 made by Kel Tec, Ruger, S&W, Taurus and others? Pistols made at the "very edge of what will reliably function (slide mass, spring rate/size, chamber pressure, etc.)". Yet, the smallest pistols made by these companies invariably cost less, sometimes much less, than their larger counterparts.
So, in the "real world", smaller pistols usually cost less to buy than bigger pistols. In lala land, where price is apparently no object, smaller pistols cost more, much, much more in fact, to buy than bigger pistols. Guess where most people reside.
Last edited:
SwampWolf
Member
You're right, JohnBT. My challenge should have been worded, "I defy any objective person to see a difference."
It also should go without saying that a simple act of defiance doesn't necessarily equate rightness.
Last edited:
chihuahuatn
Member
WOW this thread is almost as comical as reading the forums at the Huffingtonpost.
Allot of "hate" for the Rohrbaugh here, I can't quite understand why.
There are actually Kel-Tec vs Rohrbaugh comparisons posted; last time I checked I don't live on fantasy island. I am a die hard Kel-Tec fan currently owning 8 of their pistols. I have replaced countless parts, modified parts, placed 6,011 documented rounds through my P3AT...hell I have Kel-Tec service dpt number stored on my iPhone. I don't even think for a second that there on the same level of quality and function.
John and others have stated more eloquently than me, but the Rohrbaugh is the highest functioning quality pocket pistol I own and have come across (over the Seecamp). The pistol is well worth its price and serves a specific purpose being the smallest and lightest 9mm made.
The old adage holds true "you get what you pay for"....pertains to Lawyers, Accountants, Surgeons, camera lens, guns ect.....opinions will vary
Mike
Allot of "hate" for the Rohrbaugh here, I can't quite understand why.
There are actually Kel-Tec vs Rohrbaugh comparisons posted; last time I checked I don't live on fantasy island. I am a die hard Kel-Tec fan currently owning 8 of their pistols. I have replaced countless parts, modified parts, placed 6,011 documented rounds through my P3AT...hell I have Kel-Tec service dpt number stored on my iPhone. I don't even think for a second that there on the same level of quality and function.
John and others have stated more eloquently than me, but the Rohrbaugh is the highest functioning quality pocket pistol I own and have come across (over the Seecamp). The pistol is well worth its price and serves a specific purpose being the smallest and lightest 9mm made.
The old adage holds true "you get what you pay for"....pertains to Lawyers, Accountants, Surgeons, camera lens, guns ect.....opinions will vary
Mike
Mike I don't understand it either. I do note that almost all of it comes from posters who do not own a Rohrbaugh and who have never even fired one, which makes the critique questionable.
Those who do own one and have fired one tend to see it as you do - it is a firearm made of high quality materials and was designed to be the smallest lightest 9mm firearm made; it achieves that goal. While there may be other small 9mm pistols on the market and while they may also be cheaper than the Rohrbaugh, none is as small nor as light. Given some common sense care (in ammo selection and cleaning) it is absolutely reliable. I can only remember one owner (who bought a used R9) posting on the Rohrbaugh forum who never got his pistol to run reliably - and Rohrbaugh actually bought his pistol back from him (how many makers stand behind their product to that extent???). Since then that same poster bought a new R9 and it runs perfectly for him so now even he is a happy owner.
The original question posed in this thread was "why not a Rohrbaugh?" to which the only answer provided that makes any kind of sense is that it is expensive. If you don't see the value in the firearm then don't buy one. If you do see the value, then buy one. Regardless of which side of that equation you are on you will be happy with your decision.
I don't see why $1100 or so is such a big deal. People pay several thousand dollars for stainless divers watch with little crown near top of the dial. I would not even pay $1000 for one. I wear stainless Bulova with sapphire crystal and quartz mvt. that requires battery change about every two years. It is more accurate cost $40 at TJ Max and it has given me trouble-free service for 6 years.
IMTHDUKE
Member
Ye pays ye money and ye makes ye choice. So if you have the doug and have the desire for a Rohrbaugh or a divers watch....knock yourself out. Wont hear and complaints from me. Personally, I'm not parting with mine...my R9 that is.
lobo9er
Member
Swampwolf. c'mon. come back to earth. looks like you are just arguing and going around in circles for sake of doing so. Do you own any firearms that are over 7-800 bucks? or 500 hundred? Because if you do there is one that is more affordable that will do the same thing, and probably in the same caliber.
For one S&W is owned by a multi national parent group and comparing them to a small business is not camparing apples to apples.
SwampWolf
Member
I'm not just arguing for argument's sake anymore than the next guy is. I thought I was involved in a discussion where everybody gets to air their opinions and exchange viewpoints. I guess for you that means that people who have opinions that you don't agree with are people by definition whose perspectives have no merit. In the case at hand, it is well-nigh impossible to prove one's "argument" and this leads to excessive bloviation on the part of all parties.
I made it clear in an earlier post in this thread that I would love to have a Rohrbaugh. I have nothing against people who have one. To answer your question, I have more than a few over $1,000.00 (and a Merkel shotgun that cost over $4,000.00) firearms. In my "collection", I have an HK and a couple of SIG pistols that I have always thought were over-priced in terms of how they compare with my Beretta, CZ and Smith & Wesson pistols. I bought these (at least in my mind) over-priced pistols though because I had specific, many and long-term uses planned for them. And just because
. Lest you think I'm made of money, I'm not. My wife and I are both retired and live on fixed incomes. Other than fishing and a good cigar, the only real vice that I have is my life-long interest in guns. And over the last sixty years or so I've been fortunate enough to accumulate more than a few of them. But when I pay more than what I think a gun is probably worth, I have to rationalize said expenditure in my own mind at least, if not my wife's. The intended use of a Rohrbaugh pistol in my case would be for occasional pocket carrying duties. The gun is just too costly for me to warrant the price for the envisioned limited purpose. If money was no object, I'd have one in a heart beat.
But at the risk of appearing as though I'm "arguing and going around in circles for (the) sake of doing so", my point is still this: when I compare a Rohrbaugh pistol costing half as much more with other contemporary pistols side by side, whether the guns are mass-produced by companies "owned by a multi-national parent groups" or are lovingly cobbled together by a mom and pop business, I just don't see any added value in terms of workmanship, fitting or quality of build. And I can discern the difference.
The Rohrbaugh might cost more to make due to the price of labor or to the lack of high volume sales, I don't know. Those purported reasons are pure conjecture. But I know this: when I lay the aforementioned Merkel shotgun down next to another double costing half as much, it doesn't take a connoisseur to see the difference and to understand the disparity in price. The reasons are self-evident and need no further justification. But for me, when I look closely at a Rohrbaugh, the question is always, "Why do you cost so much?"
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
" Swampwolf, Cmon, come down to earth" ...Really..
I think Swampwolf is very much down to earth. There are a lot of people including me that Have expensive guns costing more than $1000 and can not see how the Rohrbaugh R9 price is justified. Maybe you should "COME DOWN TO EARTH".
I think Swampwolf is very much down to earth. There are a lot of people including me that Have expensive guns costing more than $1000 and can not see how the Rohrbaugh R9 price is justified. Maybe you should "COME DOWN TO EARTH".
lobo9er
Member
sig? you mean you spent 1000 or more on a sig when you could have bought a glock that functions just as good, if not better? same argument isn't it?
you can state your opinion, thats what this website is about, I agree. I happen to disagree with your argument about r9's. I feel that 1000 is not out of sight for a well made reliable pistol.
same thing you dont think the r9 is worth the cash becuase there are cheaper guns that function geat. am I wrong?
you can state your opinion, thats what this website is about, I agree. I happen to disagree with your argument about r9's. I feel that 1000 is not out of sight for a well made reliable pistol.
SwampWolf
Member
Well, yes lobo9er, that's been my point all along. I said I thought the SIG was over-priced when I bought it. I still do. But I went ahead and bought it anyhow for my own reasons; no explanations needed. Did you catch this part of my post: "I made it clear in an earlier post in this thread that I would love to have a Rohrbaugh. I have nothing against people who have one."? If you want to spend $1,000.00 for a pistol that looks like it cost $600.00 to make, go right ahead. As I've freely confessed, I did. And more than once.
And in the context of your continuing diatribe I have to ask, you think I'm the one who's arguing in circles?
Last edited:
Big_John1961
Member
Very nice pair you have there. I have the Solo on order and a Rohrbaugh that should be here tomorrow. Looking forward to both.IMTHDUKE said:
Guns and more
member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,929
I've always heard, and believed that a defense gun is one that you have practiced with.
I don't think I'd practice with a H&K and then drop the Rohrbaugh in my pocket.
I'd like a Rolex too, but I wear a Casio.
Big_John1961
Member
Horse puckey. Some people appreciate quality and wear Levi's. If you don't, bully for you.SwampWolf said:
Big_John1961
Member
JohnBT said:
Well said.
Big_John1961
Member
That's your opinion and nothing more. Rohrbaugh's are not worth that kind of money to you. Claiming they aren't for others is not only presumptuous, it's stupid.snooperman said:
- Status
