Caleb just posted on his blog that the Boberg XR-9 is going to launch this year.
The pistol features a unique design in which the magazine sits beneath the chamber instead of behind it. This allows a longer barrel, thereby generating more muzzle energy than a shorter barreled pistol of a similar size chambering in the same cartridge. I wrote a blog post about the pistol last year.
More information at Gun Nuts Media.
While I’m following this gun with interest, I doubt I’d buy a gen 1.
However if it makes itself proven and the manufacturer works out any bugs that develop (quickly) I’d sure consider a gen2 or gen3.
0 
0It has a rather large overhang on the rear end. It is shaped more like a “T” than like an “L”, like regular handguns. It still might be more concealable though. I guess time will tell whether the extra complexity of the mechanism is reliable enough and is worth the extra manufacturing cost.
0 0Definitely looks like a gun that has a lot of potential to land in the “kinda over-engineered and the design will not succeed financially but it is still a hell of a gun once the kinks are worked out” pantheon of guns.
sort of like a modern day HK P7
0 0Eh, I’d still rather have a Glock.
0 0I definitely want a short version.
0 0Well, in a 4″ barrel, 1″ is 25%, so it makes a difference.
0 0provided i can get it for less than $700 this is my next pistol. if not, glock or sig subcompacts will be my choice.
from an engineering stand point this thing is beautiful, will need real world tests though.
“This seems like an answer to a question no one asked. Increasing the length of the barrel an inch or two isn’t really going to significantly impact the velocity of the round.”
no offense Jesse, but that is like saying anti-lock-brakes are the answer to a question no body asked. regular brakes stop a car, ABS stops them faster. regular gun shoots a bullet, this design shoots them faster and harder in the same size package
when i’m pulling the trigger to save my life i want all the extra speed and power i can get PERIOD
0 0This seems like an answer to a question no one asked. Increasing the length of the barrel an inch or two isn’t really going to significantly impact the velocity of the round.
0 0“This allows a longer barrel, thereby generating more muzzle energy than a shorter barreled pistol of a similar size chambering in the same cartridge.”
I hope I understand this right, correct me if I’m wrong please!
So the clever part is if they make a variant with the same length barrel of a similar 9mm compact then this pistol will be smaller than the competitors but retain the same length barrel.
The net effect is that you can get the same overall sized pistol with a longer barrel OR you can get an overall smaller pistol with the same barrel length.
0 0Freiheit, thats right.
0 0It’s unique now, but the Gabbet-Fairfax Mars pistol had it back at the turn of the last century. They had trouble with overly powerful cartridges and bad ejection design though, that I think won’t pop up here.
Seriously, 1900 and they put together a 8.5mm PISTOL cartridge that tosses it out at 1600fps?
Oh, and:
“Increasing the length of the barrel an inch or two isn’t really going to significantly impact the velocity of the round.”
True, normally an extra inch and a half of barrel length doesn’t make much of a difference. It makes a HUGE difference when it’s in a package that would otherwise have a 1″ barrel though.
0 0Can’t wait to see a stress test of this pistol. It is a very promising idea, especially if they can offer a double-stack compact model. However, after following the links a little deeper and finding a cutaway video of the action, I worry about the double-duty the rounds’ extractor groove has to deal with in this design. First it gets used by a “feed hook” or whatever you’d call it, which appears to have to force its way on there from behind the case (and what’s holding the cartridge during this? Is the bullet being mashed against the magazine wall?). Only after that does it get used normally by the extraction hook, which appears to grab on the same place.
For that matter, it’s got a whole lot of moving parts associated with feeding the round. I dunno if it’ll be jam prone until we see it in action, but it is putting a lot of work on the shoulders of blow-back, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it were very picky about ammo.
0 0
I definitely want a short version.
Eh, I’d still rather have a Glock.
Definitely looks like a gun that has a lot of potential to land in the “kinda over-engineered and the design will not succeed financially but it is still a hell of a gun once the kinks are worked out” pantheon of guns.
sort of like a modern day HK P7
While I’m following this gun with interest, I doubt I’d buy a gen 1.
However if it makes itself proven and the manufacturer works out any bugs that develop (quickly) I’d sure consider a gen2 or gen3.
It has a rather large overhang on the rear end. It is shaped more like a “T” than like an “L”, like regular handguns. It still might be more concealable though. I guess time will tell whether the extra complexity of the mechanism is reliable enough and is worth the extra manufacturing cost.
Well, in a 4″ barrel, 1″ is 25%, so it makes a difference.
provided i can get it for less than $700 this is my next pistol. if not, glock or sig subcompacts will be my choice.
from an engineering stand point this thing is beautiful, will need real world tests though.
“This seems like an answer to a question no one asked. Increasing the length of the barrel an inch or two isn’t really going to significantly impact the velocity of the round.”
no offense Jesse, but that is like saying anti-lock-brakes are the answer to a question no body asked. regular brakes stop a car, ABS stops them faster. regular gun shoots a bullet, this design shoots them faster and harder in the same size package
when i’m pulling the trigger to save my life i want all the extra speed and power i can get PERIOD
It’s unique now, but the Gabbet-Fairfax Mars pistol had it back at the turn of the last century. They had trouble with overly powerful cartridges and bad ejection design though, that I think won’t pop up here.
Seriously, 1900 and they put together a 8.5mm PISTOL cartridge that tosses it out at 1600fps?
Oh, and:
“Increasing the length of the barrel an inch or two isn’t really going to significantly impact the velocity of the round.”
True, normally an extra inch and a half of barrel length doesn’t make much of a difference. It makes a HUGE difference when it’s in a package that would otherwise have a 1″ barrel though.
“This allows a longer barrel, thereby generating more muzzle energy than a shorter barreled pistol of a similar size chambering in the same cartridge.”
I hope I understand this right, correct me if I’m wrong please!
So the clever part is if they make a variant with the same length barrel of a similar 9mm compact then this pistol will be smaller than the competitors but retain the same length barrel.
The net effect is that you can get the same overall sized pistol with a longer barrel OR you can get an overall smaller pistol with the same barrel length.
Freiheit, thats right.
This seems like an answer to a question no one asked. Increasing the length of the barrel an inch or two isn’t really going to significantly impact the velocity of the round.
Can’t wait to see a stress test of this pistol. It is a very promising idea, especially if they can offer a double-stack compact model. However, after following the links a little deeper and finding a cutaway video of the action, I worry about the double-duty the rounds’ extractor groove has to deal with in this design. First it gets used by a “feed hook” or whatever you’d call it, which appears to have to force its way on there from behind the case (and what’s holding the cartridge during this? Is the bullet being mashed against the magazine wall?). Only after that does it get used normally by the extraction hook, which appears to grab on the same place.
For that matter, it’s got a whole lot of moving parts associated with feeding the round. I dunno if it’ll be jam prone until we see it in action, but it is putting a lot of work on the shoulders of blow-back, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it were very picky about ammo.