Full Size?

Specs for the full-sized XR9-F: Length: 5.8”, Barrel: 4.2", Height: 4.2”, Width: 0.95”, Capacity: 7+1

Specs for the full-sized XR9-M: Length: 5.35”, Barrel: 4.2", Height: 4.2”, Width: 0.95”, Capacity: 7+1

Other than being .45" longer, what's the difference? Barrel length? Same. Capacity? Same. I mean, where's the advantage?

When I think "full-size", I think in terms of a "duty" weapon, in the same size class as a M1911, a Browning P-35, a Glock 17, a SIG 226 or a Beretta 92FS. The MV / ME advantage of being able to squeeze an extra 1" or so of barrel length into the same size frame would make it worthwhile.

I would like to know how well this system of operation would apply in a double-stack/ single-feed position type magazine, ie: Beretta or SIG. Otherwise, a "full-size" pistol with a 7+1 capacity would actually represent a step backwards.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BretShooter on January 13, 2010 at 12:40pm

I believe some specs are off on some of the models. I would bet that the barrel length on the mid also drops the same amount as the length, or close to it. Likewise, the barrel length drops on the micro, but the OAL remains the same. One or the other is probably a typo.

As he states, the size of his full size model is comparable to the Kahr P9, which I think everyone agrees it is a compact pistol, to say the least. Arne has to call his largest model something, and he chose "full size". So, though it only holds 7+1, it is similar to every other pistol of that size (approx 6" length).

I too, would like to see if he will make a double stack, but the designs greatest promise is in the sub-compact size.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arne Boberg on January 13, 2010 at 4:48pm

Thanks for catching the typo! This is still under construction.
In this case, "full-size" is a relative term. We will be going to "XR9-L" for "Long" instead.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Blueorison on January 13, 2010 at 6:49pm

Where can I find the updated specs for the L model?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arne Boberg on January 13, 2010 at 7:35pm

Pretty much take the overall dimension (and barrel length) of the XR9-S and add .85". The weight should be just under 20 oz.
Since we have not built a Gen 9 XR9-L (only a Gen 7) these specifications may change slightly and will be made official later when we build the latest generation XR9-L.

Blueorison said:

Where can I find the updated specs for the L model?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Blueorison on January 13, 2010 at 9:58pm

4.2 in bbl? Perfect. Thanks Arne.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by cmblake6 on January 16, 2010 at 1:46pm

This is something I had been following. Drew, @ Barking Moonbat, and I at mine have been posting about this, eagerly awaiting. I, being the cheap bastiche that I am, of course wish the cost was lower. But watching the operations videos, etc, tells me this thing is going to be worth it! The added velocity from the longer barrel, and the lowered likelihood of me sticking my pudgy fingers in front of the muzzle, lead me to wait for this slightly longer version.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Blueorison on January 16, 2010 at 4:31pm

I agree; when I started following the site before the start of last year, I immediately saw past the initial release of the small frame to the full size. Talked to Arne and he confirmed there were requests for both, but more for the small frame. I asked him to put me down for the full size because I knew that it'd still be quite concealable. But everyone has a size preference :)

cmblake6 said:

This is something I had been following. Drew, @ Barking Moonbat, and I at mine have been posting about this, eagerly awaiting. I, being the cheap bastiche that I am, of course wish the cost was lower. But watching the operations videos, etc, tells me this thing is going to be worth it! The added velocity from the longer barrel, and the lowered likelihood of me sticking my pudgy fingers in front of the muzzle, lead me to wait for this slightly longer version.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Bass on February 20, 2010 at 1:18pm

Initially, an XR9 with a 4" barrel was proposed and some discussion followed about producing an XR9-S and even a Micro version. It appears that the XR9-S took off first. I am interested in the original XR9 with 4" barrel and rail forward of the tigger guard. Both models are exciting, but the idea of having a full size barrel in a pocket-pistol is really interesting. The original XR9 was still under 6" overall and could be a concealed carry very easily. The old web-site data must have been retracted since it does not appear in this new site.

No matter what size, asssumedly all Bobergs are/will be pocket pistols, Boberg has machined a pistol that can easily be concealed. It has no extruding parts, buttons, switches, jags, or uneven metal plates to snag or hang on pants, shirts or holsters. Nothing to stick into your fingers or palm or cause you to lose focus on the matter at hand, defense.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mojahedin Forever on September 26, 2010 at 3:53pm

Dear Arne,

Would it be possible to make XR9-L just a little bit taller, so it can hold 8 or even 9 rounds as well as to have a slightly better grip?

Thank you in advance,
Mojahedin

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arne Boberg on September 27, 2010 at 5:19pm

While extended magazines are in the plan, it will require about $30k in tooling for us to implement this.

Mojahedin Forever said:

Dear Arne,

Would it be possible to make XR9-L just a little bit taller, so it can hold 8 or even 9 rounds as well as to have a slightly better grip?

Thank you in advance,
Mojahedin