Handgun Review: The Boberg XR9-S 9mm

A friend of mine loves his XRS-9 and asked me to take it out to the local area where I shoot and try it out. Some people love this little handgun. The trigger pull is nine miles long and because the slide is coming back nearly a full inch further than your average compact nine it’s so snappy it’s nearly impossible to keep on target.

I carry a P365 quite often when I don’t want the bulge of larger handguns to be apparent and while I’m not a salesman for Sig, if you want a Micro 9, it’s a better option than the Boberg. Me talking, not my friend and his XRS-9.

Another More Detailed Review

(Lucky Gunner) The XR9-S is a rotating barrel, locked-breech semi-automatic pistol chambered in 9x19mm. Feeding from a detachable seven-round magazine, the Boberg sets itself apart from other pocket pistols not simply due to its impressively minuscule size, but also its strange operating method and magazine construction.

Some might be thinking the rotating barrel aspect of the gun isn’t new, and they’re correct. In lieu of the more common tilting barrel design, a handful of pistols have utilized the rotating barrel method in the past, though none of them have been wildly successful. The only other modern pistol that utilizes a rotating barrel design is the Beretta PX4 series….So, is the Boberg pistol reliable enough for concealed carry?

In my experience, the answer is “probably not”. I say this because, without solid muscle memory, a shooter will unintentionally lock up the action when attempting to rack the slide on a fresh magazine. This is doubly true if the gun is dirty. Hell, I’ve fired over 1000 rounds and performed hundreds of reloads on this gun, and it still happens to me on occasion. These two factors prevent me from recommending the Boberg to any shooter looking for a new carry gun.

 

Backchannel Discussion

My friend Claudio in Italy and I have been chatting about the discussions over transforming a C-130 into a seaplane. (more here)

My sense is – and it’s just me – that the most successful military seaplane in history was the Consolidated PBY. Over 4000 were made and by all accounts, it was an adaptable design. Why reinvent the wheel when you can simply reinvent the PBY?

Or do y’all like the idea of a floating C-130?

 

Slow Joe’s Regime – still at it

(Illegal Immigration) Not only was the current border crush anticipated by the regime, but the plan was always to ‘catch and release’ migrants, especially children, into the interior — say, in Republican states — where they will grow into good little Marxists after being propagandized in government schools, and then vote Democrat for the remainder of their lives.

 

This Day in History – May 21, 1966

The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) emerged as an Ulster loyalist paramilitary group on this date in 1966. Its first leader was Augustus Andrew (Gusty) Spence, a former British Army soldier from Northern Ireland.

The group undertook an armed campaign of almost thirty years during The Troubles. It declared a ceasefire in 1994 and officially ended its campaign in 2007, although some of its members have continued to engage in violence and criminal activities. The group is classified as a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

 

19 COMMENTS

  1. About the seaplane C-130: Other that being a great sales pitch for Lockheed Martin, the only advantage would be parts commonality. So the question is how little can they change to do the job. Change too much and then it’s no longer a C-130, and you may as well buy a plane that was designed for the job.

    • The ShinMaywa US-2 is a Japanese large short takeoff and landing amphibious aircraft that could be looked at as a potential entry. I think that the US has something with longer legs in mind but the US-2 (an older design) may be due for a facelift? The US could build them under license or just order them from the Japanese. Or we could go back to the drawing board? I think that re-cutting the C-130 would make it a new aircraft. Slapping pontoons on it won’t work and making it a true flying boat will require a completely new fuselage.

  2. I don’t think the C-130 would be a good sea plane.

    And the part about the biden regime? That’ what they are doing with all the illegals. Take their names, they have them now for the mail in ballots with no id. They won’t need to cheat next election.
    But they probably will anyway.

      • I think they’ve gotten so good at the con game that it’d be like trying to unclang the bell with these traitors.

        • Thing is, they’re not good at the con games at all. Not even one bit. They are neither clever nor subtle. Instead, they’ve made use of two approaches.
          1. Change language and terminology so that noticing anything (especially patterns) is a Hate Crime.
          2. Utter shamelessness. When caught in their nefariousness, they cry “racism” (or whatever victimhood term will work best) and thereby reverse victim and offender.

          These are the people who cry out “We are defending democracy!” as they steal elections.

  3. Is there enough demand for a large long range seaplane to have even a niche market? Other than fire bombers few are in commercial service today. While they don’t require runways, they do require support facilities, or perhaps seaplane tenders. What does that add to the overall operating costs?

    With all that said, if I had stupid money, I would have one. Many years ago I got a ride in a Lake LA-4. What fun!

  4. Well, a seaplane based off of the C-130 isn’t a bad idea.

    It would, unfortunately, remove the close-to-the-ground cargo ramp, which is the real issue. Maybe not on the water, but on land? Hrmmm….

    The wings, engines and tail, the top of the fuselage, the cockpit, all easily brought over from the C-130.

    A new seaplane hull married to the upper fuselage. New landing gear systems. New cargo ramp. Much better corrosion resistance. Routing all electrical and hydraulic through the top of the hull (to keep it away from direct water content, except where they connect to the rear ramp, the doors, the landing gear…)

    It is… doable. It is… very doable. But how much use will it actually get, as an amphib? Is there actually a need for it?

    Why not amphib a Chinook?

    I always thought getting rid of seaplane capability was kind of a stupid thing. Seaplanes have a distinct capability that no other aircraft have. It’s why the Japanese still fly seaplanes.

    And… the boat hull portion isn’t always a negative thing. Properly designed it serves both as a hydrodynamic and an aerodynamic surface.

    Want. Want to see this. But only if it’s going to be used.

    • There was an amphib Chinook proposal in the competition that resulted in the CH-53, so most of the work is already done.

      -Kle.

  5. I vehemently want the Hercules on Water amphibian flying boat. I wish they’d built it in the ’60s, when Lockheed first proposed it. Then the Coasties would have had a C-130 for SAR that could do more than drop a raft and watch people drown / freeze / get eaten while waiting for something that floats and/or hovers to arrive.

    I would certainly not object to to the re-introduction of the PBY, but there is something to be said for aircraft that can actually go faster than cars.

    While we’re re-introducing flying boats from the past… Martin Mars!

    As you all can tell, I am a flying boat partisan. The number and types of operational flying boats and since WW2 can be directly correlated with the decline of civilization.

    -Kle.

  6. No comment on seaplanes, as I don’t know enough about them to even fake an informed opinion.

    Illegal aliens (and that is the correct term, codified in law) have been a Reserve Democrat Vote Bank for my entire life and more (at leaet 4 decades). It’s just not being hidden as carefully these days. But that’s not all they are; they have been a reliable permanent underclass to demand and justify a myriad of social programs and bureaucracies, from welfare to medical meddling to housing. American people don’t go for government handouts sufficient to justify establishing our new socialist program? – no worries, tell everyone it’s “for the poor,” and enroll Maria and Jose. Once it is firmly ensconced, the program can be expanded to include real Americans, especially once the stigma starts wearing off. They are as much a tool of and abused by the government expansion as the much-balleyhooed “inner city black yutes.” The more of them in the population, the greater percentage of that population that is beholden to govt, the harder it is to dig out that govt’s illegal encroachment on citizens’ and states’ rights.

    I’ve never playedwith a Boburg, but I am quite fond of my 365. Zero failures with a wide variety of ammo. I liked it so much I bought a second, an XL. Currently I have the XL frame on the regular slide and barrel – again, no failures of any kind across ammo types. It truly is modular, and Sig made a winner. (When I want a larger gun withbeven more capacity, I go to a Glock 19 and man-purse with a whole passel of spare mags. Good car / travelling setup there)

    • The Boberg looks gimmicky to me. Early reviews noted reliability problems.
      For a carry 9 I’d stick with my Gen 3 S&W 3913- slim, solid and dependable, capacity 8 + 1. Better yet, a .45ACP 1911 Commander.

      For discreet off-body carry, a small dispatch type pouch slung from right shoulder to left hip, with front (leading, vertical) edge access to weapon with right hand might be a versatile option.

      • I’m left handed, and I dont do off-body / bag carry of a gun anyway.
        The man-purse holds everything BUT the gun. Mags, trauma kit, knife, flashlight, batteries, snacks and toys for the kiddos, etc.
        Wallet is, of course, in my pocket, and phone on belt or in another pocket.

        • I have never seen an on-body holster that is easily accessible when seated or while driving. Shoulder holster maybe, but seat belt will inevitably hinder the draw.
          I find I can access a handgun from the lower inside pocket of my denim jacket when driving, if I run the lap belt under the jacket. Presentation is accomplished crossdraw style. (I realize this might not work for left handed shooters.)
          A pouch as described, reversed for left handed users might work. It could be easily shifted to a comfortable position as necessary.

  7. The C-130 seaplane variant was explored around 50 or 60 years ago. I think the missing C-130C (sic) designation was given to the the design study by Lockheed. They even built a radio control model of it. I have seen pictures but a quick search on the Internet didn’t turn up what I had seen. The pictures that I remember were in black and white; the participants were dressed in late 50’s early 60’s garb. The idea just didn’t catch on at the time. The Navy was just barely out of major flying boat aviation and it didn’t make sense for the Air Force.

  8. The C-130 seaplane variant was explored around 50 or 60 years ago. I think the missing C-130C (sic) designation was given to the the design study by Lockheed. They even built a radio control model of it. I found this that shows the lead photo and a whole bunch more in one of the comments:

    C-130 Hercules on Water (HOW)

    I have seen some other pictures but I did not find them in my search. The pictures that I remember were in black and white; the participants were dressed in late 50’s early 60’s garb. The idea just didn’t catch on at the time. The Navy was just barely out of major flying boat aviation and it didn’t make sense for the Air Force.

    Disclaimer — I am a C-130 pilot but well past the age of military service. Also I worked for Lockheed Martin for 21 years to include 15 years at LM Aeronautics.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here