Chiappa rhino cylinder gap

[Billbud]

Greetings, I have the opportunity to purchase a used rhino 357 . On inspection cylinder gap is just below 0.007. I was under the impression these revolvers were tighter/known for greater precision. does anybody have one to compare this to? I don’t know if this indicates significant use/wear
Stay Safe
Bill

[Aguila Blanca]

IMHO, Chiappa = junk

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

IMHO, Chiappa = junk

I don't think that addresses the OP's question.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 74A95

I don't think that addresses the OP's question.

Indirectly it does.

If you need something more direct: "Don't buy it."

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Indirectly it does.

If you need something more direct: "Don't buy it."

It seems like an awful way to welcome a new member to the forum.

As staff shouldn't you say 'welcome to the forum'? Then provide some useful information that addresses their question.

Instead, the OP is left with a sour taste from unhelpful information from some anonymous person on a forum with unknown, perhaps very poor, credentials.

[corneileous]

Originally Posted by 74A95

It seems like an awful way to welcome a new member to the forum.

As staff shouldn't you say 'welcome to the forum'? Then provide some useful information that addresses their question.

Instead, the OP is left with a sour taste from unhelpful information from some anonymous person on a forum with unknown, perhaps very poor, credentials.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[corneileous]

Different strokes for different folks but it didn’t appear to me like the OP was asking what we think of his pistol choice. There’s a lot of brands that a lot of people are going to say are junk but just because those people say they’re junk doesn’t mean they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

I have not personally shot one, but I have examined a couple that a collector friend of mine had for a time.

I won't say they are junk, but its not impossible they could be. For certain what they are is ...strange...

Nothing about the gun looks, or feels quite "right" to me. Admittedly, a lifetime of seeing and using "regular" revolvers probably biases me in that regard.

Besides the whole "barrel on the bottom" thing, the trigger doesn't look right (but that's just a style thing), the hammer isn't a hammer, and doesn't stay "up" when the gun is cocked. They cylinder isn't round, and the frame is not steel. The grip also doesn't "look right" to me, but didn't feel bad, though again, I have no idea what it would feel like during shooting.

It's light, the bore is low, and its in .357 Magnum, so I would expect it to slam into your hand harder than other guns in the same caliber and weight range. Muzzle rise would be less, but I think the felt recoil being more "straight back" would be heavier than expected.

I'm not a fan of even "high tensile" aluminium (or any other light weight alloy) for magnum revolver frames. Its a personal preference. I want magnums to be solid, and actually heavy. Feel free to think otherwise, its your hands...

As to cylinder gap, for generations a gap of approx. 0.006" has been considered adequate and acceptable. Guns with slightly larger or smaller gaps seem to perform well also, but going more either way can give problems. Guns with extremely small gaps are known to foul and bind too rapidly,(a really tight gap might even bind when the gun gets hot) and one with very large gaps often don't shoot as accurately. But often is not always, and there are exceptions to every general rule.

It's an interesting example of "outside the box" thinking and engineering, but its just too far from the box to appeal to me.

Just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.

[gbclarkson]

Welcome to the forum.

Off the topic: members have disassembled and photographed their guns to illustrate an answer to my question. The firing line is a great technical resource.

Back on topic: The article below reports a cylinder gap on a Chiappa Charging Rhino at 0.2 mm. (0.007 in = 0.1778mm) I don't know if this helps. Your gap measurement may be a standard dimension for the Rhino.

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shoo...nordnung-test/

[BornFighting88]

Billbud, welcome to the forum.

You have a neat little revolver there. I was always fascinated by those things, how it fires from the bottom cylinder. Recoil handled differently. What do you think of it so far??

Used, and a 0.007” gap isn’t terrible. It seems like a lot, but it is like two sheets of paper for a gap. Depending on the length of your barrel, that gap isn’t enough to worry about in regards to lost velocity from gas bleed.

It’s serendipity that I came across this thread. I was just watching a TFB Tv review on these revolvers. Rave reviews from the tester. Made me want to go search one out.

Again, welcome, this place has been handy dandy to me on a number of occasions, even if I don’t contribute to the specific thread.

People pretty cool (mostly), too.

[pelo801]

I'll leave this here. This is my experience with mine. https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...ighlight=rhino
It was a very early serial number. They finally did make everything right but I rarely shoot it anymore. Im a bit gun shy, pun intended.

[Pahoo]

Indirectly it does.

All too often, you provide an answer to a question, that wasn't asked. Step back a minute and if you don't know, just say so and/or welcome the new member. ....

Be Safe !!!

[SSGN-Doc]

Can’t speak to what the Rhino’s in-spec gap should be. But S&W states that a gap up to 0.010 can be considered in spec on a factory revolver.

0.007 doesn’t seem so bad.

[logeorge]

IIRC, Dan Wesson furnished a 0.006" feeler gauge to set the gap on their .357 revolvers. L. O. G.

[Billbud]

Originally Posted by corneileous

Different strokes for different folks but it didn’t appear to me like the OP was asking what we think of his pistol choice. There’s a lot of brands that a lot of people are going to say are junk but just because those people say they’re junk doesn’t mean they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:-)

[Billbud]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I have not personally shot one, but I have examined a couple that a collector friend of mine had for a time.

I won't say they are junk, but its not impossible they could be. For certain what they are is ...strange...

Nothing about the gun looks, or feels quite "right" to me. Admittedly, a lifetime of seeing and using "regular" revolvers probably biases me in that regard.

Besides the whole "barrel on the bottom" thing, the trigger doesn't look right (but that's just a style thing), the hammer isn't a hammer, and doesn't stay "up" when the gun is cocked. They cylinder isn't round, and the frame is not steel. The grip also doesn't "look right" to me, but didn't feel bad, though again, I have no idea what it would feel like during shooting.

It's light, the bore is low, and its in .357 Magnum, so I would expect it to slam into your hand harder than other guns in the same caliber and weight range. Muzzle rise would be less, but I think the felt recoil being more "straight back" would be heavier than expected.

I'm not a fan of even "high tensile" aluminium (or any other light weight alloy) for magnum revolver frames. Its a personal preference. I want magnums to be solid, and actually heavy. Feel free to think otherwise, its your hands...

As to cylinder gap, for generations a gap of approx. 0.006" has been considered adequate and acceptable. Guns with slightly larger or smaller gaps seem to perform well also, but going more either way can give problems. Guns with extremely small gaps are known to foul and bind too rapidly,(a really tight gap might even bind when the gun gets hot) and one with very large gaps often don't shoot as accurately. But often is not always, and there are exceptions to every general rule.

It's an interesting example of "outside the box" thinking and engineering, but its just too far from the box to appeal to me.

Just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.

Thanks, they r odd looking

[Billbud]

Originally Posted by 74A95

It seems like an awful way to welcome a new member to the forum.

As staff shouldn't you say 'welcome to the forum'? Then provide some useful information that addresses their question.

Instead, the OP is left with a sour taste from unhelpful information from some anonymous person on a forum with unknown, perhaps very poor, credentials.

I have grown use to it, we are fewer and fewer, if we don’t respect each other, why should the left (other than the fact that they are arrogant asses) :-)

[Billbud]

Originally Posted by BornFighting88

Billbud, welcome to the forum.

You have a neat little revolver there. I was always fascinated by those things, how it fires from the bottom cylinder. Recoil handled differently. What do you think of it so far??

Used, and a 0.007” gap isn’t terrible. It seems like a lot, but it is like two sheets of paper for a gap. Depending on the length of your barrel, that gap isn’t enough to worry about in regards to lost velocity from gas bleed.

It’s serendipity that I came across this thread. I was just watching a TFB Tv review on these revolvers. Rave reviews from the tester. Made me want to go search one out.

Again, welcome, this place has been handy dandy to me on a number of occasions, even if I don’t contribute to the specific thread.

People pretty cool (mostly), too.

I like it thus far, I do think they are over priced. Can get a new cobra for 100-200 less

[Billbud]

Originally Posted by gbclarkson

Welcome to the forum.

Off the topic: members have disassembled and photographed their guns to illustrate an answer to my question. The firing line is a great technical resource.

Back on topic: The article below reports a cylinder gap on a Chiappa Charging Rhino at 0.2 mm. (0.007 in = 0.1778mm) I don't know if this helps. Your gap measurement may be a standard dimension for the Rhino.

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shoo...nordnung-test/

This was very helpful. My rhino seems tighter than the standard

[Billbud]

Originally Posted by pelo801

I'll leave this here. This is my experience with mine. https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...ighlight=rhino
It was a very early serial number. They finally did make everything right but I rarely shoot it anymore. Im a bit gun shy, pun intended.

Thanks for sharing. On another extreme Ruger has the BEST costumer service!
Bill

[Billbud]

Originally Posted by Pahoo

All too often, you provide an answer to a question, that wasn't asked. Step back a minute and if you don't know, just say so and/or welcome the new member. ....

Be Safe !!!

[Billbud]

Originally Posted by SSGN-Doc

Can’t speak to what the Rhino’s in-spec gap should be. But S&W states that a gap up to 0.010 can be considered in spec on a factory revolver.

0.007 doesn’t seem so bad.

Geez 0.010 seems extensive!
Makes the one I am buying seem really tight

[Billbud]

Originally Posted by logeorge

IIRC, Dan Wesson furnished a 0.006" feeler gauge to set the gap on their .357 revolvers. L. O. G.

Would be nice if all revolvers allowed us to adjust things like that!

[Billbud]

Thanks everyone for your replies!
Stay healthy and safe!
Bill

[Billbud]