Any of you have the Chiappa Rhino

[dontcatchmany]

I have been on a revolver buying and shooting spree lately. Have totally fallen for them. Ever since I can remember I have been smitten with the 357 magnum. My first handgun was a Ruger SP101 in 357/38 2.25 inch. And it is still my favorite.

The Chiappa Black Rhino 200 DS has caught my attention and I have been doing research. However the price is making me hesitate on what is a different type of revolver. I just recently purchased a Kimber K6S 2" that was way over priced and had to send it back for repair after about 350 rounds of mostly 38 Special. Five different items concerning the firing pin were replaced. Do not know if I can trust it for carry and it is an expensive 38 Special.

If any of you own this gun, could you please post your impressions of the Chiappa. Any reliability issues, accuracy issues, shoot ability issues, maintenance issues and asny things that impress you about the guns.

Thanks in advance!

[AK103K]

I picked up a used, 4" Rhino 40DS's back in May, and Ive already traded it off.

Nothing wrong with it, but they are different and maybe just a little too different, unless you want to dedicate yourself to them. Kind of like an HK P7 of the revolver world.

Mine worked well, and shot well. The recoil impulse is different, and more straight back. Theres very little muzzle rise.

The first day I got mine, I shot around 200 rounds of 357 through it, and the next morning, I felt it in my shoulder sockets, which was a first.

The grip is a little different, and you have to roll your wrist forward and down a bit. Not a big deal, and quickly picked up on.

The trigger itself is wide, and more like an S&W "target" trigger, but smooth. This was one of the annoyances to me, as I prefer a narrow trigger. Again, not a big deal, but it was an annoyance.

The trigger pull itself was a little heavier than my S&W's, but still very shootable. I shoot DA revolvers, DAO, so thats how I shot mine.

It is a DA gun, and the SA is a bit different, as the hammer isnt really a hammer, and simply cocks and lowers the enclosed hammer. There is a little red indicator that pops up when you thumb cock the gun so you know its "cocked".

Sights are three dot, red/green fiber optic and quickly acquired.

One thing you do really have to watch out for, especially if you shoot "thumbs forward", is there is a relief cut in the frame just below the barrel. When a round is fired, a lot of the blast at the cylinder gap is redirected there, and if your thumb is there, its going to get ugly.

I do shoot thumbs forward with all my handguns, and normally dont have any issues, but with the Rhino, it gave me some instant feedback on the first round. The tip of my thumb got a nasty "snap" on the first pull of the trigger. Nothing bad, but if it had been more forward, I think it could have been ugly.

With most revolvers, that gap is on the top of the gun, but with the barrel being at the 6 o'clock position in the Rhino, as opposed to the 12 o'clock, its all right where there. So watch yourself.

This is that relief.....



They are shooters though. This was shot DAO at 15 yards, and at a pretty quick cadence.



For me, while recovery is a tad quicker with less muzzle flip, but that wide trigger and slightly heavier trigger pull, sort of negates that advantage. I shoot my Smiths just as quick and with similar results.

I think if the Rhino had a narrower trigger, it might give it an edge there. For me anyway.

Cool gun, but like I said, its different, and I think more of a novelty, especially if youre used to things like the S&W's.

[dontcatchmany]

Thank you A103K, you touched on a point I am having a conflict with....the novelty of the Chiappa.

I have read of the thumb burn. In all my but the Kimber K6S I use a thumb forward grip. I have three S&Ws and a SP101 2.25 and thumbs forward are fine with them.

You also mentioned you shooting hand shoulder. Mine was replaced in 2000 and that may be a deciding factor with the Chiappa. I had thought about that while doing research but you are the first to make comment on the shoulder.

Thanks again!

[AK103K]

No problem. And I think novelty sums it up. They are an interesting concept though.

The shoulder thing wasnt really a big deal, but it was noticeable. It was actually both shoulders too. Not sure if it would be an issue for you or not. The recoil impulse in straight up your arms though.

[HighValleyRanch]

I was interested in them for a while, but decided against getting one for a number of reasons.
1. More complicated mechanics
2. too different than other revolvers, so wanted more basic manipulations and cross over
3. learned JM's thumb over hand position to control muzzle flip, so the low bore axis advantage of the Chiappa became a moot point.
4. ended up with a Kimber k6. Simple, small, smooth, accurate.

[mk70ss]

No matter how well they work, they are still just butt ugly IMHO.

[AK103K]

Originally Posted by mk70ss

No matter how well they work, they are still just butt ugly IMHO.

LOL. No doubt, and I agree. Mine was the ugliest gun Ive ever bought.

[johnm1]

I like mine. It is my hunting sidearm and took a Javelina a couple of years ago. We did a direct comparison with a 4" Security 6 and the reduced muzzle flip and different recoil impulse was noticeable. No mechanical issues and it has performed admirably in the field and at the range. It is light for a full size 357 and I thought I needed something lighter on my hips.

But, the only reason I own one is because it was a gift. It is too expensive for what it is/does. Unique, a conversion piece. But the advantages aren't worth the cost.

[dannyb]

I have one of the original 2" barrel Rhino revolvers. I've always liked it as a range gun. When my wife decided that maybe after 35 years, shooting was not a fad with me, she tried a bunch of my revolvers. Most of what I have are S&Ws. The K and N frames didn't fit her, and my J frame snubbies had too much perceived recoil for her. Then she tried the Rhino. It was like it was custom made for her. Now she takes it when she goes to the range with me. Her other handgun is a model 60, but with a 5" barrel. She's a fair shot with both.

[105kw]

Yes, they are ugly.
Yes, they have a weird manual of arms, open odd and feel funky.

But they work, and are decently accurate, at least with my bad eyes.
I wish I had my 2 inch back , but I traded it for a 3 inch Model 13 Smith.

[VonFatman]

i never got past some mild curiosity with the gun.

kinda clunky, kinda fun, kinda expensive -- each to their own.

i love it when one of my buddies buys such a firearm! i get to
shoot it and they get to own it!

bob

[shurshot]

"wish I had my 2 inch back , but I traded it for a 3 inch Model 13 Smith."

Don't look back, you upgraded in both style and quality!

   

[darkgael]

Ugly? There is a lot of truth in the old adage about beauty being in the eyes of the beholder.
The Rhino is a neat looking gun...unusual but not ugly in this beholder’s eyes.
Pete

[Stargater53]

My biggest problem with the Chiappa Rhino is that whenever a company comes out with a new idea, or a new concept, it costs an arm and a leg.

I get it that initial issues of any new gun is going to cost more than traditional guns, but putting the barrel directly behind the shooter just doesn't merit the $300+ (extra) price tag. I'd much rather have a 686 with a ported barrel. Both keep the barrel from flipping up a little while shooting, but most shooters don't bother with porting their barrels. So why buy an entire gun that does the same thing?

I'd like to see some side by side targets from the Rhino and a ported 686. If Rhinos cost the same as a 686 (unported), I might try one. But for nearly a thousand dollars, I'd pass and opt for a ported 686.

When Bill Ruger designed his Security-Six, he chose to keep the price artificially low (in fact, he later said he never made a dime on them). He kept the prices artificially low to gin up a market nitch, and few people know to this day what great deals they were.



--

[2wheelwander]

To me, they are the Desert Eagles of the Revolver world, impractical, heavy, except the Rhino is ugly. No matter how expensive, cheap, or good they are, I'll never want one. Give me a good 3 screw or early Smith any day.

[AK103K]

Originally Posted by Stargater53

I'd like to see some side by side targets from the Rhino and a ported 686. If Rhinos cost the same as a 686 (unported), I might try one. But for nearly a thousand dollars, I'd pass and opt for a ported 686.

When Bill Ruger designed his Security-Six, he chose to keep the price artificially low (in fact, he later said he never made a dime on them). He kept the prices artificially low to gin up a market nitch, and few people know to this day what great deals they were.

--

I found my Rhino shot about the same as my 4" 357 S&W's (19, 28, 620) when shot the same way (DAO).

The only thing really noticeably different, was the more direct push back in recoil, and more or less lack of muzzle flip.

The Rhino shoots well, but it is different. And just a tad "too different" for me.

While I have a couple of SA Rugers, Rugers in general, have never been a favorite, and while Ive owned probably a dozen or so of their rifles and handguns, I only have those two SA's now.

Their prices may be lower, but Id gladly pay the premium for a S&W.

Originally Posted by 2wheelwander

To me, they are the Desert Eagles of the Revolver world, impractical, heavy, except the Rhino is ugly. No matter how expensive, cheap, or good they are, I'll never want one. Give me a good 3 screw or early Smith any day.

Im not sure where the impractical and heavy is coming from (they arent), The ugly I can understand.

Still, like you, I do like the Smiths. Just added this 625-3 yesterday.



Shoots well too.

[pete2]

I don't own one but I have shot one, I wouldn't trade 1 586/686 for 2 of them. Not my cup of tea.