Chiappa Rhino: A General Consensus?

[FrankenMauser]

Get one in your hands before you spend a dime.



I wanted one. REALLY wanted one. I followed their progress for 2 years, as testing and import issues were worked out.

Then the 200 finally made it. And I waited....
And waited....
And waited....
And waited for one to show up locally.

Finally, one did.
Between the time I got off the phone, and the time I got to the shop, it was sold.

I waited....
And waited....
And waited some more for a 4" to 6" barrel to be released...

Finally, another 200 showed up locally.

All it took was about 5 seconds in my hands, and the answer was, "No."

Fit and finish sucked.
The trigger was unbelievably strange.
Ergonomics were terrible for my hands.
And, in the back of my mind, I was thinking about some of the reliability issues that had been reported.

I put it down, walked away, and mentally crossed the Rhino off my list.
I haven't had even the slightest inkling to get one since then.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Not the slightest bit interested. Way too many classic Smiths and Colts that I still have to buy before I would ever consider that thing.

And for what it's worth, the giant 45 Colt/410 shotgun revolvers will never cross my threshold either.

[Andy Blozinski]

CSlinger...that guy with the cracked plate had put over 10,000 rounds through it. The plate was easily swapped out as a sacrificial piece part of the design.

[Cheapshooter]

I was wondering what the general consensus among serious gun buffs is as regards the Chiappa Rhino.

Don't knowa bout tye General, but I'll give you mine.
Butt UGLY
Overly complicated lock.
Expansive
Did I say butt UGLY?
All for this for some magical reduction in recoil from a 357 Magnum.
Simple, and much more economical solution. If ya can't handle the recoil of a souped up 38 Special, just get something else.:

[jetinteriorguy]

I'd like to know one good reason why any company would put a "sacrificial" part in a gun. What useful or sensible function could this possibly be for. If this is true, never ever ever in a million years would I own one. This just doesn't make sense, no disrespect meant or intended.

[Cheapshooter]

I'd like to know one good reason why any company would put a "sacrificial" part in a gun.

And charge $800 for it!!!!

[Nathan]

Sacraficial part is an internet end user phrase. I'm sure a revolver designer does not use those words.

For those of you whom have shot one, especially in 40, I'd love to hear more about your experience...

I just added the 4" 40 to my Christmas list!

[Andy Blozinski]

I went to the range today with three ladies and they all remarked how easy it was to fire. I unexpectedly found them all eagerly taking turns to fire my Rhino. It's so easy to fire this pistol because of the lack of muzzle flip.

[stubbicatt]

I think it is a neat and innovative firearm. I hadn't considered buying one, but Hickok 45 did a video on it, and maybe his impressions will be helpful to those who are considering it.

As it is, I am happy with Smith & Wesson revolvers. They work well for me, and I like them just fine. No urge to change at this age.

[James K]

I doubt any designer would use the term "sacrificial part" - at least in public - but they do use the concept of deliberately making parts harder or softer depending on the size, cost and difficulty of replacement. For example (and not specific to any brand), a designer of a revolver might specify that the hand is to be softer than the cylinder ratchet. That way, failure to carry up can be corrected by replacing the inexpensive hand, maybe a ten minute job, instead of replacing the much more costly ratchet, an hour job.

But why not make both parts as hard as possible? But if that were done, the hand might then wear out the revolver frame, and the whole gun would be scrap.

So the designer and manufacturing people work out this sort of thing before taking a new design to production. If they don't do the job right, then they get complaints from customers and we see hear from the unhappy buyers on sites like this.

Again, this is just an example of the sort of thing that is done. I name no companies but will be note that it could be about any company that makes anything mechanical, from guns to cars to lawnmowers.

Jim

[michael t]

Not for me Its so ugly make some Taurus pistols look good

[Kosh75287]

I've never shot one, but I have handled one. They're in contention to be the best fitted and finished of revolvers on the market. But they ARE expensive. I'd want to shoot someone else's first, but I could see myself buying one (if that niche in my armoury wasn't already filled). I wonder what it's like to get a holster for one, though.

[pelo801]

The two most stated negatives about this gun are its ugly and the lock work is too complicated. Pretty silly reasons to be dismissive if you ask me. Ugly is really just a matter of taste. And it's really not any more complicated than other revolvers. See this video here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BbR31pBebN8

I have one and yes the breach shield cracked in half. It took some arm twisting to get it fixed but it finally was fixed. It also took going back twice to be fixed right. The breach shield may have broke but that had nothing to do with the lock work. Never had an issue with the timing.

I'm guessing that 90% of the naysayers have never fired one, never handled one, never even seen one, let alone put over 10K rounds through one.

I don't think 10K rounds is the be all end all of reliability. But I'm curious where others with other brands of 357 revolvers are with their round counts vs. issues.

[Smathersfish]

I only handled one once. Took my snap caps to the LGS to try one out. Not sure what happened exactly but the gun locked up. Neither me or the employee at the LGS could get the snap caps out. I finally forced the gun open to get them out. They had to return that gun because it would not function at all following this event. Never had an issue with S&W, Ruger, Iver Johnson, or Colt. UGLY and Awkward! YMMV

[dannyb]

Kosh: They used to come with holsters. My 200D did. Tan leather OWB.

I'll reiterate my shooting experience with it, it shoots beautifully. For a 2 inch barrel, it's also pretty accurate at 25 feet. I'll take function over pretty any time. And my wife has found the 10 ring with it shooting 148 GR wad cutters And 158 GR round nose regular velocity. That's good enough for me.

[Andy Blozinski]

All the 2" models come with a leather holster. I've seen holsters for sale for the 4" and other models, but I just use a Kangaroo Carry holster and it does fine.
My wife kind of ticked me off. She reminded me again how much she liked firing my 400DS last week. This only a month after I sold the 200D (because she asked me to) that would have been a great glove box gun for her.

[OcelotZ3]

I like my 5" model. Then again, I also have two Matebas.

[gyvel]

All it took was about 5 seconds in my hands, and the answer was, "No."

I didn't even have to have one in my hand to cross it off my list. LMAO!!

Simple, and much more economical solution. If ya can't handle the recoil of a souped up 38 Special, just get something else.:

LOL!! Too much common sense there, cheapshooter.

[Cheapshooter]

No ammount of "wussification" of the 357 Magnum makes up for the uglyness, goofy, complicated mechanics, poor trigger, and "sacrifical" parts cracking. No, I haven't shot one. I really don't see the need to. In nearly 60 years of shooting I have learned guns recoil. Some recoil sugnificantly. I learned to handle it, and got used to it. Yes, I've heald one, and didn't like it one bit.
In fairness I will say I also don't care for the Ruger SP101 either. I have shot the Ruger in 357, and didn't like it at all. Nothing to do with recoil, the full house Magnum loads weren't a problem. I just don't like the feel of the grips.
Now my LCR on the other hand feels, and shoots great.

[Clock]

I bought the 2 inch version, and couldn't be happier. As far as appearance goes, it reminds me of the gun used in Bladerunner. No one has mentioned it, but the cylinder is flat rather than round, making it easier to carry concealed. I can see how someone with more traditional tastes might not like it, but for me it's perfect.

[Skans]

I'm mainly interested in y'all's opinions and info on the Rhino, however.

I might like it if it was made with a steel (stainless or blued) frame. Or, even a true titanium frame. I just don't like Aluminum frame revolvers.

[dannyb]

I certainly can't fault those who don't like the fit in their hand. It's one of the reasons that I don't own an SP101. Like Cheapshooter, they just don't sit well in my hand. The Rhino fits me well and fits my wife's hand perfectly.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as the saying goes; I find this revolver different rather than ugly. For all that, I'm still a K Frame S&W fan above all.

[Andy Blozinski]

I went to the range Tuesday with a guy from work. He served over in Iraq and his only experience was in the army with automatics. He literally had never fired a revolver in his life. He had a .45 and a 5.7mm pistol.
When he tried the Rhino..well, fell in love might be too strong a term. He was totally jazzed and asked a lot of questions, brought it up to his wife and neighbor.
People that have actually shot the thing seem to keep REALLY liking how it shoots.

[BigMikey76]

I was at the LGS today looking at some little pocket pistols, and I saw a 5" Rhino in the display. First I had seen one in person. I had to take a look, even though it wasn't what I was there for and it was way out of my price range. Man! I really want one now. The trigger was absolutely fantastic, and it fit my hand like it was made just for me. I was on the fence before, but now I am sure - there WILL be a Rhino in the stable some day, preferably sooner than later.

[Sequins]

I have shot this gun in the 6" configuration personally and I can say that I really respect the design and like it a lot. It weighs next to nothing (24.7-33oz) versus a GP100 (36–45 oz) and it shoots with as little recoil and much better stock sights. The price is absurdly higher but on the other hand it's a luxury item rather than practical. For a 4" revolver that you might use for carry it would be truly awesome but at 6" it would be the best range toy you owned.

I think the trigger itself is totally fine and perfectly smooth a serviceable but the trigger system is mechanically strange, and you ought to research it. I can't can't speak authoritatively but my friend said the 'external' hammer cocked an 'internal' hammer, so there is a hammer but the hammer you pull back with your thumb isn't actually it, or something (not sure why the heck someone would design that but hey, it's neat).

I love the design and the gun and I intend to own one some day. There is another French design some other aficionados of the underbarrel design could probably tell you more about that starts with an M that is similar and had the same designer if I recall.