# The Chiappa Rhino 357 mag revolver, shoots off the bottom of the cylander!



## Dutch 106 (Feb 12, 2008)

Being an engineer I'm always interested in other ways of doing stuff, The Rhino is defiantly that there retail is close to a thousand I never got serious about buying one. Just to much cash for an oddball with no feedback that wasn't from a paid writer! When one wandered up for less than half that. It had some apparent cosmetic problems ( Had some paint or other black crud on the cylinder. That came off with a green scrubby (it looked like that would work to me) the factory finish is both thin and cheap for what they charge it should have a better finish! 
As it says above the engineering on this little beast (2 Inch barrel here) crude grips (square of all silly looking things)as bad as combat Tupperware. I also thought I could come up with a better working and better looking grip. The hard rubber grips. Work OK I've shot a few hundred rounds thru it all handloads 38 special and 357 Mag the hot jacketed hollow points seem to come straight back with a crack heavy SWC actually seems to hurt more a pretty heavy revolver for it size. Hard to find holsters I have discovered that a HKS 586 speed loader sort of fits.
I have a kydex holster coming by the end of the month, so we will see how it works drawing from a holster. 
My intention is to do a review of this little blaster that I kept looking for, I have to say it works better than the first look makes you think! the price tag is huge compared to the appearance compared to a Kimber K6, you would buy the Kimber first. (still looking for one for myself) Trigger is better than you would think thou not as good as I had hoped! The frame grip knob is strange as the grip. See picture!


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Uuuuuuuugly.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

worse than ugly.

Bad butt ugly.

If that was all I had to defend myself with I would let you rob me.


----------



## crehberg (Mar 16, 2008)

And I thought my Heritage Rough Rider looked crappy...

Course it was on $100...


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

I gotta break with the group. Looking at it from a utilitarian point of view, I think it looks impressively thought-out. 

Sure, it breaks all of the conventions on what Colt and S&W told us a snubbie is supposed to look like, but everywhere that it deviates appears to provide practical advantage. 

The slab-sides on the cylinder remove more weight than traditional fluting, and make the overall width thinner for carry- one of the big downfalls of a revolver for a concealed weapon. 

The grip angle lends itself to pointability, which is really how a pocket gun is “aimed” in most scenarios- not to mention the reduced wrist fatigue of practicing with carry loads. 

The firing from the bottom chamber is absolutely brilliant. If you follow a line down the bore to the web of the grip, it appears to be dead straight. I bet there’s no muzzle climb at all- just straigh back into the web of your hand. Too, from a strictly utility standpoint, having the bolt adjacent to the firing chamber would reduce deflection in alignment to the forcing cone- not that that really matters on a snubbie, but, in theory, it would support better accuracy. 

The grips do appear to be square, as @Dutch 106 pointed out, and I bet they’re not letting you enjoy all the other felt-recoil reducing benefits of the design, but that’s easily enough to remedy with a rasp or dremel. 

I’ve seen the inside of some of their lever guns, and the fit and finish definitely leaves plenty to be desired, but I think I’d buy one of these if I stumbled on it for the right price.


----------



## Dutch 106 (Feb 12, 2008)

With the basic design of double action revolvers based on a 1899 design, so you guys just like old stuff its interesting as I work with it its practicalities keep growing on me. But then I'm willing to try new stuff particularly if it works better than the old design!
With the lower impulse with the bullet coming out much lower in the hand. I have been known to shoot heavy loads, from revolvers. I'm sorta hoping they will make a 500 or 480 in this! It would still not be for the faint of heart (or people who insist on pretty tools) I guess the price will keep coming down so real pistilaros will be able to afford them !
Dutch


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm sorta hoping they will make a 500 or 480 in this!


I see no logical reason to do that.

It's sort of pointless to have such large cases in a short barreled revolver, and this design really isn't well suited for long barrels and accuracy at longer distances.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I think the Rhino is pretty interesting, and if they weren't so expensive, I'd probably try one.
I see a lot of good reviews, and you have to admire the innovation of the design.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

It would be fine for shooting something fairly large close-up. The older I get, the longer barrel I want. I had a heck of a time with a rabid **** at 20 ft or so, a couple years back. In my defense, it was dark. I'm positive I hit him all 6 times, but he kept walking toward me sideways like. Animals don't freak out and go into shock, especially if they're rabid. I probably should start looking for one of those Buntline guns with a barrel well over a foor long..


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

I think they make it with a 6 inch barrel also , then a 41 or 44 mag might make sense.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

Clem said:


> It would be fine for shooting something fairly large close-up. The older I get, the longer barrel I want. I had a heck of a time with a rabid **** at 20 ft or so, a couple years back. In my defense, it was dark. I'm positive I hit him all 6 times, but he kept walking toward me sideways like. Animals don't freak out and go into shock, especially if they're rabid. I probably should start looking for one of those Buntline guns with a barrel well over a foor long..



don't feel to bad I had a **** I dumped 4 rounds from a 20 ga into at about the same distance maybe 25 - 30 feet , it kept getting up till I got to the slug , 3 shells of #6 I could see I was hitting it , it would be knocked on it's side and get back up the gun held 5 I had loaded 2 slugs , 3 round of #6. it sure changed my mind about every using bird shot for self defense.

this also highlights the point of lethal vs effective stop.

think about it this way you can shoot a deer double lung with a 12ga slug and it runs 100 yards.

there are lots of times when a person could not be saved if they were shot the same way standing outside the best emergency room in the country with medical care and all the equipment available just seconds later , but in a significant number of those cases the person is still awake and mobile for a minute or more. meaning they could literally be shot in the ER parking lot walk themselves in the door and lay down on the operating table but still not be saved.

this is how/why so many of our veterans were awarded their medals of honor posthumously they got shot knew they had a minute left to live and used that minute to preform an act that took out the enemy and or saved the lives of many others.


----------



## Dutch 106 (Feb 12, 2008)

Dutch 106 said:


> With the basic design of double action revolvers based on a 1899 design, so you guys just like old stuff its interesting as I work with it its practicalities keep growing on me. But then I'm willing to try new stuff particularly if it works better than the old design!
> With the lower impulse with the bullet coming out much lower in the hand. I have been known to shoot heavy loads, from revolvers. I'm sorta hoping they will make a 500 or 480 in this! It would still not be for the faint of heart (or people who insist on pretty tools) I guess the price will keep coming down so real pistilaros will be able to afford them !
> Dutch


? SOmeone tampering with my comments? *** Bye guys!


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Dutch 106 said:


> ? SOmeone tampering with my comments? *** Bye guys!


What happened? You didn’t post what it looked like you did?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see no logical reason to do that.
> 
> It's sort of pointless to have such large cases in a short barreled revolver, and this design really isn't well suited for long barrels and accuracy at longer distances.


What’s the issue with the design in longer barrels and accuracy at range?

Are you referring to the sight-height?
The difference between this one and a conventional design would not be that big of a deal even at “long” handgun ranges. 

On the other hand, having the bolt adjacent to the firing chamber could be a significant advantage in accuracy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

The sight height would be one thing.
The bolt location won't make any difference.
It either holds the cylinder or it doesn't.

Many of the reviews I've read say the accuracy was not good at all and all said the trigger pulls are too heavy.

The only advantage to the design is perceived recoil reduction, which has nothing to do with accuracy alone at any distance.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The sight height would be one thing.
> The bolt location won't make any difference.
> It either holds the cylinder or it doesn't.
> 
> ...


The bolt position absolutely could make a difference. In order to function, the bolt has to have clearance fit for the smallest bolt slot, and the cylinder bore has to have a clearance fit around the crane. Because the alingment of the chamber to the forcing cone is a radial deflection determined by the fit of the bolt to the bolt slot, having the chamber adjacent to its bolt slot reduces the deflection. Having the chamber opposite on the cylinder from its corresponding bolt slot increases it. 

When building or accurizing a revolver, you spend considerable time getting the bolt and bolt slots tightly fitted, while accounting for reliability clearance. Accepting that a minimum clearance is necessary, this design would be less affected by that. 

I punched some numbers into a trajectory calculator for the .500 S&W, and higher than normal sights actually keep the trajectory a little flatter from zero (25m) to 200m- the reasonable “long range” for a revolver. Of course this is a function of the first point blank being a little higher, but, like I said, it’s not that big of a difference, and, if anything, gives a slight advantage at the “long ranges” we were talking about. 

You mentioned that “this design didn’t lend itself to accuracy at long range”, but only pointed out that reviews are not positive on that aspect. That doesn’t say anything about the design. If anything it’s an illustration of their execution. 

What about the design do you think handicaps its accuracy potential, or did you just mean “Googled reviews say...”?


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

I agree that it is more likely execution than simply design lower barrel geometry shouldn't hurt accuracy

but you could have the tightest gap clearance and great lockup alignment and if you have an ill fitting barrel , poor crown, not ideal forcing cone or chambers that are all different sizes all of these things can lead to poor accuracy.

I haven't seen otherwise overly impressive guns from Chiappa , one needs to look no further than their own website looking at the muzzle of a badger 22/20ga break to see ugly looking tool marks on the muzzle of the 22lr barrel.

but A#1 is typically the shooter and the trigger

we routinely shoot factory Glocks and Rugers and yes even an Armscor pistol to 100 yards on a 10 inch plate using nothing special ammo.not an overly long range but a lot further than a great majority believe they can really go. now you have me thinking can I hit a USPSA target at 200 yards with a factory glock , I have a sheet of steel I think I need to paint up as a uspsa target and see. steel is great for the instant feed back.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> When building or accurizing a revolver, you spend considerable time getting the bolt and bolt slots tightly fitted, while accounting for reliability clearance. Accepting that a minimum clearance is necessary, *this design would be less affected* by that.


The design has nothing to do with "clearance".

That's a function of precision machining and materials.
Chiappa isn't noted for excellence in either of those.

The bolt location makes no difference as long as all the cylinders align in the same manner.

The design adds more moving parts and makes trigger pulls crappy and increases lock time, which has as much affect on accuracy as any of the other variables.

When it has racked up wins in competitions then get back to us about how the "design is more accurate".

Until then Dan Wesson has that title in the revolver category.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bolt position has nothing to do with accuracy.
There are far too many variables that really do matter though.
Crappy trigger pulls are one of the main ones.

The only thing this design does well is change perceived recoil.
Aside from that it improves nothing at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bolt position has nothing to do with accuracy.
There are far too many variables that really do matter though.
Crappy trigger pulls are one of the main ones.

The only thing this design does well is change perceived recoil.
Aside from that it improves nothing at all.


----------

