[chelboed]

Most of the Ruger people I know are fairly traditional, so I don't expect great responses here, but I'm really intrigued by the Chiappa Rhyno in 4"-5". The barrel being lower reducing recoil, increasing accuracy, and flat sided cylinder for low profile carry looks fun.

Any comments? Anyone shot one in 357 mag?

Wish they made it in 44 mag.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[phideaux]

Yep,
I almost bought one, have shot one, like you said ,very lite recoil, flat cyl, a little big and heavy for me, for CCW.
Ive yet to find another handgun, that fit my hand as good, feels really good. I am sure I would own one if that trigger was better.

I didnt buy because of the trigger, very strong springs, pull must be 15lbs, and long.IMO. I also dont care for the fake hammer safety arrangement, as it could be confusing if your accustomed to a normal revolver.

Also IMO they are so fugly they're kinda cute.
The price on them is not real attractive either.
Dont get me wrong, I could easily be talked into one.

Ive heard ,you can have a factory trigger job done for another $100, which should not be an additional cost.

Jim

 

[chelboed]

The new ones have 8# double action and 3#single action trigger pull. It's basically the factory trigger job setup.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[tater]

Sure is ugly....

 

[chelboed]

Shoots an inch tighter than a 686.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jmohme]

I kinda like the look. Definitely stand out amongst the other revolvers at the range!

 

[Pancho_Villa]

FUGLY. But if it works for ya, go for it.

 

[chelboed]

It's definitely love/hate, but at least they fully committed to the design, lol.

Versus the Super Redhawk....looks like a square frame snub nose with a round barrel jammed in the end. The standard Redhawk is one of my all time favorites, but the Super Redhawk is an awkward looking piece.

The Super needs to have the rib all the way to the end if the barrel IMO as well as the lug on the bottom like the Anaconda.

Different strokes though, right? I'd still rather have a Redhawk.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Blkhawk73]

It's a design that's gone from one manufacturer to another. None have had much success with it. Part of that I believe is due to the design. It's just too different for traditional firearms folks to warm up to and accept as viable. That and it's freakin ugly.
Seen them locally but nothing I've bothered with. With the muzzle end of the barrel being what it is, it's just to bulberous in a blocky manner. Get rid of that stupid rail! Not too keen on the left side lever if it's for any carry purposes by a right handed person.

 

[chelboed]

My only beef with it is that it's only available in small calibers. Looking at the loading data...a 158gr 357 versus a 155gr 40 s&w...there's not a great deal of difference. Definitely not different enough to warrant spending a grand on a new revolver.


Looking over my Hornady reloading manual...

357 magnum 158gr HP: 1250fps
40s&w 155gr HP: 1300fps

The case wall must be thicker on the more modern 40 allowing the case to be loaded heavier.



I think I'm going to save my money for a Redhawk or Super Redhawk. I prefer the Redhawk in aesthetics, but the Super is available in 454 Casull and 480 Ruger. I may just settle for 44 mag. There isn't anything in North America that the 44 can't handle. Plus, my family already has dies, shell holders, tools, etc... for the 44...and my old Redhawk is one sale I regret.

357 just isn't worth it to me when I already have a 40.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[chelboed]

And the reason why you can push a 40s&w beyond the 357 mag...case is twice as thick.