Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Has anyone tried that Chiappa revolver that was featured in American

Rifleman this month? It shoots from the bottom chamber rather than the top, and there is very little muzzle rise.

Looked at the photo of the internals.

It appears to be ... complex ... compared to the insides of a Smith.

- Tom

It is hands down the ugliest handgun I've ever seen.

I got to handle and dry fire the samples that they had at the SHOT show. They should feel (recoil wise) like a Mateba which is the most unusual handgun that I've ever fired. I agree that they're not much on looks, but the recoil is quite unique. BTW, when you manually cock the "hammer" it doesn't stay to the rear, it simply rotates the cylinder---a very unusual feeling gun.

I'm getting enough arthritis in my thumbs to find muzzle flip fairly painful, although it's not yet so bad as to cause me to send my pistols to Magnaport. I may try one anyway. One thing about it, you wouldn't be tempted to spend money on engraving. And you wouldn't cry over throwing it into the river after an "incident" either.

Who knows? Glocks were considered pretty ugly when they first came out.

Yeah but...damn!

Glocks



Chiappa Revolver

Glocks are STILL ugly.

Form follows function at least to some extent but the picture of the lockwork had me going

Next thought was that since when is a small defensive hand gun shot enough that recoil is really an issue. Interesting idea though and it would be fun to take one shooting just to see.

Well, this question was worth it just to see the pic of the world's prettiest Glock.

Throughout my gun buying days, which started around 1973, I never bought an ugly gun. So, I pretty much stayed with S&W, Colt and Ruger...thought I drew the line on the Security Six. Took one in trade and quickly sold it. I simply did not like the way it looked! The Speed Six was another matter. I liked it.

The Chiappa...er Rhino or whatever it is called, simply looks like a European's idea of what a pistol should look like. It's overly complex and ugly doesn't even begin to describe it.

I don't "need" recoil control to the point where I have to give up style.

Dan

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It IS different.
But is that bad?

I still say then new fangeled bolt action rifles are ugly as sin and will NEVER replace a fine tuned hammer gun.
( LOL )

The Rhino shoots very well.
I rented on at the range and ran several boxes of ammo through it.
Very low recoil.
Almost No muzzle flip.
Even with the hottest .357's

I only wish they had come out with a longer barrel as well.
Must be a supply issue or sumptin.

The cocking device is odd. ( the hammer is internal and the external piece is used to cock it and then returns to the frame to become the rear sight.)
Because it is a movable part it will never be a target sight.
But then it IS a 2 " belly gun, not a 100 yard hunter.

Yes the cylinder is squared off...but it is well made.
I see a future for it in many hands.
A lot of shooters enjoy the off beat yet functional firearm.

Will I buy one?
Ask me again after I've had a chance to shoot a 4 or 5 inch model.

That thing is butt-ass ugly, and the internals seem to be way over-engineered.

...so are Krieghoff's, but they've done pretty well for themselves.

On top of being fugly, I seem to recall they cost around $750.00. Way to much to pay for an ugly gun.

I like it ...


and ugly is as ugly does

To each his own, but I'll take a S&W any day over that "thing".