Chiappa Rhino Revolver

I have heard they are fantastic, and I currently have one in .44 on the long list. As long as you know what you're getting into and you're still interested, then yes, it sounds like they are pretty awesome hand cannons with the recoil of a .22. Two caveats are that you must have a very high hold and the triggers are, allegedly, very heavy and somewhat gritty (a deal breaker for me). The high hold comes in due to the grip, the low bore axis, and the fact that the trigger is designed to be pulled back and up, as opposed to straight back. They are not designed for single action use as these are marketed for self defense and I hear the hammer is very uncomfortable to work. This will maximize your utility of the Rhino. I heard on the rumor mill that they are working those triggers out, so try before you buy. They are supposedly reliable and durable.
 
They're alright from what I can tell. The trigger on the one at my local gun shop is really, really stiff. Otherwise, it seems fine. Even the trigger isn't a big deal if you're used to shooting double action. I don't mind heavier triggers, so I don't think it would bother me. It seems like it might shoot awfully low, but that's my impression from holding it and looking at the sight set up. I could be wrong.
 
I have no personal experience with the Rhino, but many that do seem to like them. They are most impressed with the reduced muzzle flip, and perceived recoil.
As for me, beauty may be only skin deep, but the ugliness of the Rhino goes deeply into the overly complicated lock works to make an upside down revolver with a hammer that isn't a hammer work.
 
I own a 2" hammerless model and usually pack it as my concealed carry.
The lack of muzzle flip is fantastic. I don't particularly want to get a revolver made any other way because of this. It just pushes back. Firing .357 magnums is no big deal.
I wish I'd got the model with the hammer. I thought I could get away with using the top ridge as a rear sight and it is not working.
The trigger pull is heavy. They have a trigger kit. They refuse to put it in 2" models using the excuse that it's a safety hazard. Um...it drops the trigger pull down to 7-8 pounds. That's not unsafe. The reviews I've read with the stage 2 trigger have been great. I did send it in to them and they agreed to "smooth" the trigger. It was a little bit better.
I wish they made a 3" barrel version with the rear sights and the stage 2 trigger. That would be my dream gun.
You can get a 4" version with fully adjustable sights and they will put the stage 2 trigger on it, but that seems just barely long enough to start to be a problem to conceal with ease.

They have these full moon clips. Don't you think they'll work as speed loaders. The bullets flop around a little bit. They are very handy for quick casual unloading and loading. You get three with the gun. I have one with snap caps, one with .38 special short barrel rounds and one with some hot Hornady .357 magnums. I'm probably going to get some of the Buffalo Bore short barrel .357 magnum rounds.
 
Luv it!! The design really does a lot to reduce muzzle
Flip, (recoil is straight back into the hand)the hexagonal cylinder makes concealment easier. I had trouble finding holsters ( I have a 4in 357)but I now use a clipdraw for iwb carry. My only complaint is not the trigger but the stiffness of the cocking lever. (Minor issue). I would get another in a heartbeat!!
 
I used a cloth shoulder holster like a Kangaroo carry for my Walther PPS. I actually bought mine from deepconceal.com. The Rhino with 2" barrel fits in the same pocket. So..I get to use the same holster for both. Therefore..it's no problem getting a shoulder holster to fit it.

I didn't make it clear why I lamented not getting the version with the hammer. The hammer on the 2" barrel models also functions as the rear sight. I didn't have any intentions of using it in a self defense situation cocking the hammer and I'd read the hammer was too hard to cock anyways, so I got the gun without it. That ridge on the top turned out to not be good enough for aiming alignment. I would get it with the hammer if I had it to do over again just so I'd have a rear sight. I've been debating trading it in to get one with a hammer or going for the 4" barrel model with a stage 2 trigger kit.
 
I have very limited experience with two of them, but still have my opinions.

First, let's eliminate the silly:
yes, it sounds like they are pretty awesome hand cannons with the recoil of a .22
Click to expand...
Was this posted in jest? Because outside of it being a casual joke, it's not helpful. A Rhino isn't going to feel like a .22cal, even if you are launching target .38cal wadcutter ammo from it.

I have a buddy who has one, unfortunately... he doesn't live close to me. So I've only had one short session with it. It was all that's been said thus far-- the design radically reduces muzzle flip and make the recoil FAR easier to manage. No doubt and no argument. The idea to radically lower the bore axis has outrageous merit. It's a phenomenal idea and it works. It does not eliminate recoil, for sure. It will still thump your hand and that won't ever go away, but it's far easier to shoot.

That cocking lever is an absolute bear to operate, it's as if they simply don't give you the leverage required to move the thing. Not a deal breaker for me so much; I much prefer to shoot revolvers double action. Of course, the double action is nothing to write home about, but I can deal with it. Suffice to say that my short range session with it was positive, and it was an interesting and enjoyable experience.

My run-in with the other one... not so much! :eek:
I tried a six-inch Rhino at the largest gun store in the area near my home and I asked the salesman if it was okay that I attempted a couple dry-fires and he not only said yes, he added that he hoped I would. And it BROKE on the 3rd or 4th snap. Trigger stayed back, done for the day, and got itself a round trip ticket for warranty work.

I apologized profusely and admitted that I was embarrassed. The salesman wouldn't hear of it. -HE- was more embarrassed, and thanked me for my interest and then he admitted that he was certainly happier that it broke in the store, and not on the first range trip of a recent buyer. I had to agree.

I've seen, handled and manipulated the other guns that Chiappa makes and sells, and it's hard to review them without using the word "JUNK" in there somewhere. The Rhino doesn't feel like junk and doesn't appear to be shoddily built, but the other Chiappa guns sure do seem to have that reputation. Never played with their lever action rifle, but I've read a review that claimed it was pretty lousy, and that rifle ain't cheap at all.

I love the physics and idea behind the platform. It's long been a dream of mine that Chiappa tosses their cards in and the design gets SOLD to a better manufacturer. If Smith & Wesson or Ruger got the rights to this and built their own version of a bottom-chamber revolver, I'd skip past the horrendous looks and buy one simply to put it through it's paces.

If Chiappa is building it, I'm not buying unless I can find a used one for chump money. And I'm going to figure the cost of return shipping in before I pull out my wallet. At the prices these go for -NEW-, I wouldn't even consider buying one. No way, no how.
 
That's what I thought. I think you may have posted this before as what you said sounded familiar from when I researched them. When I looked into Rhinos, they had a lot of problems early off, but the pattern changed in late 2012. They changed up the trigger, the sights and added the moon clips. I didn't see any complaints like in the earlier releases of reliability issues. I've never had anything go wrong with mine with lots of ammo through it, but it's only one gun. If you look around for anything posted late 2012 and later, you're not likely to find the complaints.
 
That is encouraging. What it doesn't do for me is to change all of the other Chiappa products I've seen and handled.

No, it doesn't mean that the Rhino must therefore be junk because their other offerings are (really, really, REALLY) cheap, but it doesn't lend a lot of courage to want to trust the one product on the market that might be built to a higher standard.

I do wonder if there is a serial number range to be on the lookout for, in case a used deal were to present itself?

I will say right here, and be happy to be HELD to it, that I will never purchase a new Chiappa Rhino. I plan to be around for another 50 or so years, and I'll be glad to stand by what I've said. :p
 

Well here is mine
As you can see I've had it for almost 3 years now. I think I've ran it pretty hard. Every time I go shooting, I bring this gun every time.

As you can also see it's serial #1167. I don't know what serial # ranges the guns that some of you have handled/fired, so I am curious if anyone can recall the # ranges. I'm curious about this because of the DA trigger complaints and the difficulty operating the "hammer".

Initially the DA trigger was a little stiff, but broke in quickly. It seems to have lightened up considerably or maybe I've just become accustomed to it. And it is really smooth. I have read it's around 10 lbs, but I think it doesn't seem that heavy because the travel is short. And also because there isn't really any staging or stacking of the trigger. It's smooth, consistent, short, then it breaks. So reset is really short and quick as well.

I also didn't find the cocking lever or "hammer" to be difficult to manipulate either. Maybe that comes with break in as well or has something to do with serial # range. So I'm a little confused by this complaint. It is small, I will say that but not difficult to cock by any means. It's definitely not like a traditional hammer so your thumb can't get as much purchase on it. So maybe that's where this complaint comes from. And also a note on this lever, when you cock it, it doesn't stay back like a traditional hammer. It goes forward and a little red "flag" protrudes from the top of the gun to tell you it's in SA mode. Then you can still use the notch in the hammer as the rear sight. So I don't see a reason to get a hammer less one.

I have to admit I was really skeptical in the beginning. The lock work inside this thing is borderline rediculous. It just looks like it's begging for something to go wrong. So I was worried about durability and longevity. Like I said I've been running it for almost 3 years now. I generally run a cast 158 gr lswc with about 13.2 grs of 2400 for about 1050 fps and have also ran that same bullet over 13.7 grs of 2400 for about 1100 fps. And I've shot it a lot.

I was also a little skeptical of the grip when I first handled it. It feels really skinny, like it would be hard to control. Then I shot it. Very controllable. And all the other stuff everyone has said about reduced muzzle flip is true. But I will reiterate, it's not like shooting a 22 at all. It's like shooting a 357, but with a firm, straight push back instead of a harsh flip.

Now the price. Yes it is a little spendy. But the pleasure shooting it has made it worth my $806. Now that the calibers have been expanded, it has me looking at one of the 4 or 5 inch 40's or one of the 357/9mm convertibles. Now if they would make one in 45 colt.
 
I own a 2" DAO Rhino with a low serial# 3370.
The trigger is velvety smooth, absolutely no grit and acceptably weighted. It almost feels as though the trigger has a reverse stack. It starts out a little stiffer and lightens as you stroke the trigger.
Recoil is amazingly light even with hot. 357s.
It really doesn't take up much more space than a j frame but does weigh a hefty but manageable 24oz.
The hexagonal cylinder gives you six shots over five with no increase in cylinder width.
It's a keeper.
 
Last edited:
Mine is 7834. It's a later model with the fibre optic front sight. The trigger pull is 10 pounds and it hasn't changed. That's interesting the older models get easier with time but my new one does not.
 
It's an interesting design and, while it doesn't have the graceful look of a classic S&W or Colt, it's not the worst-looking revolver I've ever seen (that dubious honor goes to the polymer revolvers that Taurus is currently making).

I haven't personally fired one, but I can see where the design might have merit. The main thing that concerns me, however, is that firing from the bottom chamber puts the barrel/cylinder gap, and the hot gasses coming out of it, awfully close to my fingers particularly if I'm using a two-handed hold.
 
That's a real concern.
There's a vent channel milled into the frame below the forcing cone that jets super heated gasses to either side, dangerously close to your thumb if you use a two handed thumbs forward hold.
Chiappa warns in the manual not to use this hold.
Saw a photo on line of a guy who's thumb tip was blasted off by this exhaust.
Gotta practice thumbs down hold with the Rhino.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top