I shot a Mateba Revovler semiauto

C

cobraman

New member
I work at an indoor range/gunshop. One of our many sales reps brought a Mateba .44 mag Revovler by last week.
This thing is a semi auto revovler. I dont know how else to describe it.
Well he let us run some rounds through it. Oh boy this thing is awesome! It has the best SA trigger pull I have ever felt.
Of course we ordered one for inventory on the spot.
 
What a great deal! A six round semi-automatic handgun. I wouldn't mind shooting one, but I doubt I'd ever spend that kind of money on a revolver that wasn't a Korth.
 
blades67,

CDNN is selling them for $599 in .357 right now.

See here.

Besides, a six round self-cocking revolver isn't quite a "six round semiautomatic". (But a Glock 36 or a ParaOrd P.6 LDA is) ;)
 
Not to mention that the empty Mateba .357 weighs 3 pounds! It needs a tripod....

Serioiusly, it does seem that they've managed to get everything together in one handgun -- all the disadvantages of both a pistol and a revolver together in one gun!

Now if somebody could manage the opposite -- a compact, 1-1/2 pound, 11 shot, magazine fed revolver chambered in "hefty", I might be interested.
 
Not to mention that the empty Mateba .357 weighs 3 pounds! It needs a tripod....
Click to expand...

Mmm-hmm. Tripod indeed.

6" Model 657 N-frame: 45.5 oz.
6.5" Model 610 Classic N-frame: 52.0 oz.
6" Model 686 L-frame: 44.0 oz.
6" Mateba Model 6 Unica: 47.4 oz.

Have you shot or held one, Blackhawk?

mateba.jpg
 
Have you shot or held one, Blackhawk?
Click to expand...
Never even laid eyes on one much less talons....
6" Mateba Model 6 Unica: 47.4 oz.
Click to expand...
Which comes out to 2.96 pounds, or 3 for those of us who like well rounded numbers. A design that optimally requires 1/2 pound of gun per round just doesn't fit my pistol. Then again, I'm not a collector. YMMV
 
BTW...

Someone did make a "magazine fed revolver".

The Dardick moved off of dealer's shelves with all the alacrity of a condemned man on his way to the chair. ;)
 
A design that optimally requires 1/2 pound of gun per round just doesn't fit my pistol.
Click to expand...

Don't own many N-frames or large frame Rugers, then, I take it.

If three more ounces than a 686 are gonna strain your wrists, better eat them wheaties... ;)

(Heck, it's almost a half-pound lighter than a 610 or 27 of equivalent barrel length. :cool: )
 
Don't own many N-frames or large frame Rugers, then, I take it.
Click to expand...
Not a one.
(Heck, it's almost a half-pound lighter than a 610 or 27 of equivalent barrel length. )
Click to expand...
None of those either. They're just not my style. They have their benefits though -- they make you invisible. If you're holding one on somebody, they can't see anything else!

I tend to avoid doing things that are not fun (human, you know), and I just can't imagine hoisting a 3+ pounder for an extended plinking session as being fun, especially since I like to shoot one handed. The fun of shooting is hitting what I'm aiming or pointing at. A hard aimed shot is fun, but the same shot by pointing is exhilirating and doubly so if I can repeat it. But nothing's fun if my muscles are tired, and that's just what they would be after a couple of dozen rounds with a heavy handgun.

So, if I'm not going to carry it, wouldn't want to shoot it enough to be point proficient, and not a collector, why would I want one? Wait! I know! So I could give it to you, right?
 
At first I though this revolver was a real cool idea because it could give a consistent, light, SA trigger pull on each shot. Then I looked carefully at the photos, and I couldn't see the hammer. If that is true, then I could not cock the gun manually as I unholstered it for the first shot, and I would have been condemned to two different trigger pulls on the first and second shot. That kind of defeats the fun, doesn't it? Or am I mistaken about the hammer? Tamara?
 
You can...

...cock the hammer manually.

(If you'll look at the picture I posted, you'll see the hammer spur sticking up from the frame just aft of the cylinder release.)
 
Thanks, Tamara. I was looking at that picture and didn't realize that was a fully functional hammer. It looked kind of, well, tiny. Is it comfortable for someone with fat fingers to operate it? If so, then I am going back to my original view that it is a cool machine.
 
"Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work, you can always hit him with it." -- Boris the Blade, aka Boris the Bullet-Dodger, aka Boris the Sneaky Cossack Bastard :D
 
a question about the sights

That's a very interesting looking revolver. I have a question about sighting it in, though. Is it very difficult to estimate hold-over when changing distances and/or loads? I would think that vertical dispersion would be greatly increased with sights that sit that high over the axis of the bore. Just wondering.
 
Anybody watch that show "Alias"? I usually watch it for reasons other than the uh, gunplay, but one of the baddies had a handgun that looked just like this.
 
Boy, if ya don't like a heavy auto-revolver at 47.4 ounces...

I'd recommend staying away from something like my Desert Eagle at 62.4 ounces! It is indeed a two-handed gun, but the accuracy is still there, though. Paraphrasing C.R. Sam, when it comes to hard-hitting magnums, heavy is good, massive steel is gooder!


But I have been thinking about trading it in on a .45-70 BFR with 10" barrel lately...:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top