Chiappa Rhino 30DS

Id really like to try one of these out someday, love the Bladerunner styling!

Odd Job said:

Are they expensive? Some people would accuse that gun of being ugly, but I like it!
Let us know how the perceived recoil is with .357 mag...I'm guessing it "rotates" less in the hand.

Click to expand...

Absolutely the ugliest handgun ever made IMHO.
With that said it's also an interesting design and may catch on someday. I know the Rhino has been around for a bit but I'm guessing I'm not the only one that gags a little every time I see one.

kidneyboy said:

MSRP is over $1000. That would have stopped me if I hadn't been able to shoot one. Mine was a little less than $900 OTD. Expensive? You be the judge.
Perceived recoil is a bit like a 1911. My intention is to run Federal HST's in 38sp +p in it. They are pretty soft shooting in the snubbies I've tried them in.

Will try some factory 357s and some +p reloads this week.

Click to expand...

You will notice very little recoil using .357s - the recoil transfers primarily rearward with lots of noise out the front. I have the 60DS (6 inch barrel) and I have used it fairly hard over the years. It would be a great revolver to start new shooters on except they can never seem to handle cocking the hammer. On the other hand, the double action is pretty good.

Mine is pictured below all dressed up for Halloween. It wanted to go as Frankenstein (how could I say no?).

kidneyboy said:

Pretty sure Mateba introduced this design in the late 1980s. Not a new concept and not for everybody.

Click to expand...

Same designer but not the same gun. The Mateba was an autoloading revolver (recocks the hammer) and in .44 Mag. I haven't looked in awhile but I thought there were other calibers too.

I had a 4" version for a little while earlier this year. They are different, and maybe, just a little too different.I guess Im just an good old S&W type guy.

Recoil is straight back with very little muzzle rise. The first time I shot mine, around 200 rounds of 357MAG, I felt it in my shoulder sockets the next day.

They are smooth shooters in DA, and the triggers arent bad. The trigger could be a tad narrower though, especially for DAO. Never shot mine in SA. The "hammer" you see, isnt the hammer, but a cocker/decocker.

This was shot at 10 yards DAO, pretty quickly, about as fast as the sights came back on target.



And yes, it was the ugliest gun Ive ever bought.

Ugly or not, they are comfortable in the hand and shooters.

ETA: I forgot to mention, if youre a thumbs forward shooter, watch that off hand thumb. There is a relief cut at the barrel, in the frame, and it will bite you if youre not careful. I normally shoot this way with everything I shoot, and its never been a problem with more traditional revolvers with the barrel on top. The first round I fired out of the Chiapa, I got bit, and my thumb want past the cylinder. Just close.

AK103K said:

I had a 4" version for a little while earlier this year. They are different, and maybe, just a little too different.I guess Im just an good old S&W type guy.

Recoil is straight back with very little muzzle rise. The first time I shot mine, around 200 rounds of 357MAG, I felt it in my shoulder sockets the next day.

They are smooth shooters in DA, and the triggers arent bad. The trigger could be a tad narrower though, especially for DAO. Never shot mine in SA. The "hammer" you see, isnt the hammer, but a cocker/decocker.

This was shot at 10 yards DAO, pretty quickly, about as fast as the sights came back on target.

View attachment 871047

And yes, it was the ugliest gun Ive ever bought.

Ugly or not, they are comfortable in the hand and shooters.

ETA: I forgot to mention, if youre a thumbs forward shooter, watch that off hand thumb. There is a relief cut at the barrel, in the frame, and it will bite you if youre not careful. I normally shoot this way with everything I shoot, and its never been a problem with more traditional revolvers with the barrel on top. The first round I fired out of the Chiapa, I got bit, and my thumb want past the cylinder. Just close.

View attachment 871048

Click to expand...

I believe the "cutout" in the frame you refer to is merely the long-awaited Right Handers Tax.

Those longer Rhinos need rhinoplasty IMHO.

Now, if only they could design one with a less-complicated internal mechanism. I have seen diagrams of the works, and I understand why the "hammer" is not really the hammer, as in a normal revolver. Simplify it and I might be interested in it.

beag_nut said:

Now, if only they could design one with a less-complicated internal mechanism. I have seen diagrams of the works, and I understand why the "hammer" is not really the hammer, as in a normal revolver. Simplify it and I might be interested in it.

Click to expand...

I would call it a Rube Goldberg machine, except that Rube would not understand it's infernal complexity, and few even remember him anyway.

It would be fine, and simpler as a DAO gun, but there are a lot of people anymore, who dont/cant shoot like that.

I would still say if you have the opportunity to get or shoot one, you do so. If they had come about in the 50's, they might have had the possibility of being a thing. These days, not so much. They are interesting guns though.

The rhino is a fantastic revolver. It's one of the best shooting, and to be honest I question why the design hasn't caught on. The recoil impulse versus a GP100 for example is striking and the rhino is leagues ahead on follow up and accuracy beyond slow fire, just leagues and leagues ahead IMO (my friend has the rhino, I have the GP). I imagine there just isn't much market for revolvers and that's the only reason, no market means no R&D to apply the design, but it's a shame.

I even think they're pretty in their own way. Anodized gold 6" is the one I lust for, throw a dot on there, it'll be a decisive look.

I would love a bottom bore LCR, somehow.

sequins said:

The rhino is a fantastic revolver. It's one of the best shooting, and to be honest I question why the design hasn't caught on. The recoil impulse versus a GP100 for example is striking and the rhino is leagues ahead on follow up and accuracy beyond slow fire, just leagues and leagues ahead IMO (my friend has the rhino, I have the GP). I imagine there just isn't much market for revolvers and that's the only reason, no market means no R&D to apply the design, but it's a shame.

I even think they're pretty in their own way. Anodized gold 6" is the one I lust for, throw a dot on there, it'll be a decisive look.

I would love a bottom bore LCR, somehow.

Click to expand...

The reason is hasn't caught on (and won't) relates primarily to the manufacturer not being S&W or Colt, the cost and the looks of the gun itself. It simply doesn't conform to what people expect a revolver to be. If the Rhino had been produced without a bottom rail or flat-faced cylinder sides, it may have been able to gain better acceptance in the marketplace.

sequins said:

It's one of the best shooting, and to be honest I question why the design hasn't caught on.

Click to expand...

Probably for the same reasons that it didn't catch on a century ago when it was first envisioned.
Too big. Too clunky. Too complicated.

kidneyboy said:

It is neither big or clunky. Doesn't seem any more complicated than the workings of a Dillon press. Just guessing that you have no experience with one.

Click to expand...

That would be my guess as well.

While they do look a bit different, they are well balanced, very comfortable in the hand, and very shootable.

I cant say for a fact that they are overcomplicated, as Ive never had one open to see. Truthfully, it ouldnt bother me if they didnt have a SA notch, or external hammer, cocker/decocker, whatever, as I dont shoot that way, and never shot mine that way. They are fast to shoot and easy to stay on target in DAO though. That is a fact!

I think the biggest issue with them, especially for those fixed in their ways, and/or maybe a little narrowminded is, they are different. If you arent willing to experiment and try/learn new things, then its probably best to skip them.

As much as I liked mine, it was just a little too different, and Im still just too much of an S&W fan and to invested in them, to be swayed to that side. Not to mention, I like multiples of what I like, and just like SIG started to price themselves out of my market on the auto side, multiple of these would get pricey pretty quick. Especially buying them new.

Im glad I grabbed it when I did (Ive seen three go through our local shop and none sat very long), and I shot the snot out of it while I had it, and they are cool guns once you get some time in with them to know.

kidneyboy said:

It is neither big or clunky.

Click to expand...

The longer barreled versions most certainly are bulky and awkward, because of that huge sight bridge.
It's only the snubby that can get away with a 6 o'clock barrel comfortably, thanks to the short sight bridge.
You do have to ask yourself why no manufacturer ever introduced an upside-down revolver at any time in history. There are no new ideas in revolver mechanisms, and they were certainly capable of doing so long before this. But the idea went the way of gas-operated self-ejecting revolvers, 24 shot cylinders, zig-zag grooves cylinder rotation, and many other impractical concepts.
The lower axis of recoil is the only advantage, and this advantage is outweighed by a huge sight bridge and upside down lockwork complexity.
Lets be honest. Had this revolver ever been offered for military trials when revolvers were king, the testing board would have laughed themselves silly.

Old Stumpy said:

Had this revolver ever been offered for military trials when revolvers were king, the testing board would have laughed themselves silly.

Click to expand...

Which is why so many progressive military arms were often overlooked or shunned. Old school fogeys with power, set in their ways, who fear progress, and things they know nothing about.

The original Mateba's didn't catch on because of cost, limited supply and, if you look at them, they really don't bring the bore axis that much closer to the hand than a properly high grip on a double-action. The Rhino is a much, much better design than the Mateba. But- it is unnecessarily complex, largely because of the perceived need for single action. The mechanism could be simplified enormously by going to DAO with a top-hinged hammer; I've plotted out such a mechanism but it's beyond my capability to produce a prototype.

BTW, I had a 200ds- it was great, but my interests turned in other directions.

Michael Tinker Pearce said:

The original Mateba's didn't catch on because of cost, limited supply and, if you look at them, they really don't bring the bore axis that much closer to the hand than a properly high grip on a double-action. The Rhino is a much, much better design than the Mateba. But- it is unnecessarily complex, largely because of the perceived need for single action. The mechanism could be simplified enormously by going to DAO with a top-hinged hammer; I've plotted out such a mechanism but it's beyond my capability to produce a prototype.

BTW, I had a 200ds- it was great, but my interests turned in other directions.

Click to expand...

DAO bottom bore LCR. I'd pay $800 or less for one, jeez. Just the most practical shooting characteristics in a revolver and makes DA rapid fire easy. I only shoot SA on the range, not gonna go SA for self defense shot *in my specific circumstances and my method of carry, which is pocket revolver aimed at mugging defense*. I carry DAO to avoid snags so it's not a possibility. I'd want the same in one of these designs too, anyways.