What is the biggest firearm flop you have ever seen

Status
Not open for further replies.
SPAS 12 shotgun.

Striker "Street Sweeper" shotgun.

Any bull pup shot gun.

The KSG and UTAS aren't necessarily bad, or even wrong - the concept of a bull pup shotgun with dual coaxial tubes feeding a lot of ammo has some merit. What has failed is having a reliable action and any sense of adequate production at a reasonable price. It goes to show that even with a workable concept the execution can doom the entire idea.
 
The SPAS and Streetsweeper were also murdered by decree (I will say the SPAS was flop-ish, but not really more so than any other 'deluxe' or high end model made by a non-high-end brand)

"I think the Sig 226 killed the GB back in the 80's"
Glock won the critical contracts the GB fought for early on, and then everybody jumped on the bandwagon. Civvie sales were stymied by the Rogak fiasco before spare magazines could even be deployed. I think Steyr got revenge by basically copying the Glock in its entirety :D

"The Chiappa Rhino - The answer to an unasked question."
So is pretty much any revolver, these days. It was definitely a question asked by people who always wanted a more practical Mateba that retained its benefits.

TCB
 
(An answer to an unasked question.)
So is pretty much any revolver, these days.
Click to expand...

I don't know why so many people here on THR use the "question nobody asked" line when it is so obviously false. Someone asked or it would never have existed.

As for revolvers, until someone invents a single pistol that can reliably feed loads from 700fps to 1700fps, and not throw the brass away like it is free in the process, the revolver will continue to be the only available answer to questions that I and many others ask. :(
 
As for revolvers, until someone invents a single pistol that can reliably feed loads from 700fps to 1700fps, and not throw the brass away like it is free in the process, the revolver will continue to be the only available answer to questions that I and many others ask.
Click to expand...

Much truth here.

The revolver is the best answer to this question: "What's the best handgun that I can use to shoot really powerful cartridges with virtually 100% reliability and then recover all my empties for reloading without stooping over or crawling around in the dirt?"

The biggest flop that I have personal experience with is the AMT Hardballer. It's the most ironically named gun in history because it wouldn't feed a full magazine of hardball, much less any sort of modern bullet design. For it's intended purpose I would also call the Ruger Ranch Rifle a flop. It's a Mini-14 specifically set up for scope mounting but mine never shot into less than 14" at 100 yards regardless of how much effort I spend tying to find loads. I didn't need a scope to shoot that well. Heck, I probably could have just sighted down the barrel and done as well! I realize it's not a flop in terms of sales, but mine sure was a flop in terms of being a rifle.
 
Ever fired a Steyr GB? Jam-O-matic, and when it DOES it might lock up and cool down before it can be racked again.

Another poorly designed ammo sensitive boutique pistol imported in small numbers.

The HK VP 70 had a revolver like trigger (DA only), was made of plastic (way before Glock) and have 4 moving parts, held 17 rounds and was almost as big as the SOCOM but at least it worked.. at a time when no one wanted ANY of those things in a 9mm.
 
I can use to shoot really powerful cartridges with virtually 100% reliability
Click to expand...

So you've never seen a revolver out of time? Or one that actually spins backwards because the internals have been shaken apart by heavy loads? It happens. Revolvers are generally reliable but 100%??? Don't think so.
 
Folks, a gun isn't a "flop" if it's so recently-introduced as to have unavailable its sales success figures, or if it's actually selling quite briskly. I'm seeing numerous mentions of the Rhino, which meets the first category, and quite a few other guns, such as some by Taurus and Kel-Tec, that meet the second.

Remember, just because you don't have a use for it does not make it a "flop". Poor acceptance by its intended market does.
 
So you've never seen a revolver out of time? Or one that actually spins backwards because the internals have been shaken apart by heavy loads? It happens. Revolvers are generally reliable but 100%??? Don't think so.
Click to expand...
I think he said "virtually" ... yes, anything can break, or wear out, or get jammed, but short of breaking or really pushing the envelope to beyond safe limits, revolvers tend to be reliable in ways semi-autos can't match.

E.g. I have fired both a revolver and semi-auto .44 magnum. The revolver has never failed to produce six holes in a target when loaded with six cartridges. The semi-auto will fail to cycle if you use anything less than full power loads, it will fail to cycle reliably when the gas port gets dirty, in general it is just more finicky. The revolver works with short brass (specials), with max OAL loads, with loads that are probably 650fps, with loads that are 1500fps, and so on. Not bad for something made before my parents met. The .44 mag isn't particularly powerful as handgun cartridges go, but it is near the top for semi-autos.

Semi-autos can be quite reliable, but they usually get there by reducing the dynamic range. If you set a semi-auto to be reliable with 650fps target loads, it will beat itself to death at normal power. If you set it up correctly for normal power it may not cycle light loads.
 
So you've never seen a revolver out of time? Or one that actually spins backwards because the internals have been shaken apart by heavy loads? It happens. Revolvers are generally reliable but 100%??? Don't think so.
Click to expand...

Hence the "virtually". Of the countless thousands of handgun rounds I have fired through both pistols and revolvers I can't even begin to catalog all of the auto loader problems: bent mag lips, FTF, FTE, stovepipes, double feeds, etc.

I can remember all three of the revolver failures I've experienced. Three, and they were memorable because of the extreme conditions that caused them. The first was over 30 years ago when I ran so many full power 125 grain loads through a S&W 19 that the heat expansion caused the cylinder gap to begin dragging. The cylinder was so hot I could barely touch it. This was after nearly 50 rounds, so it could hardly be considered a normal failure.

The second and third failures were ones of design. A S&W 340PD (Sc framed 357 snubbie) that would engage the internal lock under recoil. Removing the lock resolved that issue. The third was a S&W 329 (Sc framed 44 magnum) that would unlock and spin the cylinder with 300 grain loads. The gun simply wasn't engineered to handle the level of recoil that heavy bullet loads generate. I fixed that problem by trading it for a Glock 20.

What was this thread about again? :) Oh yeah, firearm flops. Maybe the 329 belongs in that category.
 
Feel a response about the Chiappa is needed... it's an unasked question because the number of people that want/buy them are statistical anomalies.

I consider myself someone that is a gun enthusiast. I read about them, own/collect them, shoot them, and go to gun shows/stores. I can't think of a single Chiappa I've held or even seen in person. I know a lot of gun owners, and never met anyone with a Chiappa. I've seen videos, and they look like they took the worst features of every gun and threw them into as ugly/big of a package as they could. And for the marginal merit of a low bore axis, it's not worth the cost/ugly/complex tradeoff. No concept of styling, or sleek-ness, or lines, etc.

I've yet to meet a single person who would otherwise shoot a .357 magnum, who doesn't because it kicks too much. Have you EVER met someone, who is wanting to drop $1,000 on a pistol, who won't buy a .357 because of the stout recoil? EVER? Again, I can't think of a single example in the real world.

Sure, there may be a slightly figured person who might be a casual gun owner, who *might* be interested in a lesser-recoiling .357 magnum... but it's doubtful and almost certainly not at the significant pricetag when much better more practical and less complex offerings are available. This market is more likely going to simply buy a smaller caliber handgun, which is probably more suitable anyway, for that market that can't handle the .357 recoil.

That gun will flop. I'm 99% sure of it.
 
Lead...

There are several rhinos in local stores so they aren't that rare.

Aesthetics are always subjective. I had someone tell me how ugly a figured-maple stocked 98 mauser that had been worked over by a pretty good gunsmith was compared to his plastic-and-aluminum AR. Thirty years ago the opposite was common.

The rhino doesn't address "kick" at all. You can't stop physics, and physics says that for a given weight gun, charge, and bullet, at a given bullet speed, recoil will be X. They don't claim otherwise.

Rhinos are not $1000. They cost less than a S&W Governor.
 
Last edited:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find the Rhino to be ugly. And I don't find it to be an answer to a question no one asked. People forget that their are hundreds of millions of people in this country alone. Just because you don't know anyone that has any interest in them doesn't mean no one does. There are a lot of regional preferences as well. There is a very large number of Remington Gamemasters in the hands of hunters in PA. Go a state away and most people have never heard, seen or handled one. I'm certain that this state is the one that keeps them in production.

After shooting a Rhino it works as advertised. Even for those that can handle recoil. Why wouldn't you want to minimize muzzle flip for followup shots? Especially in a self defense situation. It all seems good to me and is on my list to buy even though I own a few Smiths already.
 
Lead...

There are several rhinos in local stores so they aren't that rare.

Aesthetics are always subjective. I had someone tell me how ugly a figured-maple stocked 98 mauser that had been worked over by a pretty good gunsmith was compared to his plastic-and-aluminum AR. Thirty years ago the opposite was common.

The rhino doesn't address "kick" at all. You can't stop physics, and physics says that for a given weight gun, charge, and bullet, at a given bullet speed, recoil will be X. They don't claim otherwise.

Rhinos are not $1000. They cost less than a S&W Governor.
Click to expand...

Buds guns is an online discounter. Prices at local shops are almost always higher by 10-20%. Buds has the Chiappa at $1000.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/714007826/CHI+WHT+RINO+40+6+NKL+6

$1,000 for a new full size stainless Chiappa. The cheapest is a God-aweful looking dark finish snub-nose at over $800.

Yes, beauty is in the 'eye' of the beholder, but this abomination is so atrocious you have to TRY to like it for it's horrible lines. I can't ever see myself warming up to this horribly looking device at 1/5th the cost. Frankly, it reminds me of the Ford Edsel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel
Just a bunch of random hunks of stuff bolted on with no streamlining, or design ideals or vision. Just throw all that garbage on there and sell it!

Again, you can get a very rugged, sexy, reliable Ruger GP100 every day for $500+, so effectively about 2 for the price of a full size Chiappa. Why would anyone by a Chiappa for more? The recoil is not that big of a deal.
 
Last edited:
Cheaper Than Dirt is an online gouger, best known for raising the price of anything and everything through the roof if given the least excuse.

Chiappa White Rhino Revolver .357 Magnum 4" Barrel 6 Rounds Stainless Steel Nickel Frame Rubber Grips with Holster
(no reviews)
Our Low Price: $898.72
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/80358

Why would anyone pay more for a Chiappa than a Ruger? Maybe they like the looks of it better?

You are giving off a serious "I don't like the taste of broccoli therefore broccoli is bad" vibe here.
 
In the gun market, when the buyers don't like broccoli, it sits on the salad bar and doesn't get consumed. So seeing a lot of it doesn't mean they are selling. NOT seeing them implies they are selling.

Let's not forget the publicity Chiappa had over tracking chips in the firearm: http://trochronicles.blogspot.com/2011/07/chiappa-firearm-tracking-chip-rfid.html

Insulting their customer base very much does affect sales.

I suggested the KGS shotgun is a flop, just not dead yet. My reasoning is that for the price - $900 street retail - it's three times higher than conventional shotguns for all the engineering. The user could arguably carry two shotguns and have a working backup, and save the price of a third. Marketing the firearm at boutique pricing doesn't put it in the hands of the user group who really wants it.

The Magpul Masada/Remington ACR - another flop candidate - suffers the same issue. It's so much more expensive the fans of the design realized the AR15 was still the better buy.

Second, the KSG suffers from a well established feeding problem that will jam the mechanism, and there is no immediate action to fix it. It's down and out, with a nearly gunsmith level repair to get it running. The only recourse is to transition - to that other shotgun slung on your back, for one. Wasn't the whole point of all the extra ammo the ability to have it ready to use?

Thirdly, Keltec itself, which gobbled up a design that would have benefited us more if a different gunmaker had acquired it. Keltec doesn't have a track record of putting out a reliable and tested first issue weapon. They are almost always a beta version, and the owner group has to get it up and running. Then, the improvements are incorporated and the gun, two years later, is considered more reliable. Further, Keltec does not have the capacity to manufacture in the quantities that the public demands, which has left the door open for the UTAS, and potentially others.

So, they didn't design it right, can't make it right, and won't make enough of them. Flop. We'll be reading about it in 20 years, with prose about how much potential it had, and the other brands that did the job right while Keltec dropped it. They need to, and sell it off so that somebody else can fix it and the design stand on it's own merits.
 
"Feel a response about the Chiappa is needed..."
Yeah, no kidding :rolleyes:

"Buds guns is an online discounter. Prices at local shops are almost always higher by 10-20%. Buds has the Chiappa at $1000."
You do know the 40SW 6" white rhino is probably their most expensive model, right? The black snub runs around 700$-800$ when I've seen them, which is admittedly a bit more than they are worth to me.

"Yes, beauty is in the 'eye' of the beholder, but this abomination is so atrocious..."
Really? :scrutiny: Methinks thou doth protest too much. :rolleyes: I personally think Rugers are ugly because of all the excess metal and weight many carry, and the 'clean lines' look more easy-to-cast than graceful.

"Just a bunch of random hunks of stuff bolted on with no streamlining..."
-On the longer barrels, rails preclude "streamlining" but can be useful
-The gun has two slab sides; hardly a kludge of junk bolted on
-The frame looks huge solely because of its blockiness; since I'm guessing you've never held one, they aren't nearly as big as you'd think

"...or design ideals or vision"
Uh, what?! Maybe you should share S&W or Ruger's contribution to revolver innovation of the last 50-100 years? The entire Rhino is designed to minimize muzzle flip, not look like an old west six-gun or Registered Magnum; get over it. The barrel's on the bottom, so the space above it will always look 'empty' which is why there is a rib there. A thin rib would look silly from a front angle, which is why the rib is the full width of the frame. The rib is in the same place a vent-rib would go (above the barrel) so they cut lightening holes in it. The grip is raked back at a sharper angle than a Bisley because it reduces the muzzle flip (the beloved Bisley amplifies it). The grip is short and rounded for carry, same as stubby Ruger/S&W grips. Oh yeah, no internal lock, either, unlike the Ruger/S&W :neener:

"Again, you can get a very rugged, sexy, reliable Ruger GP100 every day for $500+"
Yeah, find me a GP100 that weighs the same as an aluminum-frame Rhino, or S&W aluminum-Scandium frame that costs $700-$800 bucks. One cut for moon-clips and that has a pinned extractor, for that matter.

"I've yet to meet a single person who would otherwise shoot a .357 magnum, who doesn't because it kicks too much. Have you EVER met someone, who is wanting to drop $1,000 on a pistol, who won't buy a .357 because of the stout recoil? EVER? Again, I can't think of a single example in the real world."
Maybe all those owners of small-frame S&W snub owners who run 38spl because mags make their fingers bleed? :rolleyes: The K-frame's beat themselves to death the recoil was so rough on them, to say nothing of the owners.

"I can't think of a single Chiappa I've held or even seen in person. I know a lot of gun owners, and never met anyone with a Chiappa"
I'm pretty sure they're smaller than Kel-Tec, with far less presence in the States, and also cost more than Kel-Tec. Most people's exposure to them is their cheap pot-metal 22s; like other pot metal 22s, they tend to suck more than real guns, and fools then think this same standard applies to their centerfire offerings. The Rhino was designed by probably the most talented revolver designer of the last 50 years (or more)

"That gun will flop. I'm 99% sure of it."
As far as I know, they've been selling like gangbusters for four straight years :scrutiny:. Just not a high-volume commodity like the Ruger

"Insulting their customer base very much does affect sales."
No joke. MKS Distributing *cough* --Hi Point-- *cough* are a complete bunch of idiots, and I don't know what Chiappa was thinking hooking up with them for Rhino distribution. Probably prior import agreements made it 'make sense at the time' but in reality they should have gone through Czechpoint or CZ USA or Waffen Werks or Century or practically anyone else. At least Century never called their customers paranoid schizophrenics.

TCB
 
when the buyers don't like broccoli, it sits on the salad bar and doesn't get consumed.
Click to expand...

That is true for all markets, and misses the point.

One of the Basic Lessons in Reality Which Everyone Should Learn (preferably before age 10) is that, "I don't like X", is not a basis for a successful argument that, "X is bad".

"I don't like broccoli," does not support the assertion, "broccoli is bad."

As a continual target of prohibitionists, gun owners have special reason to be senssitive to - and refuse to accept - that type of fallacious argument. After all, what is the basis of most gun control but a variation on the same theme, to wit, "I don't like guns therefore guns are bad"?

As for the KT part...here your argument seems to be, "They are selling more than they can make, and don't have time to fix what I think is a show stopping problem, therefore it's a flop."

Shouldn't the definition of a flop be based on production volume exceeding sales numbers rather than subjective opinion?
 
Rhinos are 742 on Buds now. "the black one I believe, ". To me if they were in the 5-6 hundred range, people would buy them. I spoke to several people who have shot them, and they say that there is very little recoil. I prefer a 686, which is just as pricy, but S&W's have always been, look at that 340 PD, they are still around a thousand dollars on some sites. Buds had a clearance on them about a year and a half ago fo 5 something, I don't know what I was thinking, I should have picked one up.
The Rhino is just Butt ugly, that is the worst part of a otherwise good idea. The guy should have tried to make them more like a regular revolver.
It still can be a success, I watched JM, shoot one on Utube, and he liked it.
 
JM also burned himself :p (I thought that moment of humility was hilarious, to tell the truth, since the guy is otherwise so superhuman in his gun slinging)

"To me if they were in the 5-6 hundred range, people would buy them"
That's the truth. They are a lot better made than the Chiappa badge and their initial QC problems give them credit for (there's actually lot of very precise machining and intricate internals that they do get right very consistently these days), but I still don't think they are as nice as a S&W. Or maybe I just have an inflated perception of S&W's quality these days :D (my only exposure being a PC gun has a lot to do with this, I'm sure).

They seemed about as nice as the Rugers I've messed with, both also have a funky 'different from a Smith' trigger that I'm a bit loathe to adapt to. If Ruger offered an aluminum 357, what do we think it would sell for? That's what I think the Chiappa should be priced at. For all I know, such a gun would also sell for over seven bills :confused:

As far as styling, I have yet to see someone attempt a melt-down on a Rhino. My guess is it would come out looking like a soap-bar, but I think the potential for a 'softer' look that appears less blocky is possible (just not profitable ;) )

chiappa-rhino-357-2in-right.jpg
23101-DEFAULT-S.jpg

Eh, the Rhino and Taurus 851 both look like little chunk-sters to me :D

TCB
 
"The guy should have tried to make them more like a regular revolver."

It's impossible. Seriously. I half-designed a little break-top 9mm a while back (see attached) that would fire from the bottom and use a scaled-down Dragoon/Bisley grip and an open-top frame in an effort to make the lines as 'horizontal' as possible like in most revolvers. A pencil barrel just looks aesthetically wrong, like the Dardick, because the profile has an ugly hump at the cylinder no matter what you do. So you have to add a rib --a giant rib-- sight base on top of the barrel, which ends up making the thing look either bulky (fat rib) or like a sail fish (thin rib).

My little design looked like a dolphin fish with its exaggerated (but functional) sight rib. Just what you want to whip out and defend your life with; a fish :D

TCB
 

Attachments

  • Stampede.jpg
    Stampede.jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 17
How about the Steyr GB 9mm or the SPP pistols? I think the Sig 226 killed the GB back in the 80's and the SPP had to deal with the HK. I guess when you go up against two of the best, you better bring your A++ game or don't even show up!
Click to expand...
Remember, a company in Morton Grove, IL (infamous for their early handgun ban) introduced the L.E.S. Rogak P18, which looked very much like the Steyr GB . . . so much so, that people openly speculated about where the Rogak design came from. Various reviews were critical, at least one saying it jammed so much that for self defense you were better off using the magazine, as the feed lips were razor sharp and made a better (or at least, more reliable) weapon than the gun itself.
 
The Rogak was (allegedly) an unlicensed copy of the GB --only with wood-screws for the cheap grips :D. The GB was a gas-delayed blowback. The Rogak never got this to work right and was effectively and under-massed (i.e. hard recoiling) simple blowback. Moreover, the harsh cycling of the Rogak destroyed case heads and extractors, so the obvious solution was to eliminate the extractor completely (;)). The manual advised owners to remove unfired cartridges from the chamber by racking the slide, tilting the gun up, and shaking the case from the chamber :D :D :D

Speculation is that Steyr was unsure (or something) about the new design, and wanted to 'test the waters' for the early models through a proxy; Rogak. It'd be like if Kel Tec released their new stuff through Hi Point for the inevitable crap/debugging phase of development before putting "Kel Tec" on the 2.0's :neener:. I'm more inclined to think it was coincidence or industrial espionage by Rogak (but that's me). The guns are so rare I've never had the pleasure of shooting one, but owners I've heard from report good build quality, low recoil, and good reliability from the GB; things the Rogak was lacking to the extreme.

TCB
 
KansasSasquatch said:
Put this one where ever you think it fits:

Pancor Jackhammer
Click to expand...
Thanks for that: I learned something new today.

Personally I would consider owning a Rhino just for the fun of it IF they were of equivalent or lower cost than revolvers from the known brands. At $400 I would pick one up today, but at $800 that's too much to spend on a hobby experiment.

When Glock hit the US market in the late 80's most people didn't quite know what to make of a plastic gun, but the fact that the first ones on dealer's shelves were quite aggressively priced moved them out the door into the hands of shooters. The rest, as they say, is history. I'm not sure there's a big opening for anything other than small framed revolvers in a market dominated by polymer autos, so that sort of aggressive marketing might not even work in the case of the Rhino...but it's really a moot point because its clear that's not the approach Chiappa took.

When I'm in Buds retail store in Lexington there are always several Rhinos up on the wall. I have been in that store on weekends when the crowd was so thick they made you take a number like standing in line at Baskin Robbins. I've never seen a customer ask to handle a Rhino that I can recall. I wonder if those are the same guns I'm seeing each time? You would think if they weren't moving at least a minimal amount of them that they would give the display space to some other product.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
What is the most intimidating firearm you have ever seen?
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
6K
azyogi
A
R
  • Locked
In a public restroom with your CCW
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Fred Fuller
F
W
  • Locked
What is the biggest POS you ever shot?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
159
Views
10K
evan price
evan price
Hanzo581
  • Locked
James Yeager. Thoughts?
Replies
3
Views
773
Sam1911
S
R
  • Locked
Has this happened to you?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
RonDeer10mm
R
Back
Top