RHINO: Cool revolver from S.H.O.T.

[RoDan]

I think its awesome.

and just when you thought they couldnt make a futuristic revolver.

Now that's an oxymoron.

Seriously though, it looks like a nice gun. I don't like the $800 price tag either...

[strickj]

Yeah, I like it, but I dont $800 like it...

I could probably $500 like it.

School girl 1 "But do you like,like it?"

School girl 2 " I like totally like really like it,without,you know,liking it too much because I think that S&W 642 is sooo cute...."

[Capbyrd]

I dig it. If I happened on an awesome deal or was given one, Id be very satisfied.

[Steelharp]

I'd love to try one. I'd bet it would be great. (Not $800 great, but great.)

[Guest logicprevails]

That's a whole lotta ventilated rib.

Kinda like this one: http://jwilsonsworld.com/mateba.htm

Edited January 7, 2010 by logicprevails

[Guest Synghyn]

I agree, that is a homely gun, no doubt. But I must beg to differ with you as to the ugliest. From a link in your own link I give you the:Mateba Model 6 Unica auto-revolver

Modern Firearms - Mateba Model 6 Unica auto-revolver

Not coincidentally designed by the same guy!

I kind of agree with some of you too about the Rhino, while I think it is ugly, it's got some interesting design ideas and a certain ugly duckling charm. I've often wondered why the hexagon shaped cylinder hasn't caught on, it is a space saver for a carry gun. I can't say as I've ever seen one before but it is something I've thought of. Pretty neat in it's way.

Syn

[Guest Tenngunner]

Anyone else like this 'thing'?

Yeah, I know it's rad/ugly (like a Glock was, when it hit, in '85) but the concept is too cool for me to ignore. It fires from the bottom cylinder, rather than the top! Reports are the recoil is about 50% of a conventional .357. Yes, I know this is a revision of a design from the same (Italian) engineer from several years back, but that was before they had developed a short-barrel version (which has a removable barrel, btw) and a U.S. (Dayton, Ohio) manufacturing facility. Company says look for them in May, but don't hold your breath.

The only other drawback I see (besides availability/ugliness) is the SRP of somewhere around $800.

Wish list:

Develop a poly frame version (Ruger LCR-like) to get the cost down, and more calibers-especially a 7-shot .327!

Chiappa Firearms

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handguns/32751-worlds-ugliest-revolver.html

Edited January 20, 2010 by Tenngunner
Added related link

[Guest ab28]

I like revolvers, but other than wanting to have one, there is no reason to take one over a semi nowadays. You have at least twice the capacity and faster reloads. My Glock 27 has a 10 round mag(+1 extension) and I can put a 15 round reload in it in less than a second. A revolver can't compete there.

[Steelharp]

Thread been going a while: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handguns/32751-worlds-ugliest-revolver.html

[Guest m&pc9]

I like revolvers, but other than wanting to have one, there is no reason to take one over a semi nowadays. You have at least twice the capacity and faster reloads. My Glock 27 has a 10 round mag(+1 extension) and I can put a 15 round reload in it in less than a second. A revolver can't compete there.

I carry a S&W 442 revolver in my front pocket everyday. IMO it is the best all day everyday carry gun. I have M&P compacts that I carry IWB when im going to town. But while Im working or laying around the revolver is in the pocket.

[Guest Tenngunner]

ab28:

...and I can put a 15 round reload in it in less than a second.

Ah, OK-in less than a second, huh? I didn't know robocop was on these boards- well, you learn something new, everyday.

The point of my thread/post was just to give some S.H.O.T. news, not to debate the merits of revolvers vs autos. (see avatar)

Your (other) points about auto advantages are well taken-but revolvers will never go (completely) away-would you rather have a .460/.500 Smith for sidearm carry in Alaska grizzly territory, or your 27? We have (black) bears in most parts of Tennessee, and I'd not want to face one with anything less than a 44 Mag, in a handgun.

[Guest Tenngunner]

Steelharp:

Thread been going a while:

Thanks-unaware-added to original post/thread.

[Guest Jamie]

I like revolvers, but other than wanting to have one, there is no reason to take one over a semi nowadays. You have at least twice the capacity and faster reloads. My Glock 27 has a 10 round mag(+1 extension) and I can put a 15 round reload in it in less than a second. A revolver can't compete there.

Ever tried firing a semi-auto from inside a jacket pocket? It works just fine for one round, usually. Most revolvers will fire all they've got, if you hold 'em right. And the shrouded hammer/hammerless ones don't even require that.

The point being here that all the capacity in the world does you no good if you never get to fire it.

Also, the shape of revolvers tend to lend it's self to a slightly faster draw from the holster than most autos.

One way or the other, there's still more than a few reasons to choose a revolver, and because of that, they're a long way from dead.

J.

[spookboy]

Actually this is not a "new design" as so mentioned,There was a gun a whille back called the autorevolver by mateba, in .44 mag and .357 mag. While neat, this version does not have the mechinism that the autorevolver had, just same bbl.placement...

see MATBEA auto revolver from the 80's...

[Guest Tenngunner]

Jamie:

One way or the other, there's still more than a few reasons to choose a revolver, and because of that, they're a long way from dead.

Yep-well said. Let's just all be glad we can even have this 'debate'-if the antis had their way, we'd (all) be carrying Model 60 Smiths-and even that would (soon) go away, in the liberal 'sheeple dream world'.

Now, back to the Rhino/or S.H.O.T.-

[E4 No More]

I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't be shooting through a jacket pocket.

[Guest Jamie]

I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't be shooting through a jacket pocket.

You will if that's the only choice you have.

Life doesn't always go according to plan, and could mean not having the time or the room to draw and fire before trouble is all over the top of you.

But then, maybe you aren't in the habit of throwing a revolver in you jacket pocket and heading out to do whatever it is you're going to do, like some of us are prone to.

And on that note, the ugly little overly-expensive gun the OP mentions would be a good one for just such a situation. The only problem is, there are prettier and less expensive options that'll serve just as well.

J.

[E4 No More]

I'm seriously asking: Do you know of any case where someone shot through a jacket in self defense because they had no time to draw?

I ask because psychological barriers can be more effective than physical barriers. There have been a few cases where putting up a barrier that in no way would stop a bullet has succeeded in preventing the BG from pulling the trigger in the proverbial "Plug the barrel with your finger" approach. Police have used holding up their ticket books, (and other things), in front of the BG's gun to delay their firing long enough to draw their own weapon and fire. Psychologically, the BG sees it as a barrier that can stop/deflect a bullet, so they try to get around it when the barrier physically cannot do either. The same could hold true with it in your pocket. Although a jacket pocket will not physically stop a bullet, psychologically it would: therefore, the person will clear their jacket first.

[JPS]

Back to the original post.... - I like the looks of this, and want to see one when they are available.

[Guest Jamie]

I'm seriously asking: Do you know of any case where someone shot through a jacket in self defense because they had no time to draw?

I've read several accounts of such things happening, over the years, from people like Mas Ayoob and Charlie Petty. Somewhere around here I still have an old Guns & Ammo that contains an article on the practice, complete with pictures of the experiment they tried to see how well it worked, and if there was any possible fire hazard to the shooter. ( There wasn't, but the coats and jackets involved were well and truly ruined. )

Oh, and there's been more than once that I've put my hand in my pocket, took a firm grip on my gun, and hoped the situation I was in didn't deteriorate to the point that I had to fire. And yes, I knew if it came to that, I would not have time to get the gun clear first. The "problem" was just too close to allow it.

And for what it's worth, I don't have any psychological hang-ups concerning bullets and obstacles; I've fired enough of the things to have a pretty good idea of what they'll go through and what they won't. If the BG needs an education, then all I can say is that it can be arranged.

J.

[Guest clsutton21]

Why even bothering to put a sight on it?

To make it look like a rhino, of course.

[Guest Tenngunner]

Jamie:

Oh, and there's been more than once that I've put my hand in my pocket, took a firm grip on my gun, and hoped the situation I was in didn't deteriorate to the point that I had to fire. And yes, I knew if it came to that, I would not have time to get the gun clear first. The "problem" was just too close to allow it.

Actually, I have too-and recently. I work in close proximity to some pretty low-life characters, and just a short while back two I came in contact with turned out later to have been planning (or possibly even in the act of committing, with a third party) a burglary! I think it is often 'safer' for the BG (in a sense) because he doesn't know he's being 'covered'-particularly if you're (supposedly) unarmed, at least in his mind. So-if you don't have good cause to fire, great. He's unharmed, and so are you, with you not having to explain anything, either-then, or later. I wouldn't hesitate to fire from my pocket, if need be-and I think the element of surprise gives one the tactical/psychological advantage, as well.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Tenngunner
spell

[molonlabetn]

I want one. I often wondered why the lower bore axis wasn't used more commonly before now on revolvers... it just makes more sense.

[Guest Jamie]

I want one. I often wondered why the lower bore axis wasn't used more commonly before now on revolvers... it just makes more sense.

Probably not seen too much because it's a big PIA to get the hammer to hit the lower chamber rather than the top one. ( That's not a hammer spur on top of the Rhino, it's a cocking lever and cylinder latch. The hammer is internal, and deep down in the frame.)

J.

[Guest ab28]

ab28:

Ah, OK-in less than a second, huh? I didn't know robocop was on these boards- well, you learn something new, everyday.

The point of my thread/post was just to give some S.H.O.T. news, not to debate the merits of revolvers vs autos. (see avatar)

Your (other) points about auto advantages are well taken-but revolvers will never go (completely) away-would you rather have a .460/.500 Smith for sidearm carry in Alaska grizzly territory, or your 27? We have (black) bears in most parts of Tennessee, and I'd not want to face one with anything less than a 44 Mag, in a handgun.

That isn't fast, I just lift up my shirt, grab the spare mag, drop the mag that's in it, and put the new one in. I like revolvers, I wasn't trying to bash them, I was mainly speaking of everyday carry, not against bears. I wouldn't want to face a grizzly with a Glock, but a black bear would be ok, I have seen them on the AT.