Page 3 of 9
Re: Fugly or not ?
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:35 pm
by SevenSixTwo
No 'coat hanger'. Check.
No ridiculous barrel length. Check.
Looks fine to me.
Re: Fugly or not ?
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:05 pm
by Dark Skies
Sim G wrote:
It's been out for a few years now. It was conceived as a self defence gun, particularly in the two inch version. It's far "flatter" than a conventional revolver, which makes for easier carrying and/or concealment.
I agree with most of what you said but ... looking at the video I posted on the first page it would seem there is little if any difference in the overall width compared to regular revolvers. Furthermore the cylinder release catch looks more intrusive and liable to snag on clothing and shoulder holsters than the much less obtrusive sliding button of, say, a S&W 586.
I do like the lower down centre of recoil concept though. They look very rugged too. Still ugly - but then I own a Saiga AK-alike so ... I wouldn't object if someone let me have one gratis, were that legally possible, unless it was a long barrel and coat-hanger version - now THAT'd be proper ugly.
Re: Fugly or not ?
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:16 pm
by Sim G
Seems the difference is cylinder diameters and the flat sided nature of the Rhino are what aids the concealment. A little research found that the Rhino cylinder is 1.4" in diameter. A S&W 686 cylinder is 1.56". Both are six shot, .357s.
A five shot .38, S&W 342 has a cylinder diameter of 1.3"...
Re: Fugly or not ?
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:03 am
by HH1
Well as the owner of two Chiappa 1887 shoguns (FAC & SGC versions), I really like the Rhino.... in fact I've just put in a variation for a Rhino LBR.
Re: Fugly or not ?
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:12 am
by DaveB
Yes, they are indeed ugly.
Re: Fugly or not ?
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:28 pm
by Gh0st
Fugly....
Re: Fugly or not ?
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:04 pm
by Geek
Doz wrote:Superfugly, in my opinion :)
Agreed
Re: Fugly or not ?
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:56 pm
by pluginal
I have to agree with the majority it is very fugly as are all of the LBP now. I really can't see the sense in having a pistol as long as a rifle when rifles are so readily available. I used to love my pistols when you could carry them around in a pistol muff not a rifle case!
Re: Fugly or not ?
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:48 pm
by safetyfirst
pluginal wrote:I have to agree with the majority it is very fugly as are all of the LBP now. I really can't see the sense in having a pistol as long as a rifle when rifles are so readily available. I used to love my pistols when you could carry them around in a pistol muff not a rifle case!
As an owner/ past owner of quite a few LBP/LBR firearms, I too find the law a bit lacking in common sense but at the end of the day when your finger is on the trigger and the target in your sights, I find the coat hanger and long steel just don’t exist for me as a shooter.
It’s still a fiendish discipline and a way to exercise the skill of pistol shooting, daft dangly bits or not.
Re: Fugly or not ?
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:07 pm
by Gh0st
safetyfirst wrote:pluginal wrote:I have to agree with the majority it is very fugly as are all of the LBP now. I really can't see the sense in having a pistol as long as a rifle when rifles are so readily available. I used to love my pistols when you could carry them around in a pistol muff not a rifle case!
As an owner/ past owner of quite a few LBP/LBR firearms, I too find the law a bit lacking in common sense but at the end of the day when your finger is on the trigger and the target in your sights, I find the coat hanger and long steel just don’t exist for me as a shooter.
It’s still a fiendish discipline and a way to exercise the skill of pistol shooting, daft dangly bits or not.
Agreed, i don't notice the coat hanger on my LBP. The Barrel can't be seen or noticed over the Aristocrat sight anyway.
But dependant on why you shoot LBP its where it hits the target that matters.