|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Chiappa Rhino 200DS .357 Magnum Snub Nose Reviewed
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Chiappa Rhino revolver isn’t exactly new, but 10 years after its introduction a surprisingly large number of shooters are completely unaware of how revolutionary the design really is. I blame it on the gun’s unconventional appearance. Its blocky, science-fiction look suggests clumsiness and bucks 180 years of tradition. However, once you’ve shot one, you realize those ungainly lines are immaterial. The Rhino’s aluminum frame and stainless steel cylinder keep it light for fast handling and the gun points well. Most importantly, the Rhino’s unique design and ergonomics make it more controllable, and thus faster shooting, than any normal, barrel-on-top .357 Mag. revolver of comparable size. |
| Comment by:
-none-
(4/18/2018)
|
WHY ARE THEY STILL REFUSING .44 Magnum IN THIS DESIGN??????????????
also, they could lighten the top half of barrel variously (dep. on front sight)...large holes, slots, for scope mounting instead of that 'blood groove', and have a 4, but preferably 6 to 8 in. barrel. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|
