No, that one is ugly, and the mechanism design seems iffy.stevemb said:Ya mean like that butt ugly Rhino ? I think Ruger should make a .480 BH.. stevemb
I think they are actually a possible answer to one of the most common question asked: how can revolver design help reduce muzzle flip?Ale-8(1) said:Those abominations are an answer to a question no one asked.
JMHO
It's hard to believe that a 177 year-old design can't be improved, and still look good.Snake45 said:No. Let someone else make ugly guns. Maybe Glock should get into that market.
Snake45 said:No. Let someone else make ugly guns. Maybe Glock should get into that market.
Ale-8(1) said:Those abominations are an answer to a question no one asked.
JMHO
Do you have a picture of this 50-60 year-old revolver design?WIL TERRY said:THE RHINO is a design at least 50-60 years old and this has to be the third iteration, all of which are ugly as a manure sandwich, really do not do anything all that special, and as noted, are an answer to a question no one asked. And besides it was designed by Russian communists just in case you were wondering how anyone could really make an ugly revolver. Theirs did win the Olympics though.
That 177 year old design is already as completely as obsolete as a '32 Ford or a '57 Chevy. Just because such a thing is obsolete does not mean it cannot still be functional, though there are better (more functional) designs now available. The appeal to those who want to use such things (and I'm one of them) lies in the areas of nostalgia, tradition, style, and so forth.LbA3V0w said:It's hard to believe that a 177 year-old design can't be improved, and still look good.Snake45 said:No. Let someone else make ugly guns. Maybe Glock should get into that market.
That it will not replace conventional revolvers for reasons your mentioned is too obvious to even discuss.Snake45 said:LbA3V0w said:That 177 year old design is already as completely as obsolete as a '32 Ford or a '57 Chevy. Just because such a thing is obsolete does not mean it cannot still be functional, though there are better (more functional) designs now available. The appeal to those who want to use such things (and I'm one of them) lies in the areas of nostalgia, tradition, style, and so forth.
And so the "upside down" revolver will never replace the conventional style.
Yeah, man. Don't I know it! :lol:stevemb said:LbA3VOw, your thoughts and arguments are logical. Logic though, is only half the equation here. stevemb
People are still "snapping up" (and even building from scratch) '32 Fords and '57 Chevies, too, at "crazy prices." And using them, in some cases on a daily basis. But they are obviously not the mainstream of modern transportation.LbA3V0w said:However, someone forgot to inform the people snapping up LCR's, SP's and Redhawks for crazy prices that their guns are "obsolete". :lol: