Where can you get the 9mm cylinder? I'd love to get one.
I've never seen just the cylinder sold separately. The combo pistol isn't hard to find though:
http://grabagun.com/chiappa-firearms-rhino-200ds-357-9mm-2-blk-6rd.html
Where can you get the 9mm cylinder? I'd love to get one.
I guess there are guys out there who just want to convert everything to accept moon clip reloads...the modern gunfighter, if you will. For a carry gun, the 9mm is a natural for that, I think.I just never understood the attraction of the revolver chambered for a semi-auto cartridge. I suppose it made sense during "The Great War" when they just needed a gun, any gun that could shoot the new 45 ACP cartridge, but since then it just seems like a solution in search of a problem.
I've seen a half dozen or more hit the market and just as quickly die when they just don't sell. Ones like the Smith & Wesson 547 was it? Become collectors items...the others? Not so much.
And it's got an unfluted cylinder. Looks like they forgot to finish it.
But then I'm an old curmudgeon. What do I know?
Well I'll be; last I heard it was a 9x21 or something like that for the Italian market where common chamberings are banned. It does appear you can get a parabellum/357 conversion cylinder set for the low-low price of one grand, however. Price is stupid, but it's good they are finally addressing that market (I saw 40SW variants for sale for a long time, but never saw the 9mm jobs which are apparently produced in small fewer numbers, presumably because the 357's are so much more popular)Chiappa does make a 9mm Rhino, they just don't distribute it here in the U.S.
Nope, only one thousandths of *nominal* difference (i.e. no difference). The MR73s had a conversion cylinder as well, while being directly marketed at the uber-accuracy crowd.there isn't a noticeable decrease in accuracy firing 9mm through a 38 /357 barrel.
When you have a fairly short, tapered cartridge like 9mm, that also has a wide semi-auto-style extractor groove, the moon clips are thick enough to keep a *very* firm grip on the cartridges and the bullet points & case tapers are essentially self-guiding into the cylinder. Next, the extractor ram has a far, far more sturdy connector to the cases it is pushing out, so that random stuck case is highly unlikely to tie up the gun in any scenario (okay, six stuck cases might be difficult, but that suggests ammo problems and is just as much an issue for rimmed cases). Lastly, the 'magazines' don't take up hardly any room at all depending how you carry them; they aren't flat, but they are smaller in volume.I just never understood the attraction of the revolver chambered for a semi-auto cartridge.
What I don't understand is revolver enthusiasts' refusal to entertain anything but antiquated rimmed cartridges (not you, the market generally), which really aren't that big a deal to use properly.
It seems a large percentage of the revolver enthusiasts are "budget minded" and are not willing to pay $6.50 per moon clip or $100 for quick, efficient mooner/demooner tools. So I can see why the use of rimless cartridges in revolvers does not get traction.
Of course, if the use of moon clips would become more popular, the costs of clips and tools would go down.
I think it is mostly you clinging to tradition. I'm saying this as a person who shoots a .38Spl in competition, who carried one for CCW for 20 years, and who takes great pride in my 8.375" M-27 and 6" PythonIs it me or do others also feel that there is no reason today chamber a revolver in a semi-auto cartridge? I'm quite happy carrying a 38/357 revolver.
Because the gun frame was designed for that length cartridge. For now, it is the cartridge requiring moon clips that is the step child.I think it is mostly you clinging to tradition. I'm saying this as a person who shoots a .38Spl in competition, who carried one for CCW for 20 years, and who takes great pride in my 8.375" M-27 and 6" Python
I think a more accurate question for today would be, "Why are we still chambering defensive revolvers for rimmed cartridges?"
Just a note, while the .38 Special was originally a BP cartridge that was very short lived. It was released around 1899 but the new and modern 9mm Para while never a BP cartridge was developed in 1902. (I think it was 1902) I'm not sure a cartridge which is well over 100 years old and only a few years newer than the .38 Special should be called modern..... However, if every revolver for the next 100 years is based on the cartridges these guns come in and follows their basic design, it would seem like a stall in the flow of innovation. I sorta feel like we are sitting in a similar time to the 1870's or 80's when a flood of new designs are about to be developed and I find it exciting. I think it's more a matter of stepping back from the standard or "traditional" constraints that currently dictate a gun's key dimensions, required strength, and basic functions, and look at it from with fresh eyes.
It isn't a matter of how long it was a loaded with BP, it is that the case capacity was designed around being loaded with BP. When I load 3.3grs of Clays under a 160gr RN bullet for IDPA, it barely looks like there is any powder in the case...I can even triple charge in. It reminds me of when a standard PPC load was 2.7gr of Bullseye under a 148gr WCwhile the .38 Special was originally a BP cartridge that was very short lived. It was released around 1899 but the new and modern 9mm Para while never a BP cartridge was developed in 1902.