S&W 65 in 3 inch Compared to the Chiappa Rhino 30DS in 3 inch…Thoughts Please.

[Nalapombu]

Hey all.

I have a really nice m65-5 in 3 inch that I picked up as a police trade in many years ago. It’s a fantastic revolver that I really like. I have a buddy that loves guns and is not as knowledgeable as he’d like to be. He was texting me the other day and asked me to compare my 65 to a Chiappa Rhino 30DS that is also a 3 inch in .357. I knew of it, but have never actually seen one in person or handled one. He was coming at it from “best one for carry” type aspect and he thinks that since it’s 6 ounces lighter, it would be easier to carry. I had to disagree. Even though I’ve never held one, it seems to be awfully bulky and unwieldy. Am I wrong? I don’t think I could ever swap mine for one no matter if the bore axis is lower and it handles recoil better.

So…have you ever compared the 2? What do you think? Would you ever consider a trade for your 65 in 3 inch for one the 3-inch Rhinos? I was a bit surprised to learn they are lighter and that they are so darned expensive. A plain Jane model 30DS in blue is about $1,200. I’d search out a m13 PC or a 586 L-comp for that money every day.

What’s your thoughts? How do these revolvers compare in handling and carrying?

Thanks for your time and help. Have a great weekend all.

NalaJr

 

[s&wchad]

I had a 4" Rhino. I never carried it, but I did shoot it at the range. I have big hands and was careful not to get too close to the flash gap, but I managed to singe the tip of my left thumb one time with .38 Specials. I'm glad I wasn't shooting magnums. That scared me and I ended up selling it.

I'll ad that the internals on a Rhino are much more complicated than a S&W and I wouldn't want to take one apart.

 

[pbramlett]

RINO. “Revolver in name only” they are just too hideous for me. Okay okay, they do revolve but still…I’d take the 65 any day. Plus you have many holster options.

 

[Bald1]

I have never compared a 65 to a Rhino. I’ve also never compared a Cadillac to a Yugo. Because why?

 

[sourdough44]

For that level of coin, how about a 3” Model 60? One could go even more compact, a little lighter with one of the 2” J frame options.

 

[stansdds]

Comparing a S&W K-frame to a Chiappa Rhino? Uhhhhhhmmmm... nope.

 

[mikerjf]

Watch Covert Affairs. Even Piper looks awkward with the Rhino.

 

[ken158]

You are comparing Taylor Swift to Roseanne Barr…

 

[jughed440]

Trade a 3" 65 for that???...Please say you're joking.

You are comparing Taylor Swift to Roseanne Barr…

beat me to it.

I was going to mention Mary Ann on Gilligans Island VS. Whoopi Goldberg

 

[hdfinder47]

I think it would be a very interesting heads-up comparison. Whereas I would prefer the Smith if I were limited to just one, I'm considering a 3" Rhino to add to my 3" 38/357 collection just b/c it's different and the reviews I have read are very good. Yeah, it's ugly but I also like Glocks in some applications and they be somewhat "homely" too, IMO.
Ed

 

[Erich]

I know this isn't precisely what you asked, but I suspect you're not likely to get a much more precise answer.
I own a 2" Rhino and I used to own a 65-5 (gave it to my brother - while I kept a 2 3/4" Speed Six in that role - mainly because my brother loved the 65-5 and I love my brother). Here are some poor quality photos from the evening I brought the Rhino home.


The Chiappa is not bulky at all; its cylinder is more of an L-frame than a K-frame, but the thing carries as small as a Detective Special D-frame. Smaller, actually. (Obviously add an inch for the longer barrel you're considering.)

The Rhino's aluminum frame is notably lighter than the 65-5's, but I didn't find it especially easier to carry. The S&W has a lot of class (I'd modified mine). I found that I got somewhat lower velocities from the Rhino's 2" barrel than I did from the 2 1/8" bbl of a 640-1 that I used to own, but the Chiappa's is easier to clean. The 2" Chiappa's shoot-from-the-bottom-chamber design makes the recoil go straight back and it's a whole lot easier to shoot fast than the larger, heavier 65-5 was. I know how to work on a K-frame; I have a good tutorial on how to work on the Chiappa, but I think I'm more likely to ask my wife to replace the engine air filter in her car by herself than to attempt it. The Chiappa seems less durable, but has no problem with full-bore handloads of the type you don't see from major ammo makers these days. The K-frame has that well documented forcing cone concern that makes a fellow leery of shooting too many full-bore 125-grainers through it.
Honestly, though, I'm not sure what you want to hear: you should own what you want. Subjective opinions from others - how are they relevant? Both guns have plenty to recommend them, and both have sniggling issues that subjectively could be claimed to render them inferior to the other.
The Rhino I still have and the 65-5 I gave my brother:


Just because - the Speed Six I've kept:

 

[Sistema1927]

I would choose the 3" Kimber K6S long before I would choose the Rhino.

 

[dobegrant]

It is definitely an individual thing, I have been using S&W,Colt and Ruger revolvers for 50 years, my buddy has Rhino and when I tried it , the feel was just off, but for my buddy it was his only revolver (he is an auto guy) and he loves.it