Chiappa SAA 1873 7.5" 17 HMR Revolver - Blue/Black, 7.5" Barrel, 10 Rounds, 3-Dot Sights

I just bought the pistol and so far it looks good. I have had a problem where it got stuck while I was working the action. No, I wasn't dropping the hammer on an empty chamber, it is rimfire. I like the length, and it is a little heavy for the type of pistol, but I am sure I will like it. I like the fact it holds 10 rounds, so I won't be spending all day reloading the thing if I decide to get down to some serious shooting.

Pistol functioned perfect out of the box without any of the problems I had read about on some of the review web pages. Great plinker for the money.

First, have written several reviews of products from Bud’s. I always try to be fair, thorough, honest and upbeat. Having said that . . . . Folks, don’t buy this firearm. Never once did it fire more that 4 or 5 chambers without total lockup which required cyliner removal to correct. Didn’t consider it dangerous - it just didn’t function. I write in past tense as am no longer the proud owner. Gave it away. Just realized that have told you what to do ie “don’t buy it”, That’s not my business to tell people what to do or not do and possibly mine was a Lemmon and the rest are fine firearms. Suggest youtube reviews. Dennis MT

The item appeared to come well packaged and shipped. But it was only last week that I had a chance to inspect the revolver for shooting when I noticed that the barrel was heavily fouled. So much so that I had trouble getting a .17 bore brush to enter and in and back. Numerous blackened cleaning patches with solvent and several more brush cleaning revealed a worn barrel with ripples that run perpendicular to the riflings. I plan to ask the manufacturer if this barrel appearance is normal and date of shipment. From my exspirience as a former military range master, I'm predicting at least a few hundred rounds were fired through this gun, and skeptical it would pass bore errosion gage.

Well, I finally brought my 17-10 home and gave it the full inspection. First, it's a "cheap gun..." which apparently most have already figured out, and it's also made primarily of zinc alloy, with a steel barrel liner, full-steel cylinder bored for 10 cartridges, steel hammer, steel ejector rod - which is very thin as it needs to be to slide into the neck opening of a .17 HMR. I would prefer the breech face where the rounds fire be a steel insert, but the metal there is not required to do anything more than support the cartridge head and should hold up just fine. Okay, to address some of the particulars others have reported. When on half-cock, the "hand" that rotates the cylinder is only partially extended to allow the cylinder ratchet to move past without being locked. The hand is a "double-hump" affair, with a fairly stiff spring (a good thing) which makes the cylinder "feel" extremely hard to rotate - even to the initial sensation that it's bound up. I rotated the cylinder "endlessly" and found no issue, though some polishing work on the internals will smooth this out. Other reports of the cylinder "locking up" after firing a few or more shots are undoubtedly related to the tiny, bottleneck .17 HMR cartridge. Bottleneck cases have always been problematic in revolvers due to the tendency for the case to set back against the breech face due to the shoulder expanding, leading to cylinder tightness or binding. Anyone who has experience shooting black powder cap & ball revolvers will be familiar with cylinder bind due to the rapid build-up of powder fouling, necessitating rotating the cylinder manually - by hand to avoid damage to the hand and ratchet. A good "test" of this phenomenon in the 17-10 is to load it with just ONE shot, fire it, then bring the pistol to half-cock and manually rotate the cylinder to check for binding. Then repeat with TWO cartridges and take note of how the cylinder feels harder to move. Unlike a genuine 1873 which has a slightly recessed recoil shield with only the firing cartridge being held to precise head space, this gun has a flat recoil shield all the way around which means expanded cases are going to create substantial friction. I've actually encountered this problem on replica 1873 SAA revolvers when the recoil shield to cylinder distance was a bit too small. There are ways to cure this ill, but that's beyond the average user. One can try a spritz of dry silicone lube, or graphite on the recoil shield/breechface to help lubricate the case heads as they revolve. As to cylinder alignment and reports of lead spitting, and cracked frames...I carefully examined each chamber's alignment and found them to be satisfactory, bearing in mind that even name brand revolvers can have chambers not true to the bore which is why revolvers have forcing cones. A chamber can be off-set by a markedly obvious amount as long as the forcing cone adequately "funnels" the bullet into the bore, and even deliver surprising accuracy! So I measured the as-delivered forcing cone to be approximately 0.187" or about 0.010" larger than the .17 caliber bullet, resulting in approximately 0.005" axial allowance, which is a bit on the small side considering the generous forcing cones found on large-caliber, centerfire revolver forcing cones. So, I grabbed my Lyman case chamfering tool which happens to have a long taper, and quickly opened up the forcing cone to approximately 0.200" with a shallow taper. This gives an axial allowance of 0.011" which ensures bullets will funnel into the barrel without shaving, even if a chamber were to be visibly out of alignment with the barrel - which none are as of this review. Unfortunately, not everyone is comfortable doing immediate "gunsmithing" work on a brand new handgun, but for those willing to input a little considered effort into making the gun safer, opening the forcing cone is a worthwhile job. All that aside, the basic revolver is pretty decent for a sub-$200 investment. Its size mimics that of an 1873, and the zinc alloy and steel approximate the weight. The sights are adjustable and fully adequate for accurate shooting. The grip frame is small, but adequate for an adult size hand. The gun balances well and points as one expects an 1873 pattern revolver to point. Overall, this is an excellent, low-cost revolver that works well, and can be "improved" with a little know-how.

Paid less than $200 for this gun... Definitely well worth the money. Not much else I can say except it does what it is supposed to. I could mention that the grip 'feels' a little cheap but I won't on a cool gun that costs less than $200. Overall great value.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS GUN! The cylinder is not completely indexed to the barrel. I have never made it through a complete cylinder without a jam. Then I have to disassemble the gun where I usually find brass shavings inside the frame. Save your money and by a Ruger or another make because the heartache and gunsmith bill is not worth the cheaper price of this gun. The only good news is that Bud's did ship this to my FFL speedily as always.

Great tool for varmints out to 75 yards! Great value for your $!

Bud's got me the gun in no time. However, the cylinder locked up after only 3 shots. A small piece of metal blew off the back of the shell. I was a little worried by that point. I tried one more shot and it blew the loading gate open. After that I put it away. I noticed that the spring around the firing pin popped back, too. Clearly, the alloy metal and poor quality control, makes this a dangerous gun to shoot such a high pressure round. Avoid the 17 HMR for sure.

So far, all I have done is to clean the gun for a future shootout. I was not impressed with the 'fit' of the pistol as it seemed to be a little loose when you picked it up. The finish looks like a used gun, but it may be because it was inexpensive or rustic. This finish look painted / shiny including the front site. Well, it cost $233. and I expect it will shoot fine. It is not the same fit and quality as the Heritage.