IOF .22 Nidar Hands-on Review!

[dsen]

[veeveeaar]

What is the difference between the other .22 IOF revolver and this Nidar. I request our members to explain the technical and performance differeces between these two .WHICH ONE IS BETTER

[Vineet]

Nidar has 1.5 inch barrel where as old model has 2.5 inch barrel. Quality wise both are same. They work fine when new but later on mis firing and ejection problems creep in.

[veeveeaar]

Thank You Vinet Ji

[timmy]

Questions and observations:

Vineet, this revolver looks like a Smith & Wesson copy, from the way the cylinder is locked into the frame, front and rear, and the older revolver looks this way, too. Is this correct?

Furthermore, the entire frame and barrel look as if they are cast (probably die cast?) in one piece. The barrel is not a separate piece, but one with the frame -- is this right?

Finally, I think that the barrel and the chambers in the cylinder are lined with steel liners, judging from the photographs. The Cylinder, at least of the Nidar, is probably aluminum. This way, IOF can get away with casting the frame-barrel and cylinder out of aluminum. Am I correct in this? I would guess that .22 LR is as far as this sort of construction can take, regarding pressure, which is why it is not used for .32 S&W Long revolvers. Were IOF to use a forged aluminum frame, like Colt Cobras and S&W Airweights, the design would be stronger -- perhaps enough to accept more powerful centerfire cartridges. But, die cast construction would allow IOF to keep manufacturing costs to a bare minimum.

I would guess that this construction method means that the locking notches in the cylinder are not too durable for heavy use. Hopefully, at least the star ratchet at the back of the cylinder is steel. If the star and ejector are aluminum, especially die cast aluminum, such a weapon isn't going to stand up under even moderate use.

Thanks for your help on this. A haven't handled one of these, and can only judge from the poor pictures available on the web.

I studied the IOF website, among other things, for this post. I was shocked at the poor photography and lackadaisical effort made to present this and other weapons. For example, there's not even a consistent format used to present each product. It's as if someone took five minutes from their coffee break to assemble a new page, using very low quality photographs and even compressing them to alter the aspect ratio of the weapon presented. If there is any fear of competition coming to India's civil arms market anytime soon, it certainly isn't in evidence here.

i also noted the price of ammunition on the IOF website. Th ammunition must be made of the finest materials available! For instance, the price of the ammunition for the .315 rifle is about the same cost as the rifle! Although one might propose several theories for this state of affairs, it certainly is dismal.

[timmy]

WHICH ONE IS BETTER

This is something that only you can decide, based on your needs and expected use.

I would tend to lean toward the longer barrel. The reason for this is that, firstly, I don't see the difference in barrel length as making much of a difference in concealing the weapon. Now, if you are small, and if you wear few thin clothes (as opposed to, say, someone in Norway who might wear baggy sweaters most of the time and heavy coats during the winter), that extra inch might play a role. It might help you to go to a gun shop that will let you try out carrying each revolver where you intend to have it on your person. Neither of these will conceal as well as the Ashanti.

Secondly, the difference in barrel length will give more power to an already very weak 22 LR cartridge. Many people compare the 22 LR with the 25 Auto and say they are the same. The published ballistics are close, I admit, but the 25 Auto is tested and published results are for a very short barreled scenario similar to how 25 Auto is used in the real world. 22 LR data is tested, considering that it's commonly used in everything from short barreled handguns to rifles with long barrels, and the figures you see to compare are not for a gun the same size as a 25 Auto, and thus are much stronger than what you can expect from a short barrel. Also, remember that a revolver has a cylinder to barrel gap that bleeds off pressure and lowers performance. The extra inch of the longer barrel will help, even if only a little, a round that is already very marginal in power for defense.

The longer barrel also gives a little more sight radius, which may help in aiming. This effect becomes more pronounced, the longer the range at which you are firing.

When you weigh all of these factors, plus those of your own, then you can determine which revolver is best for your expected use.