As many of you know, I write "classic firearms" articles for Dillon's Blue Press magazine/catalog, where I am a contributing editor. I've just recently drafted a piece on the Winchester Model 1892, and I thought I'd post it here for any comments, particularly from those who are very knowledgeable on the arm. All comments and/or criticisms are most welcome. Thanks!

John

------------------------------------------------------



The Model 1892 Winchester lever action rifle, designed by John Browning, is widely regarded as perhaps the smoothest, handiest and most attractive lever action rifle ever produced. Today the originals are collector classics and modern versions of it are still being made all over the world. Conceived as a light rifle for lower-powered cartridges, with modern metallurgy it’s strong enough to handle more potent rounds such as the .44 Remington magnum and the .454 Casull. Cowboy action shooters love it for its quick handling and reliability. Hunters find it just the ticket for shooting medium game in the brush. It’s the 19th Century version of an “assault rifle,” as many shots can be triggered off rapidly. As actor Chuck Connors showed in the TV western series “The Rifleman,” a modified version could be made to fire almost as fast as a machine gun. Famed gun writer Jeff Cooper once touted it as an almost ideal home defense weapon.

How the gun came to be is an interesting story. Let me take you back in time to the year 1892, and let’s eavesdrop on an (admittedly apocryphal) conversation between famed firearms inventor John Browning and his visiting guest T.G. Bennett, Oliver Winchester’s son-in-law. Bennett, who was then President and General Manager of Winchester Repeating Arms, had already established an alliance with Browning in the design and manufacture of a number of firearms. He had come to Ogden, Utah Territory, to discuss a need and to seal a deal with Browning.

“John,” said Bennett, “Winchester, as always, has been very pleased with the excellent work you’ve done for us over the past years. Your big Model 1886 lever action rifle in particular has been a terrific success. It’s strong and smooth, and we’ve been able to chamber it for some pretty powerful cartridges like the .45-70 Government. But today I want to talk to you about designing another rifle for us. As you know, we’ve been producing our Model 1873 for 19 years. It was designed to handle lower-powered cartridges like the .44-40 W.C.F. and 38-40 W.C.F. which have also been usable in handguns. Of course we’ve done well with it, but we’ve decided we’d like to replace it with something smaller, lighter, handier, and stronger. It would be an ideal new companion rifle for revolver shooters who like to use the same cartridges in both their rifles and handguns.”

“Tom,” said Browning, I’ve been thinking about something along those lines already. A rifle like that would really be something. It would be extremely versatile and I bet you could have used something that handy during your service in the Civil War.”

“You are exactly right, John. I would have loved to have had such a rifle back then. We’re in a more modern age now, and with our increased manufacturing capability and better steels, we’re ready to make a fine replacement for the Model 1873. We just need your design skills to get this project rolling.”

“What do you propose?” Browning replied. “We’ve been thinking,” said Bennett, “that something like a scaled-down Model 1886 might be just the ticket. It’s the smoothest rifle we’ve ever made, and a smaller version of it would be, in our opinion, ideal.” “Agreed,” Browning replied. “Tell me, what would you propose for my compensation for this new design?” Bennett stroked his chin and said “We’re anxious to get started on this project, John. In addition to our usual agreement, we are prepared to offer you a bonus of ten thousand dollars if you can deliver a working prototype in ninety days. If you can do it in sixty days, I’ll see to it that you get fifteen thousand. How does that sound to you?” Browning thought it over for a moment. “Tom, I’ll tell you what. If I can deliver it in one month or less, you will owe me a bonus of twenty thousand dollars. If I can’t, it will be free. Do you want to take me up on my bet?”

Now twenty thousand dollars was a lot of money in those days, but Bennett was anxious to get going and the deal was struck. Browning, working diligently and making good on his bet, did deliver a functioning prototype in under a month. For both Browning and Winchester, the Model 1892 proved to be an incredible success.

Essentially, the rifle did away with the knee-action locking system of the Model 1873 and replaced that with two vertically-moving locking columns that dovetailed into the rear of the breechblock and the receiver. This made for a very strong and smooth action that could be housed in a more compact receiver.

The rifle was comfortable to handle and carried well in the hand or in a saddle scabbard. 1,004,675 of them were produced from 1892 to 1932, and they continued to be sold through 1941. The Model 1892 was offered in several configurations, among them rifles, takedowns, carbines, shorter “trapper” carbines and long-barreled “muskets.” The calibers used in the Model 92 and its similar siblings, the Models 53 and 65, were many. These included .44-40, 38-40, .32-20, .25-20, and .218 Bee. Custom guns could be had on order from the factory, with octagonal barrels, half round and half octagonal barrels, special barrel lengths, different sights, fancy finish and wood, special buttplate styles, engraving, and even gold inlays being available. Collectors salivate today over some of the rare ones that have survived in good condition. After production of the ’92 ceased, it was never revived at the factory in New Haven, Connecticut.

A Spanish copy of the ’92 was made by Garate, Anitua y Cia., based in Eibar, from 1915 to 1938. Known as El Tigre, it was widely distributed and popular in South America.

Hollywood latched right on to the Model ’92. John Wayne, in the classic 1939 western movie “Stagecoach” wielded a special short-barreled ’92 with a large-loop lever, twirling it expertly with one hand to actuate it. I’ve examined the similar gun he used in "True Grit" personally, and it’s a real smooth-operating honey. The ’92 was a natural in calibers .44-40 and .38-40 for firing the popular 5-in-1 blanks used in the movies for a number of guns. It was rare not to see the readily available ’92 in movies and TV westerns.

After World War II, consumer demand for the slick little ’92 didn’t cease, and a number of other manufacturers jumped in to fill the void by making virtual carbon copies of Browning’s superb design. These are often found, besides the original chamberings, in calibers such as .45 Colt, .357 magnum, .44 magnum, and even the stomping .454 Casull. Rossi makes excellent ‘92s in Brazil, often found stamped "Puma." Their more recent rifles deviate from the original design with a rotating safety on top of the rear of the breechblock. I have an early Rossi carbine (without the safety thingy) in .357 magnum chambering, and I find it very pleasant to shoot with either .357s or .38 specials. It’s one of my personal favorites, and I think it’s an ideal companion piece for any .357 or .38 special handgun. In a rifle, the .357 magnum approaches the power level of the popular .30-30 cartridge.

Chiappa Firearms has made ‘92s in Italy. Browning Arms Company markets high-quality ‘92s made in Japan. A Browning ’92 carbine made in 1983 is illustrated for this article. It’s in .44 magnum caliber, and of course it will also take the easier-on-the-shoulder .44 specials. It’s quite true to the original design, except that it has the trademark gold-plated trigger of many Browning firearms. John Browning designed the gun with only a half-cock safety, and so that’s the way this one was produced. Winchester has resurrected the Model 1892 in recent years. These new ‘92s are made in Japan in several configurations: “sporting rifle,” “carbine,” “trapper’s carbine,” and “musket.” These recent Winchesters have lawyer-friendly sliding safeties on the upper tang behind the hammer. Collectors ardently pursue any Winchester ’92 in good working condition, and the high prices asked for them reflect this demand. For those anxious to know more about their original ’92s, the factory records are available at the Cody Firearms Museum in Cody, Wyoming, from serial number 1 through 379999.

Luckily for anyone wanting a Model ’92 in a more modern caliber, affordable quality reproductions of the original Winchesters are available almost everywhere. John Browning’s masterpiece design has lived on for 120 years, and shows no sign of becoming obsolete. It will probably still be around well into the 22nd Century!

(c) 2012 JLM

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

I think the '92 is a true classic. Knowing from Sasha Siemel's writing that it was/is popular in Brazil, I armed a heroine in some fan fiction stories with one, a standard carbine with nice wood in .44/40. It fits the 1920's time frame of those fics perfectly, and she finds it to be ideal for shooting such items as brocket deer and Indian headhunters at jungle ranges.

Siemel had at least one M-92, a short carbine, with he was pictured. He used it on big jaguars, sometmes preferring it to his famous spear.

Outside of the USA and Brazil, the '92 was popular in Australia, where repressive laws prevented most people from owning rifles in more powerful calibers.

I saw a kid who's just 13 work a replica '73 on the TV show, "American Guns." He had the shop from the program build him a version with a short-stroke lever action, and he shot it as fast as Lucas McCain did that '92 on, "The Rifleman". And he was hitting his targets, too! I think an M-92 would have been an even better platform for his skills.

I favor bolt-action rifles, but the M-'92 is one of the few lever guns that have tempted me. I think it's a superb urban defense rifle. Based on what my son told me of shooting insurgents in Iraq with his M-4 carbine, I think the M-92's available calibers would be about as effective or more so at average home defense ranges. And it has enough power for cougars and black bears, if your home has problems like those...

Great story, John. I read it all, and liked it. You are to gun writing what your illustrious ancestor was to the judicial system.

Thanks for an excellent short "bio" of the Model 1892, which is my absolute favorite carbine I don't happen to own an example of.

The blanks were "5-in-1", not "3-in-1". Not because they worked in three calibers of guns, but because they worked in five gun. 38, 44 and 45 pistols and 38 and 44 rifles.

__________________
I always take precautions

Thanks!

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

You did well john. I would also have mentioned the "El tigre", a spanish copy made between 1915 and 1938. El Tigre (rifle) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I own a browning 92 in .44 mag, same as your picture and a taurus in .357.

Unless space is an issue, an article on the 1892/92 really should include the Model 53 and the Model 65. Both were variations of the 92 and had relatively short production runs. The 53 was an update version that replaced the 92 rifle and the 65 was basically a standardized 53 geared more toward varmint hunters. The 92 rifle and the model 53 were also offered in takedown versions.

I'd also caution about claims that the 92 was offered in .218 Bee. The Bee was introduced in the Model 65 which came after the 53. I've seen a few 92's chambered for the Bee and they were rifles that had either 65 Barrels or 92 barrels that were obviously remarked.

Model 53


Model 65 in .218 Bee

__________________
"I also cook."

I love the 92. My old worn Browning .44 (top photo) that I found very used in a pawn shop twenty five years ago is a fantastic little gun. The action is much smoother than my very smooth 1905 44-40 (bottom photo). Can you count all the special features on that old takedown? Paladin. Are you the guy on TV who represents Dillon, I think, who talks about classic guns?

A very nice article! I had one of the earlier Puma '92s in .45 Colt. It was a great little rifle, one that I sold when I needed money (That is no longer in the playbook!). I miss the rifle, and am looking for a replacement. IMHO, it is a better, handier design than the '94.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

Nope, I just write about classic guns in the Blue Press, which is published monthly by Dillon Precision.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

I really liked the comments and suggestions, which were most helpful. I do have a space limitation, but I have tried to briefly incorporate some of the items mentioned in the original post and the draft article. Good show! Thanks! I do appreciate you guys!

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

I don't believe that the .44-40 and .38-40 were originally handgun cartridges. They were designed by Winchester and first used in the Winchester 1873 before Colt chambered their Single Action for them. Admittedly they were not powerful rifle cartridges by today's standards. They were much more powerful than the .44 Henry of the Winchester 1866, the predecessor of the 1873.

Winchester was also facing strong competition from Marlin in 1888 with their new Model 1888 lever action rifle and later with the Marlin Model 1889. The Marlin 1888 was very far advanced compared to the Winchester 1873. The action of the 1888 is even smoother than the Winchester 1892. Marlin ended the production of the top eject 1888 a year later with the introduction of the side eject 1889. Winchester needed an improved lever action rifle in ,44-40 and .38-40 in order to compete. The Winchester Model 1892 was born to compete against Marlin.

That's true. In your hypothetical conversation, "It was designed to handle pistol cartridges like the .44-40 W.C.F. and 38-40 W.C.F.".

But the 44/40 was designed for the 1873 rifle. So was the 38/40 and the 32/20. They are, all three, "rifle cartridges", and are still listed as such today. Check Remington and Winchester ammo lists. Those three are listed as rifle ammo. Check reloading dies. Those three are listed with the rifle calibers.

The 44 and 38 WCF never were, and still aren't "pistol cartridges". Saying they are pistol rounds because they were chambered in the Colt is like saying 45/70 is because it is chambered in the BFR, or 35 Remington is because it is chambered in the Contender.

__________________
I always take precautions

I like my Rossi M92 .44mag carbine.

Simple to use...all you need is the gun and a box of ammo..stainless construction is a big plus in my book...makes an excellent short-range pig stomper.

Good points! I'm changing the wording (see the OP) so that will be more accurate. Thanks!

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Paladin, as noted above, the Win 65 was an offshoot of the 92, but when looking for a nice 65, I ran across more 92s converted to .218 Bee apparently using a 92 action with a 65 front end than I did finding actual 65s. Generally well outside of the 65 SN range. It would indicate a fair number of 65 bbl assemblys were made and sold unassembled on an action. Since the 65s date to the 1930s, I doubt anyone alive would be able to shed light on this. The problem is, by accident, or on purpose, they are too often offered as 65s. A "heads up" may be in order.

__________________
TOMBECK

John-

As a writer, I like the way you "fixed" the reference to "handgun cartridges." Neatly done.

Thanks. Each article I do might be a "work in progress" for as much as several weeks, with constant (and to me, frustrating) revisions. I do take pains to get my facts straight, and that's why I really like the opportunity to get constructive critique from knowledgeable folks such as are found here on the S&W forum. I also run the final draft by my wife, who is a good stand-in for not-so-savvy folks, and if anything isn't understandable by her, she alerts me. Then I may do a "clarity" revision to make it more understandable or readable. Still, the real challenge usually is to get a ton of info into the limited space available in the centerfold section of the Blue Press. Often I have to trim things a bit to get it all to fit, and when I do so, I regret having to omit certain things I'd like to include. To his credit, the editor-in-chief almost always just prints the articles as submitted with no changes. He expects, and I try to deliver, something that is interesting, factual and readable by both enthusiasts and casual readers.

Again, I appreciate all the input!

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

In doing research on the '92, I thumbed through my copy of the Winchester 1939 catalog. Neither the '92 nor the Model 53 were listed for sale, but the Model 65 was. The .218 Bee was featured quite prominently for this rifle. Here's a pic of the relevant page.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

As I mentioned in the OP, I've had the privilege of examining the Winchester Model '92 used by John Wayne in True Grit. I thought you might like to see a picture of it - that's me displaying it in the color photo; I'm sure you recognize the other guy, holding the first version modified by stuntman Yakima Canutt for Stagecoach. The later one had a slightly different loop configuration.

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Hello all,

I am a Model 1892 collector and researcher. I happen to own 27 of these rifes right now. I am conducting a research survey and would love to add any and all rifles I can get in touch with. You can read about the work in these forum posts. Please contact me via email with the serial number of your rifle and some photos of all the stamped writing on the gun. I can tell you how your rifle fits into the changes made during production and give you an estimate of its potential value. With over 4200 rifles in the effort so far I have seen a lot of these rifles.
Paco Kelly's Leverguns.com ? View topic - Winchester Model 1892 Production Survey
WinchesterCollector.org :: View topic - Model 1892 Survey

Thanks for any help you can lend
Michael

I don't know how many winchester 1892's were made but in all my years of fooling around with firearms I have only seen two in the flesh. One in 44-40 and the other was the El tigre also in 44-40. I have to guess that them who has them ain't turning any of them loose. Frank

You can still get higher quality 1892's from E.M.F. Company, Inc. They are made by Rossi, but to a much higher fit and finish standard. I have 1892 carbine in with a color case hardened receiver that is very nice.

__________________
- Change it back -

Another good article John. I have a clone in 357 that is marked Hartford. It is stainless and since I like nickel Smiths it fits right in. You make a good point in the fact these rifles can kick a bit even in what seem to be not that wild handgun loads.

I own a rossi in .357 and a browning 92 in .44 mag. I owned several original winchester 92s years ago. One was a shot out rifle in .25-20 that I had converted to .357. I also owned this .44 wcf carbine that dated 1902 and came off a indian reservation in the dakotas. It was later stolen out of my house.

Always enjoy your articles, John. They're the first thing I read when my copy of The Blue Press arrives. Didn't realize that "Paladin" was the author.

My truck gun is a sweet little Rossi '92 bead-blasted stainless-steel Trapper in .45 Colt. Steve Young in Texas worked his magic on this little gun so the action is "slicker than snot on a marble."

It's tough enough to shoot Buffalo Bore loads through it, bringing the muzzle velocity and energy pretty darn close to the low end of a .45-70.

For day-in-day-out work around here, the little '92 always gets the nod.

Once again, great article for a great gun.

__________________
Pack light and cinch tight.

This is my first wrighting on Smith & Wesson Forum

I find it odd that the first post is about a Winchester 92. Until recently I had no intrest in the/any lever action gun. I was at a local major retailer a few months back and saw a lever which my oldest son would have wanted for "Cowboy" shoots in Oklahoma. I am in the Chicago area. I found a M92. Not knowing much about these guns I picked it up and made a few phone calls, still not sure what I was looking at I decided to get it. After a little research I found out it was a 1918 production take-down model in 44WCF I had the gun looked at by a competent Gunsmith. I have had it out several times and just love it. My son will just have to wait a while for it.

I think these things are addicting, 3 days ago I ran into someone with another one for sale. This one was an older one which turned out to be an 1895 production with an octagon barrel (not a take down) as the other one is. This one however is nickel plated with a large loop. This one has a much nicer action and a switch (?) to fire when the lever is closed.
Due to the condition of this Winchester I am sure it has been reworked. altho The rollmarks are perfect. The is no distortation in any of the words or the numbers. The finish is showing age but no bare spots.
any comments or help fiqureing out if this CAN be the real thing would be great. Thanks

A picture or two of the details would be nice - do a search for "posting photos" for details on how to do it. Welcome to the forum!

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Way back winchester didnt make the large loop. I belive that was a custom alteration. I think the very first large loop was for john wayne in stagecoach by probley a private gunsmith, not the factory. But just lately winchester does now offer the large loop built for them by the japanese company that I cant spell. Too lazy to pull mine out of the safe and look. Browning had that company make them in their 92 model in .357 and .44 mag. I have the ones pictured on this thread. Steve mc queen in wanted dead or alive and nick adams in the rebel also used em. All the old hollywood westerns used the 92 but really for accuracy of storys they should have used the 73s.

The name of the Japanese company for which you are fumbling is Miroku. They've also made some nice O/U shotguns under thair own name.

Faulkner--

Is that a safety just in front of the hammer? Is that an import requirement, or just to please the lawyers?

The worst misuse of a M-92 in the movies may be one that showed them with soldiers in 1838, fighting the Seminole tribe! I saw it in a theater when I was about eight and can't recall the name of the film. But I recall the rifles, as the levers worked so much more easily than the one on my Daisy BB gun. My parents were not gun-knowledgeable, so I thought the actors must be very strong .

One episode of Wanted: Dead or Alive states that it is taking place six years after a certain war (the one fought 150 years ago, which goes by several names in this forum). That would make that episode taking place in 1871, so the proper Winchester would be the Model of 1866, aka "The Henry Improved."

That IS a "safety thingy" installed in the rear part of the breechblock, mandated by current import regulations. It rotates, and when engaged, blocks the forward travel of the firing pin. My first .357 Rossi '92 (made in 2006) has one. When I first went to fire the gun, I sighted carefully, squeezed the trigger, and got a "click." The damn safety was engaged. This could be dangerous if you were to depend on the gun in an emergency. It's unsightly and best left alone in the disengaged position. There is a thriving business in replacement plugs for the thing, which still deviates from Browning's design. The arrangement disturbed me, so I got an earlier .357 Rossi (1980) without the safety thingy. I'm much happier with it, as it's faithful to Browning's wishes.

Here's a picture of a current one and an earlier one, so you can see the difference.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

John, Great post as always. The only problem (?) is that you are "hazardous my wealth." ;-). I have a 1906 '92 in 38-40, but now I will be checking out the local guns shows for more examples.

Your post are a large part of what makes this forum the best one on the web.
Keep up the good work. I have a savings account that is paying .05%, ;-( which I think is much better used buying classic guns for my collection.


Thanks again for your very informative article.


Art

I read that winchester is now haveing some made without that safety.

While doing some work in Belize one of the crews dug up the remains of a ’92 Winchester. In that damp environment the wood was long gone and the carbine had been mostly converted to iron oxide. The interesting thing was that the action was open when the carbine was dropped and not recovered. Did the big cat spring a trap on the hunter? Did the local Constable finally get the drop on the local bandit or was it the other way around?

I love relics. They all seen history and yet the white glove guys worship "virgin" guns. I see I had posted a old 92 I had several months ago on this old thread. Here it is again. It was made in 1903 and came off a indian reservation in the dakotas. Thats all I was told. Later it was stold from me in a house burglary in california in 2003. THIS 92 IS HOT! Serial # 269815. A small fortune of my family guns were stolen at the same time. Just hopeing.

The new Winchester '92s, made in Japan, according to my recollection, have a sliding safety on the tang behind the hammer, same as the "new" Model 94. It's a "lawyer" safety, not required or even desirable for operation, but that's the cya mentality today. Another deviation from the original is a rebounding hammer.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

I recently put some photos on post #20 here: My First Lever Action Click on the images for a larger image.

I shot this at my brother's house last weekend. The barrel is not origional to the rifle. The rifle was made in 1893. the 25-20 was not available until 1895.

__________________
Corripe Cervisiam

I'm going to get one of these in .357 magnum one day and you are making it harder to resist.

John, thanks for another great article. I was lucky enough to purchase a rather well used Model 92 in .32-20 a couple of months ago. It's an octagonal barrel rifle with the buckhorn sights. I called for the Cody Letter which dates my rifle as the serial number being applied in September of 1904, it was received in the warehouse in October of 1904 and didn't ship from the warehouse until April of 1906. There were a couple of dents in the magazine tube so I turned that over to a gunsmith and just got to shoot it for the first time weekend before last. All I can say is what a GREAT rifle for a 109 year old gun. I've told people my Henry Golden Boy has the smoothest lever action I've ever felt but this Winchester rivals it. And with the .32-20 cartridge, it was almost like shooting a BB gun. Again, thanks John.

CW

__________________
μολὼν λαβέ

Your right john. I went back to my source on levergunner site and they are talking about the model 73, not 92 that miroku is makeing for winchester.

Seems there are three different safeties that have been used on the model 1892 and '94; the bolt safety, the receiver crossbolt safety, and the tang safety. I would prefer my lever gun to be without the added safety as I think the hammer with half cock works just fine. Of the three 'legal department' approved safeties, I find both the saftey atop the bolt and the receiver cross bolt safety to be the most unsightly and cumbersome to manipulate. I find the tang safety, though undesirable, to be least bothersome. I have a '94 with the tang safety and I just leave it off and operate the gun as though it didn't have one.

As for the bolt safety, STEVE'S GUNZ has a fix whereby he removes the safety and replaces it with a plug . . . problem solved.

__________________
- Change it back -

Also steve sells a simple peep you can screw in, in place of the safety plug. I have been thinking of trying one.
http://rossi-rifleman.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=239

here is my 92 with some CAS friends

the (real)winchester 92 shown with a friends uberti 73

at least i think its a "real" winchester haha

__________________
the rules? there are no rules

It's about as real as you can get, nowadays. The company that owns Winchester, and owns Browning, also owns Miroku.

__________________
I always take precautions

Here are my two '92s, both without the "safety thingy" and both true to Browning's original design. I particularly like the Rossi .357 for shooting comfort. The Browning, in my opinion, is better shot with .44 specials, as touching off a .44 magnum in it is like getting kicked in the shoulder by the wrong end of a mule.

Smith & Wesson Forum - PALADIN85020's Album: Models 92, 94 and 9422 Rifles - Picture

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

I have found out the exact same thing john as I own both a rossi in .357 and the browning 92 in .44 mag. The .357 is what I term a "sweetheart gun and the .44 mag will kick. I am a big obease long armed guy and have put on those lace up leather pads on the stock both for LOP and recoil. A friend pointed out the other day that over time they will trap moisture and ruin or discolor the stocks. I am going to take them off and maybe just use them when I shoot groups etc. I once shot someones 94 in 45 colt it was brutal in comparsion.

I have a Wincester '94 "trapper" model in .45 Colt, but all I've shot in it were "cowboy" loads - quite mild. I have some .45 Colt loads that I loaded up to magnum specs for older model Rugers and T/C Contenders, so I got in touch with Winchester to see if this gun could withstand them. They said no problem, but I've been chicken; I learned my lesson with the .44 mag Browning '92. That .45 Colt gun is illustrated here as the bottom one of the four shown:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/members...iguration.html

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

hi john, the rear sight on the model 64 in your pic., how is that fastened to the frame? ive seen others like it but havent seen one up close. interested cause i like the aperature sight but not having the obstruction for my thumb with conventional flip up style peep sights

__________________
the rules? there are no rules