I have an EMF model 1892 (made by Rossi) saddle ring carbine in .38/.357 that I am very pleased with. Unfortunately, like most lever guns manufactured in the past decade, it has a totally unnecessary manual safety. In the case of the Rossi 1892 they placed a toggle safety on top of the bolt and though it seems to work as designed I find it a hideous addition to an otherwise classic rifle profile.

Google being the powerful tool that it is, I did an internet search and found Steve's Gunz website. He has developed a plug to fill the hole when the bolt toggle safety is removed. I ordered one on-line and downloaded the instructions on how to do the replacement.

Part showed up in the mail today and I performed the operation. I much prefer the clean lines of a pre-safety 1892, but I am very satisfied with the plug over that ugly toggle safety, mission accomplished.

__________________
- Change it back -

Nice Job, I would love to do this to mine, is it a complex procedure.

I like it. I've passed on buying another Rossi 92 just because of that ugly safety.

Not hard at all, don't even have to take the bolt out. Took me about 10 minutes with the correct size pin punch an a small hammer.

__________________
- Change it back -

Yeh...I pulled the extra safety parts from my Rossi M92 bolt not too long after I bought the cool little carbine.

Was going to buy the little plug..but never got around to it. So one day I machined my own 'filler-plug' from aluminum and pinned it in place with the original pin. My .44 mag Rossi is stainless steel so a shiny aluminum plug blends in perfectly.

That's what I did to mine. Then I had a gunsmith mount a Williams 5D peep, and now you can't even notice the plug.

I also got the steel follower from him, but I haven't installed it yet.

There's a several places that have the steel magazine follower. That's next on my list.

__________________
- Change it back -

I guess I am the only guy in the world who would not disable or remove a safety from a gun out of fear that it could become a legal issue one day. I have seen many posts for years about removing ugly safety levers from guns (often lever rifles) and I asked my wife (the prosecuting attorney) what would happen if there was ever a shooting involving such a modified gun and she assured me she would have the owner's head on a stick before the jury. Even if the shooting didn't involve the safety, the fact that this "crazed Rambo wannabe" (how one would be described to a jury of people ignorant on guns) wanted to make his weapon even more deadly by removing a safety feature...

Like I said, I know that nobody agrees with me that it could happen. One thing that really unnerves me is the thought of being sued or prosecuted. I have a Winchester M94 Trapper with the ridiculous push button safety. It will remain right where it is.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

a prosecuting attorney will make you a villain for any number of factors..provided you shoot someone....provided it comes to trial...provided a whole lot of things(like surviving the gunfight yourself!)

Yeh it's something to consider...the ultimate wisdom of removing/disabling a safety mechanism. My Marlin 'Cowboy' still wears it's safety...My hi-Powers still have mag-safeties...other pistols in my inventory too still have mag-safetys. I'm all for safeties on firearms

The one and only safety I've removed/deleted from a firearm is the silly Rossi bolt wing safety. In this instance..I really don't care what an attorney thinks....not really planning on defending myself with the gun..and if I do it's quite likely there will be at least one less witness anyhow....

The scenario I fear is the accidental shooting. The lawyer representing the victim has the gun examined and the smith reports a safety was removed...well, you know where it goes from there. At that point you WILL be concerned with what an attorney says. Yes, it's VERY unlikely to ever happen. But...I worry.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

There are literally millions of pre-safety lever guns in America. I just don't see this as a big deal.

__________________
- Change it back -

An attorney could use the removal of a safety device as proof of a reckless disregard for safety. Choose wisely.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

I bought a .45 Colt Model 94 with 24" barrel--and that push button safety. It was used but unfired, and the dealer knocked fifty bucks off because I moaned and whined about the safety. Yeah, it's unattractive, but after using the rifle I don't mind it. You can even carry your M94 "cocked and locked" if think that's cool. (I don't, myself.)

I agree, SaxonPig, about not disabling safeties. I'm nervous and a pessimist.

JMB would be rolling in his grave if he knew what they did to his already safe design!

Removal of the safety makes it as un-safe as my Model 94.

Reckless disregard for safety is when you allow the muzzle to point at another human being. Any other issues are just frosting on the cake.

What is the purpose of a safety on an exposed hammer lever action? I just don't get it. I haven't looked at repro single actions lately, do the have safeties as well?

I agree that removing a safety from a gun could cause legal problems. But I hate some of these new safeties on a gun that was not designed for them. I have a Taurus copy of a Model 63 Winchester that has a safety on the bolt. It is fairly inconspicuous, but I do not like it. My solution is that I do will never again buy a gun with a safety I do not like. That has worked very well for me.

I haven't removed the safety on my Rossi, either. But, not for the same reason. I just like the fact that I can put the safety in the "on" position when I want to unload the rifle. I just get nervous running live rounds through the action with a cocked hammer in the "ready to fire" position. I have several Marlins that have the cross bolt safety, and feel the exact same way about them. That little safety on the top of the bolt looks like, well you know what, but for me, I think it's an improvement for safer firearms handling. Your thoughts on the legal aspects are a secondary concern, and it's just shortcutting any potential problems is a firearm is used in a SD situation. The only mods I make to a SD gun is usually just sights. I don't like plastic, I don't like white outlines, and I'm not real crazy about white dots, but that's just me. The words "un-altered" are always good when in a court of law.........

[/quote]Like I said, I know that nobody agrees with me that it could happen. One thing that really unnerves me is the thought of being sued or prosecuted. I have a Winchester M94 Trapper with the ridiculous push button safety. It will remain right where it is[/quote]


Same here, mine will all stay the same.....

Don't ask me how, but somehow, I split you quote.....

Amazing endictment of society today that prosecutors, defenders, judges, law enforcement, news reporting, and heck just the public in general twists facts and/or adds or deletes facts to suit their purpose to get the result they want, rather than what occurred. 😢
Back to the OP original post, I have an older Rossi 92, you know the one with big PUMA emblem on the side. In a legal matter would that be held against me, as implying that I would shoot kitty cats? 😕
Another option to consider for the new 92's with a bolt safety, bolt mounted peep sight. Adjustable Bolt-Mounted Peep Sight Safety Replacement Adjustable Bolt-Mounted Peep Sight Safety Replacement [] - $59.95 : Steve's Gunz, The Home of the Rossi 92 Specialist
Guess this could be construed as improving your ability to hit your target in a negative way? 😱

__________________
Wherever my mind isn't
Jim

The excuse that "altering" a gun is somehow in and of itself libelous seems silly to me.

Guns are altered all the time. When you put a scope on a .30-30 you just altered it. Add a tactical light or laser to a AR15 and you just altered it. Bob the hammer of a S&W carry gun and it's been altered. I'll bet 75% of the owners of a Ruger 10/22's have altered their little .22 rifle. Is there even such a thing as an unaltered carry 1911?

__________________
- Change it back -

So, using that logic, if I where to negligently shoot someone with with my 1920's model 92, I should be prosecuted to the limit because I didn't buy a gun with a hammer block safely. Maybe prosecutors should stick to actual the actual laws instead of creating them out of thin air.

Topics brought up in court by an overzealous prosecutor don't have to contain common sense to be able to fine or jail you as a result.

Good question...

I was adamantly opposed to external safeties on lever actions. John Browning and John Marlin did not design them that way, so anything with external safeties were an abomination.

Then my kids went through hunter safety courses. The courses require hands on experience with real guns (though firing pins are defeated or removed for safety reasons and to make them non-guns for legal purposes as classes are often held after hours in schools). Anyway, two guns were constantly having problems with accidental discharges. NEF style exposed hammer break actions, and lever action rifles. Kids were lacking the dexterity, had smaller hands, and strength to consistently lower the safety to the half cock notch. They often slipped and the hammer would drop to the fired position.

I could clearly see why these companies added these safeties. Still don't care for it, but when companies have some sales going to youths, can you really blame them for trying to address this problem?

I see your point, but I'm thinking maybe kids that lack the necessary dexterity, have smaller hands, and don't have the strength to consistently lower the hammer to the half cock notch need to be using a different kind of gun.

__________________
- Change it back -

I respect Massad Ayoob as much as any other cop, gun writer, firearms trainer around. He warns against handloads in a carry gun, trigger pulls lighter than stock, and removing safety devices. Good enough for me. Some of the alterations mentioned by other posters in this thread are not changes in safety devices. Apples and oranges.

On my list of things to do to my Rossi .357. HATE that safety.
Knew about the 'Steve's Gunz' site, but thought that all that was available was a peep sight to insert in place of the removed safety. Did not know they sold a plug for it. Need to look into that. Thanks.

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

I have a Rossi M92 .38/357 with the safety and I was going to remove it, but I don't really notice it and it doesn't bother me. The safety on my Marlin 30/30 doesn't really bother me either but still won't buy a Smith revolver with the internal lock.

That's an excellent point, and I agree 100%.

The problem is, there are a lot of ignorant people out there when it comes to firearms, and frankly a lot of gun shops don't care what a customer buys as long as they make a sale. Meaning they are loathe to contradict what a customer wants and won't make a suggest that something else is more suitable.

It's like buying shotguns for kids participating in trap. Parents go get a cheap lightweight 20ga like an NEF or a light pump action, and the poor kid gets his shoulder bruised black and blue. Even though they cost more, a gas auto is going to reduce felt recoil greatly.

Totally agree.... but how many are going to use Rossi '92 as carry gun.

Then again if you took it hunting, and your shot hit an unintended target...or you're at the range and you reach over to get your screwdriver and a kid grabs your gun....You could end up with an unintended manslaughter charge. I'm sure your odds are better to win back to back lotteries...

Famous trial attorney Gerry Spence always started every trial by telling the jury that they should never forget the only people they would see in this case Not Sworn to tell them the truth were him and the opposing attorney.

Geeze, and to think, aside from a stray meteor hitting me I was starting to run out of things to worry about. I hope I saved that little ball bearing and spring so I can reinstall that ugly safety before it kills someone.

__________________
- Change it back -

I disable the grip safety on all my 1911's.

I suppose that if I had a nd, traceable to the mod, I'd have a problem.

Can't imagine what such a scenario would involve in the real world.

I grip a 1911 high ( choke up, to use a baseball analogy) so the grip safety may not be disengaged in usual shooting.

I'm more interested in function than anything else.

It's no good if it won't work.

Yes, but your hypo includes an accidental shooting.

If the ad was unrelated to the safety, good chance the mod wouldn't be allowed as evidence.

There are rules about admissible evidence: it has to be relevant.

The fact that you (I know you don't ) dance on tables in your underware may be terrible, but it wouldn't make it to a jury (unless the ad occured during a performance).

If the shooting is a good self defense shooting, it shouldn't matter if you use a cannon.

I too swear I will never buy a firearm with an added safety designed by the "stupid people buy guns too" committee.

__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner

I ripped this tag off my neighbor's seat cushion...



I've been known to run with scissors.

I've even modified a few guns.

__________________
Carry.."hope" isn't a strategy

Risk taker.......

__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner

Talk about thread drift........