Like very many I assume, filling some quarantine time with little jobs I've put off/delayed/was too lazy to do, etc....

Having had a Rossi 92 .357 in 16" and had really good results with it, just wanted to upgrade sights a little. A very fun shooter/plinker and have taken a deer with it....very handy.
Factory Buckhorns on anything have never been to my liking.

I put a set of XS Ghost Ring sights on a Winchester M94 .45 Colt Trapper and they've been great.
No such item is available for the Rossi.

For several months have examined the website of 'Steve's Gunz' - this is supposedly THE guy for Rossi levergun mods and accessories.

Last night I ordered the adjustable rear peep sight that replaces the awful-cheesy little lawyer-safety button alop the bolt. IMO, a safety does NOT belong on a levergun.

Also ordered a sight-blank for the factory Buckhorn I'll be removing. And ordered a Hi-Viz (green) front, 'cuz old eyes appreciate Hi-Viz anything.

Anyone here have a Rossi carbine and done similar with sights and such?
Also, Steve's Gunz offers a DVD that will guide you through slicking up the 92 - I may get bored enough to try that.
Thanks!

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

Check out " Skinner Sights" several options..... including a nice "barrel peep sight".

I've used Skinner sights on several guns including my Winchester 16" .357 Trapper.

Yessir - have seen those, and figure they work OK....

I like the concept of the longer sight radius of the 'further back' peep by Steve. And - it would be similar enough to my Win. M94 .45 Trapper XS Ghost Ring setup that switching from one to the other would be easy.

AND - it would delete that stupid safety - a win-win.
Hopeless gun geeks tend to switch guns constantly

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

I have one of these. Some stuff I have done:
Cut the stock flat and install a thin rubber buttplate in place of the metal crescent.
Installed brass follower and chrome silicone magazine spring.
Skinner barrel mounted rear sight.
Shorter brass bead front.
Removed the safety and made a smooth blank out of it and reinstalled.
Installed standard loop lever from Steve. Sold the old one one ebay for about the same price which was a pleasant surprise.
Zeroed with 180 grain hard cast magnum loads.
Refinished with BC Tru Oil

Total length is now 32.25 inches. Length of pull is about 1” shorter than stock.

The reduced strength ejector spring was a big help for range shooting. The OEM spring was just plain rude on a public range, showering brass over a huge radius, pelting everyone.

Steves reduced strength spring drops all the brass in a small pile right next to you.

Thanks! Sounds like a good idea - 'cept I shoot on my own range and have enough .38/.357 brass that unless I am loading and shooting at age ~137, I have plenty of brass. Much of mine is just left to lay there now.

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

My Rossi was made before the stupid "safety thingy" was added onto the top of the bolt. The gun needed no further fooling with, works well and is accurate.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Did you polish the stock???, I have a Rossi like yours but in .44mag caliber, "pre safty" device..... but the stock are made with a dull "matt" finish wooden stock????...
Best Regards
RR

__________________
"Off we go..."

That's just the way I purchased it at a gun show many years ago. I really liked the grain of the wood, as well. All in all, a handsome carbine and enjoyable to shoot.

I have a Browning '92 carbine chambered in .44 Mag, and the recoil is brutal. I much prefer the .357 for comfort combined with sufficient power to get the job done for most purposes.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

That's very nice. Having experienced my own hot brass down my blouse, I'd dread inflicting that pain on someone else.

I own an older pre-safety M92 much like Paladin's carbine except .44-40 caliber. It has very pretty wood....don't think it's walnut...but it is some interesting grained hardwood

I have a Browning '92 carbine chambered in .44 Mag, and the recoil is brutal. I much prefer the .357 for comfort combined with sufficient power to get the job done for most purposes.

Very nice wood!!!!!, mine has another wood it is´nt so handsome and well finished, I shall try some wood expert to "polish" or enhance the wood. Yes Sir, the recoil in the .44Mag carbine is "brutal", after firing consecutive 10 shots you will feel it the next day!!!!!
Best Regards
Roberto Renauld

__________________
"Off we go..."

If you want to reduce the pain of shooting the 44 mag Rossi without modifying the shape of the stock, try installing a recoil pad for a Ruger 10/22. Maybe not very pretty, but it works,

Attached Images

	DSCN2522.JPG (61.9 KB, 149 views)
	DSCN2520.JPG (137.9 KB, 114 views)

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

I've tried the Skinner sights on a Marlin 336 and find them to be of high quality, but I find I prefer the buckhorn sights on a lever gun.

I did replace the ugly bolt safety on my 1892 in .38/.357 with a plug from Steve's Gunz. Simple enough and took about 20 minutes. I also replaced the yellow plastic magazine follower with a metal follower, I was concerned it was only a matter of time before the plastic one failed after being exposed to gun oil from cleaning and such.

__________________
- Change it back -

The early Rossi '92s had a metal follower. Mine, from 1980, has one.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

I have a Rossi R92 in 38/357 but with a 24" octagon barrel. I started using it for Cowboy Silhouette, then got distracted. I put a Marbles tang sight and Lyman 17A front sight on it. The sights and long radius make for precise aiming. Now if the "trigger attachment" could just learn to pull the trigger at juuuuuust the right time all would be great! I installed Steve's Gunz' reduced power ejector spring to keep the fired cases from going into low earth orbit. Sooner or later, I'll get his lighter loading gate spring too as mine is stiff enough to make my thumb hurt after a while. I'll probably break the edges around the gate too.

The gun shoots great but cosmetically it's challenged. The forearm is thicker on one side than the other and the mystery wood looks pretty awful. Some reshaping and refinishing could go a long way.

as soon as we get through the current 'made dog' public buying spree, plan on pickin up a Rossi .357. in either 16" barrel or 20", so the mod's discussion very helpful.

I have a Rossi 92 in 44, but I have done nothing to it include shoot it!

I got it a while back but just haven't managed to get it to the range.

Things I plan to do, possibly before it hits the range:
Metal follower
Safety delete
Large loop lever
Reduced power ejector spring
Refinish stocks

I'd be working on it now while I'm sitting at home if I wasn't broke!

I have a Browning 92 in .357, and years ago I had Dale Storey's shop do pretty much what you've done to your Rossi - add a Lyman receiver sight, a blank for the rear sight slot, and a slight trigger job. My favorite centerfire rifle by far.

I've seen two Rossi Model 92 lever guns with a Puma head engraved on the side. Both were blue and 357/38 Special guns. I assume that they are older models. Can anyone tell me more about them. Are they desirable? Reliability? How to they compare with the newer stainless models?

John

My original 44-40 Rossi ‘92 was an early - mid ‘90’s SRC one. It had the Puma head engraving hence the “Rossi Puma” designation. After it was stolen I replaced it with a stainless ‘92 Rossi. The old one was much smoother with a better trigger. I also seem to remember it felt better in my hands, but that could just be wishful thinking.

__________________
View from down under

At Cowboy shooting events, you will most likely see every type of '92, from first year production guns to the newest stainless guns. I have owned around twelve 92's. These included Browning, Rossi, Tigre', and Navy Arms. Old Winchester's and Japanese Browning's, were the only guns that didn't require a little TLC to be up to competition smoothness!

In the modern produced guns, the bolt's locking bars are often banana shaped (stone the high ends down a few thousandths). The lever retaining latch spring needs about half the length. I have stoned the bolts smooth (inside surfaces only) and reduced the trigger spring about 15 to 20 % on coil spring models and bought reduced springs on flat spring models.

The strangest 92 I owned was a 20" Navy Arms with a 1" octagon barrel! It weighed almost enough for 2 carbines! But even with the crescent buttplate, it was a joy to shoot with Ruger only 45 Colt loads! Worst recoil in ANY lever gun I have owned was the Browning 92 in 44 Magnum! Hot 45-70 loads were easier (due to buttplate design!)

Ivan

I have a 20" Rossi M92 .357 and I had Lasik surgery done so the rear sight is a total blur but the front sight and target are perfectly clear. I was wanting a peep rear sight but the gun fits me so well as long as I put that front sight on the target I can get hits out to 80-100 yards on a pie plate, standing. The stock looked like it had been stained and never sealed and I put two coats of Tru oil on it and the wood now looks beautiful and I normally shoot cheap Remington Plus-P 125 grain 38 Special hollow points that I get for $31/100 and the recoil is like a .22 RF. My gun has the safety but it doesn't bother me like one on a Smith revolver and the plastic magazine follower is always covered with with black fouling so I don't even notice it and the rifle has a great trigger.

Amen to that, Ivan. I fired a few rounds to sight my Browning 92 in with .44 magnums, but my shoulder hurt for a week. From then on, I was deliriously happy with .44 Specials....

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Looks great - -
Afraid while I was enjoying my afternoon libation and ordering parts from Steve's Gunz site I forgot to add the metal magazine follower.....don't wanna go back and order just that.
Somewhere in the back recesses of my aging brain - I seem to recall seeing somewhere that a certain empty cartridge case can double as a follower in the .357 models. Might have been a .32-20 case, a .41 case?? Don't know.
We'll see...
Thanks all!

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

I suggest you call him and ask (leave message) if he could add the follower to the order. He was wonderful when helping me slick up my 92, and went above and beyond to help.

I also have a Rossi stainless 357. I have not shot it a lot, but have enjoyed it. A friend loaded some 38 sp RN lead and I really liked the way the loaded. I may some flat points one of these days. It is a little picky about loading swc's.

I also had a very positive experience changing an order I placed. Great people to deal with.

Hi John. I had the Rossi "Puma" model you described. I was intrigued by its .357 chambering and 16" bbl. That was the extent of my intrigue... The action was close to inoperable: even with the hammer retracted beforehand, operating the lever was like dragging an aircraft carrier through mud. Fortunately, I found someone for whom this carbine was his grail gun and I happily sold it.

Perhaps my example was the exception rather than the rule, but my advice would be "Buyer beware." Hope this helps.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

I also had a rossi 92 im 357 mag, but traded t my neighbor for a henry golden boy in 30-30. thought I got a good deal. the 92 shot really well, but the henry is awesome, and hard to beat in looks.

I had a 92 that I really liked. I did get a metal follower and did some "slicking up" of the action. I also hand rubbed a tru-oil finish into the stock and wrapped some leather around the loop. It is surely true that it will eject brass into another zipcode, but that can be mitigated. I sold it to raise funds for a Henry .357 carbine. The 92 was nice enough, but not so special as I considered it an heirloom.

__________________
USMC RETIRED

I have a Rossi 92 short rifle (rifle pattern, 20" barrel) in .357 Magnum, and a Rossi rifle (rifle pattern, 24" barrel) in .357 Magnum:



I also have a Rossi 92 carbine (20" barrel) in 45 Colt:



I've given the Steve's Gunz DVD treatment to all three, including:

- stainless steel magazine follower;
- lighter ejector spring;
- shortened hammer spring;
- shortened magazine spring;
- thinned loading gate spring;
- polished shell plate detents;
- polished lever detent; and
- polished bolt cam surfaces.

I've also removed the pig tail safeties, as I found the design had a bad habit of getting itself switched on or off in brush, and there are few things worse than a safety that is unreliable.

Practically speaking, giving the rifle or carbine a thorough cleaning to remove all the swarf and gunk, and replacing the ejector spring will give you about 75% of the total improvement in action slickness. Putting 500 or so rounds through it will get you up to about 90% of its potential. Shortening the hammer spring and polishing the critical internal parts will get you to 100%, and get you there immediately.

The thinned loading gate spring and shortened magazine spring just make it a little faster and easier to load.

The stainless magazine follower doesn't have to be done right away, but it will eventually, swell, crack and start to stick in the tube. It's just easier to replace it with a stainless steel follower when you do the initial cleaning and polishing of the internals if you opt to do that.

The pig tail safety is mostly a matter of preference. The detent wasn't very effective on one of mine, leading to the unreliability issues. On a positive note, it does allow the action to be cycled with the safety on, which is a plus when clearing the weapon. If you remove it, then clear it like you would an old style Model 94 or Model 92 Winchester, holding the rear of the lever well clear of the trigger.

-----

All three of mine also received Marbles tang sights. The rifle and short rifle in .357 Magnum will shoot reliable 5 shot 2 MOA groups at 100 yards. The .45 Colt carbine isn't in that ballpark, as it's more along the lines of 4 MOA, but part of that is also the cartridge and the recoil.

If you load it at standard .45 Colt pressures, it's not bad to shoot, but it has the trajectory of a rainbow. If you load it up with a 255 grain bullet at 1800 fps or so, the trajectory is pretty flat, but the recoil is fierce.

-----

All three of mine also received several coats of Tru-oil on top of the factory stain, with the gloss knocked down to a semi gloss with a light touch and some 0000 steel wool.

The wood finish on them has varied over the years from pretty decent back in the 1980s, to all the charm of shoe polish 5-7 years ago. But the shoe polish looking stocks and forends look good with a tung oil or Tru-Oil finish on them.

Did you need to fiddle with the front sight on teh .45Colt or did you leave it stock?

Some great posts and replies - thanks guys....

Interesting to note that recoil is so subjective. There's mention here of the Browning 92's in .44 being uncomfortable and a Rossi in .45 Colt being much the same.

While I don't have a Rossi in either of those calibers, do have a Winchester M94 Trapper (16") in .45 Colt. It's mainly a hunter, and only sees occasional range time. My hunting load for it would be considered a 'upper-Ruger/Contender' - level load, pretty much maximum - a Hornady 250 gr XTP JHP over a generous scoop of WW296.
I've called it my '45-70 Junior'.

Yes, it bumps a little - but not at all uncomfortable. Very effective on several <100 yd. deer I've taken with it.

Maybe that's because of the M94 action, providing a little more heft and mass versus the proper-sized M92 action - don't know. Honestly wish my Winchester was a 92, but I got such a good deal on it - well, you know the story.....

- Still waiting on the Steve's Gunz shipment.....

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

I removed the barrel mounted rear sight and installed a dive tail blank. I also changed the front sight to a lower front sight with a bead, partly to improve the quality of the sight picture, and partly to improve the maximum range potential of the tang sight. However, it wasn't a "have to do" item.

I used Lyman 17AHB globe front sights (the lowest standing model they make) on my .357s to take advantage of the very good accuracy potential of the rifle/.357 Magnum combination.

One thing that improved the action a lot on mine was while watching TV I worked the action continuously for about a half hour. Also I put the gun on "safe" and burnished the hammer notch by pressing on the back of the hammer with my thumb and pulling the trigger about 20 times. It took about a half pound off the trigger and made the pull smoother and crisper.

I use the same 250 gr XTP in my .45 Colt with a near max load of Win 296/H110.

I still have my Rossi Model 92 and I used to have a Winchester 94 Trapper in .45 Colt. The Trapper's model 94 action is about 1.2" longer than the Model 92, but it had a 16" barrel compared to 20" on my Rossi carbine.

The major difference in perceived recoil was due to the use of a shotgun style buttplate, while the Rossi has a curved carbine style butt plate. They require different techniques when shooting them. The shotgun butt plate gets placed in the shoulder pocket, while the carbine style butt plate (and the crescent butt plates on the rifle pattern Model 92s) need to be placed on the upper bicep, just short of the shoulder and the rifle is held closer to the chest, coming across it more than with a shotgun butt plate carbine. rathe. The curved butt plates *should* also have a slightly longer length of pull, to reflect the different angle relative to the chest.

When shot that way, recoil is much more tolerable with a carbine or crescent butt plate as the curve matches the arm and the arm has some give in it that spreads out the recoil over a longer distance. When people make the mistake of tucking a curved butt plate into the shoulder pocket the results are excessively uncomfortable and that's part of the issue with recoil complaints.

That said, even when properly shot a .45 Colt Model 92 carbine with a 32,000 psi 250 gr load still has significant recoil and it isn't something you are inclined to shoot 100 times in a single range session, as is the case for a standard pressure 255 gr cast bullet .45 Colt load. For hunting purposes (zeroing, checking the zero, shooting 1-3 in the field) recoil with a 32,000 psi load isn't bad.

----

The Model 92 action is much smoother than the Model 94 as the Model 92 doesn't have the lever link that the Model 94 has.

Thanks. I could not see the front sight of the .45Colt '92.

My wife likes her Rossi 92 in .44mag and so do I. Pre-dates the funny safety. Was original owned by a CAS competitor who had it tuned and is super slick(1). Also very accurate, but hard for me to tell just how accurate with only the factory sights.

I load mild (240gr LSWC+Trail Boss) and wild (240gr LSWCGC+2400) and it likes both. Have some 180gr JHP for HD if it comes to that.

I think I might get the flip up tang sight and maybe the (or other) lower front sight. I would likely keep the factory rear for close-up thick brush hunting and HD, zeroed up close. I can tolerate seeing some irons in my low-power scopes, so a bit of buckhorn out of an aperture ought to be no whoop.

(1) It was a steal, as the chamber was leaded up and no one else would buy it. One jury-rigged electrical/galvanic rod system (think Outer's Foul Out) later and no more lead in the bore & chamber!

On rear sights: My 32-20 1894CL has a Lyman tang. My best friends same gun has the Williams Receiver sight. Of the two the receiver is a much better sight! However SASS does not allow receiver sights! (That is partially why there is more than one Cowboy Shooting Society!)

Ivan

Question on 16" vs 20" barrel in .357...have read the 16" provides higher velocity as a .357 starts to 'slow down' in those extra four inches in the longer barrel due to friction..?

Aside from that, what barrel length reccomended for just a balanced plinker in .357?

It really depends on the load, especially the powder used and the bullet type. From the info on the BBI website it appears that some 357 loads continue gaining velocity up through an 18" barrel (the longest length they tested) and any reductions between 16' and 18" are very minimal. BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: .357 Mag Results

But I have read that 18" is about the max and then extra length starts to pretty consistently produce slight reductions in velocity due to friction - like you said. IIRC on average a 16" and a 20" are about equivalent in max velocity.

I like the overall balance and sight radius of the 20" barrel myself. There is also the additional 4" of rifling to further stabilize the bullet. 24" looks too long to me. 20" is the sweet spot IMO.

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

I've posted on this before and covered the massive sampling and high standard deviation issues that make the BBTI data just about useless.

I'm not going to repeat it - do a search if you like.

The short version is this:

Yes, there is a sweet spot for each cartridge after which you reach a point of diminishing returns, where more barrel length starts to produce less increase per inch.

For the .223 for example, that's around 18". You see a greater increase in velocity from 16" to 18" than you do from 18" to 20" But you'll still see an increase in velocity from 20" to 24", and even 26", it's just fewer feet per second gained per inch.

You'll also see a velocity increase in .22LR as barrels increase past 16" - the often reported length after which .22LR will "slow down". I've chronoed a lot of .22 LR ammo in pistol, carbine and match rifle barrels all the way out to 26", and even standard velocity match .22LR will continue to go faster in longer barrels - the increase per inch just gets progressively less.

On the other hand, so does the SD in velocity, with longer barrels often being much more consistent than short barrels, particularly, when the long barrel is match grade with a precise bore diameter.

.357 Magnum is no different. Yes, it'll vary somewhat with the load, but I still get more velocity in my 24" rifle than I get in my .20" short rifle.

There is no doubt a barrel length for each cartridge and load, where the air pressure in front of the bullet in the barrel is equal to the gas pressure behind the bullet, beyond which the bullet will start to slow in the bore, but that barrel length is measured in yards for most cartridges not inches.

The exception is the.22 CB cap, where the bullet is powered by the primer compound only. There it's possible for a bullet to slow, and even fail to exit a long rifle barrel.

Well, OK, but the data compiled by the Ballistics By The Inch folks (linked above) seem to tell a different story with several loads they tested...

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

I really enjoy the Trapper lever models - 16". For sheer handiness, they're heard to beat. And where I hunt now, in some places ranges encountered may be somewhere between living room and bedroom distances sometimes.
The last deer I took with the Rossi 16" .357 was a medium sized buck at about 40 yards. He was facing me directly, in fading light.
Frontal chest shot, using factory Barnes .357 140 gr TSX HP (all-copper HP). Complete flip, over onto his back, a roll to the side and DRT.

I know of no centerfire caliber that would've done a better job.
Bullet did not exit, and I did look for it when I dressed him. I was pretty worn out later and should have looked harder. I sure would've liked to have recovered that bullet.

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

My Rossi 92 has a 16 inch barrel and is chambered in .357. It does not say Puma and does not have the funny safety on top. It functions fine and feeds swc also. I would like to update the sights though. My front sight is part of the barrel band. It seems to be made as one piece. Has anyone ran into this? I like the gun but not the sights.
Thanks,
David.

A little late to this party but I did use one of the rear peep sights that the OP was referring to. Also bobbed off the curved butt plate and and installed a decelerator. Boy do you have to grind them thin on that skinny stock. That required a refinish so i removed the funky reddish stain/paint that Rossi used. Strangely there is decent wood hiding under there. Not fancy but decent.
Makes a nice civilized little carbine.

Did just finish my few mods on the Rossi 92 .357.
Rear peep took a little extra patience to get in-place, but finally did.

In placing the both the barrel blank (taking place of factory rear) and the front sight - found that they'd both seat and center with mostly finger pressure and one small tap from a plastic mallet. Didn't much care for that.
Tapped both the blank and front sight back out, cleaned/degreased both dovetails, applied some blue LocTite inside the slots and replaced both.
Seems like they'll hold alright.

Now - gotta go see about sighting it in.
Anyone remove the aperture on the rear peep for hunting? Seems like the best route to take, as I'm usually in deep woods and not a lot of daylight.

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

Yeah,,, just about every old guy with old guy eyes does.
Hmmmm, none of my peepsights seem to have them in there ,what ever that means. Maybe big apertures when shooting of the bench , maybe. Kind of turns them into ghost rings.
O well, such is older age.
Dovetails are not all created equal. If a loose fit I will sometimes give the top of the dovetail a light peen and that seems to snug them up but still be adjustable .
Sounds like you are ready to have fun.

It's a popular site, people enjoy it, so whatever. Just don't mistake if for actual science and reliable data.

When you take a chop saw to a barrel and then shoot three rounds over a pair of chronographs stacked back to back to call it six data points the results are not reliable.

With three rounds (measured twice, which in this case just adds ambiguity) the sample is so small that the standard deviation often exceeds the differences in average velocity between adjacent barrel lengths.

Take a look at the data across various cartridges and loads and you'll see:

1. numerous examples where the next longer length has a slower velocity (sometimes even the next 2 longer lengths) and then you'll see a faster number for the next longer barrel length; and

2. you'll see those examples more often at longer lengths where the increase in velocity per inch is less.

Those are the places were the SD is higher than the increase in average velocity. If you pull up their raw data and look at the actual velocities and calculate the SD, you'll see the SD is greater than the difference in velocities.

Simply put that means the difference in velocity between those two lengths is not significant.

Now, consider that BBTI stops at 18". When you have a high SD and a smaller increase and you get the above mentioned effect where the velocity is lower at that last 18" length. It's easy to (incorrectly) conclude that the 19", 20", 21" etc lengths will all be slower. However, if you chronograph loads using a large enough sample (15 minimum, 30 is better, you'll get SD and average velocity numbers that are both reliable and valid. You'll also see that the velocity continues to increase, at a slower rate, out past 26" for pretty much everything except maybe a CB cap or .22 Short.

I've owned two Marlin model 1894 .44 Mag carbines.
The first was a pre-safety, with a steel buttplate. No fun to run a box of ammo through. I'd rather shoot my 444P.
Sadly, I sold it in 1992 to pay for a new clutch for my Honda Civic. Being a poor student sucked.

My current one is an 1894P with a 16.5" ported barrel and ventilated recoil pad, that I bought new in 1999 or 2000.
Even though it's lighter in weight than the original, it's a lot more comfortable to shoot.

__________________
What would Jim Cirillo do?