Rossi 92 .357 carbine mods....

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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

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

BROWNING_1892-1280.jpgoriginal_zpsiufamxvj.jpg
 
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.

408772728.jpg

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!
 
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!

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

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.

r92e.jpg
 
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:

2724DAFF-F3D6-4EDF-BDFA-223A2FFA3CAF_zpsjhkbfury.jpg


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

BCF6194D-B834-4327-93AE-B7CE697280A8-1449-0000066AAD6A5B24_zpsce520bea.jpg


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.
 
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:

2724DAFF-F3D6-4EDF-BDFA-223A2FFA3CAF_zpsjhkbfury.jpg


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

BCF6194D-B834-4327-93AE-B7CE697280A8-1449-0000066AAD6A5B24_zpsce520bea.jpg


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.

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

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.
 
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.....

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.
 
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.

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?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top