Article on the Model 1892 Winchester Rifle

[Texas Star]

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.

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 .

 

[mjr]

All the old hollywood westerns used the 92 but really for accuracy of storys they should have used the 73s.

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."

 

[PALADIN85020]

Faulkner--

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

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

 

[V-35]

Must now have another.

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

 

[feralmerril]

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

 

[walnutred]

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?

 

[feralmerril]

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.

 

[PALADIN85020]

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

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

 

[LouisianaJoe]

I recently put some photos on post #20 here: http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/306661-my-first-lever-action.html#post137111004 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.

 

[rwsmith]

I'm going to get one of these

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

 

[Straightshooter2]

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

 

[feralmerril]

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.

 

[Faulkner]

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

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.

 

[feralmerril]

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

 

[kamloops67]

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

 

[Alpo]

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

 

[PALADIN85020]

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

 

[feralmerril]

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.

 

[PALADIN85020]

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/member...l-94-actions-more-graceful-configuration.html

John

 

[kamloops67]

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:

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

John

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

 

[PALADIN85020]

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 peep sight is screwed to the left side of the receiver. My understanding is that this was often done on request by the Winchester factory, using a variety of commercially available sights. This one is a Redfield. It came this way to me, and the gun is very little used, so it may be original to the rifle, which was serialed in 1936.

John

 

[feralmerril]

My dad had a winchester 64 .32 winchester special with I think a lyman peep mounted the same way. I always thought it was a add on but it well could have come from the factory that way? We were deer hunting in wisconsin and met a farmer that had just missed a nice buck and he blamed the gun. He was disgusted and dad bought the gun on the spot for $50s! It looked better than 95%! We gave him a ride in the deal back to his farm, a few miles so he could get a shotgun. This was about 1958.

 

[Kinman]

I am the owner of a model '92 in 32-20, your article was very well written. I have read Mike Venturino's book and found your article every bit as interesting. It is funny how the '92 came about long after the West was Won and yet seems to be the rifle most depicted in Hollywood westerns. The little '92 fed a lot of people when times were hard and money was scarce. According to the old timer I got my rifle from it kept meat on the table during lean times for his family and even in a light caliber like 32-20 was plenty good to take down a good sized mule deer with proper shot placement. Thanks again for your excellent article.

 

[feralmerril]

My first 92 was a octogon barreled shot out 25 wcf. I think I paid like $25s for around 1958. Around 1971 I had it converted to .357. I had it reblued and all new wood put on. It was nice. I sold or traded it off at a gunshow. Wish I hadnt. Then I had a shotout 73 in 32 wcf redone to .38 special. While it worked, it definetly was a mistake. Once I had a martini made up in .256 win mag. I loved that cartridge in a rifle. Its just a neck downed .357.
I had one in a ruger hawkeye and still have dies and cases and a contender barrel in it. My dream would be a 92 converted to .256. I have seen at least one and it was nice! I do have a rossi puma 92 in .357 mag., also the 92 browning in .44 mag. Also had the old shotout 44 wcf 92 that I showed earlier that came off a reservation and was stolen out of my house. I understand my FIL has a 92 in 44 wcf but I havent seen it yet. A old family gun I understand. Here is a couple leads on the .256 and possibly makeing up one in a 92. I have dreamed of it forever. It would be the one last conversion I still might do.
http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/113829-Project-Rossi-92-in-256-Winchester-Magnum
Project Rossi 92 in 256 Winchester Magnum - Page 2
.256 Win. Mag.

 

[Alpo]

A 25/20 in good shape might make a nice 256 Winchester. Barrel would already be the right size.

 

[feralmerril]

It might! I dont know if the twist would be ideal or not. As said, I have some experiance with the 256. Its not much of a recoil to really worry about with the pointed bullets in a tube magazine. Also there is the .22 jet that would be a canidate too. I never really sat down and compared the ballistics between a .256 and 25-20 vs 25-35. And the the 30 waters too. Now the ballistic`s between a 22 jet and .218 bee also might be worthwhile. Remember, versions of the 92 in .218 bee have been made both by winchester and browning. I once had a bee in a 43 (?) winchester. It was a sweet cartridge too. I own a first year .22 hornet reamed out to K-hornet in a winchester 70, but thats a heavy gun to lug in a pip squeak cartridge. The 92 and clones is a nice gun to carry. The one I seen converted to .256 the guy took with him to africa on a safari for light stuff. I had a now deceased gun smith friend that made it up for him.

 

[kendak]

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.

don't know what you fellows are shooting but I have SS 1892 "Puma" in .44 mag & wife shoots it & she only weighs 118#...very mild "kick" with some pretty hot loads ...22gr. of 2400 behind a 250gr. cast bullet ...have had it for 10yrs. or so & love it ...take care