Waldo
Member
I am thinking about ordering a Chiappa replica of an 1892 Winchester. I do not want one of the Japanese ones with a tang safety. Has anyone here had any recent experience with the Chiappa Winchester replicas? Thanks for any advice.
Chiappa 1892 Winchester
- Thread starter Waldo
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Ivan the Butcher
Member
The whole world work on the same principle. You get what you pay for!
Ivan
Ivan
I cannot speak for the Winchester replica, but some years ago I had experience with a couple models and the quality was lacking in my opinion. Most all Jap mfg guns have far superior quality.
If you don't want a Japanese made Winchester Model 92 (I have one and love it), you might want to look at a Rossi R92.
The safety is unobtrusive.
The safety is unobtrusive.
I have looked at several guns from the Chiappa line and they are not something I would buy. My Rossi M92 .357 20" barrel is one of my most favorite guns and everyone who shoots it really likes and shoots it well. I highly recommend them.
.38SuperMan
Member
I’m really pleased with my Japanese Winchester 92’s. Beautiful quality!
I’ve had two of the Rossi ’92’s in .357 and the top of the bolt safety was very obtrusive to me. Someone markets a filler to replace the safety, if desired.
Back to the Chiappa 1892. Last year I bought the Taylor Chiappa in the 16” barrel carbine/Trapper SRC configuration and really like it. Mine is chambered in .357 and so marked on the barrel. It will feed and chamber 38 Specials loaded to the proper length for consistency in feeding, however, accuracy is poor with the shorter cases.
I shoot cast bullets in mine, loaded to around 1000 fps for fun and easy recoil. The gun is accurate with the 125 grain to 140 grain bullets in this speed range. The 165 grain bullet, Accurate #36-165N likes to be driven to about 1500 fps for good accuracy.
Overall quality of the gun is good, with a nice finish to wood and metal.
There are two complaints I have about the gun: It is not drilled and tapped for a receiver sight and the area around the loading gate had some sharp edges which tended to bite a finger.
Sights are marginal for target accuracy or hunting, but might be fine for the cowboy shooting games.
I purchased a Turnbull Restorations mount for a Vortex Venom and really like it on this rifle, though eventually I plan on going to a Lyman 66A and removing the red dot.
The red dot has been a good tool for testing loads for accuracy from the bench.
Red Dot Mount for Model 94 and 1892 | Use with Vortex and Burris Sights
I have seen some negative reviews about the Chiappa online, but I’m happy with this little carbine. Perhaps quality control is held to a higher standard on the Taylor versions?
Back to the Chiappa 1892. Last year I bought the Taylor Chiappa in the 16” barrel carbine/Trapper SRC configuration and really like it. Mine is chambered in .357 and so marked on the barrel. It will feed and chamber 38 Specials loaded to the proper length for consistency in feeding, however, accuracy is poor with the shorter cases.
I shoot cast bullets in mine, loaded to around 1000 fps for fun and easy recoil. The gun is accurate with the 125 grain to 140 grain bullets in this speed range. The 165 grain bullet, Accurate #36-165N likes to be driven to about 1500 fps for good accuracy.
Overall quality of the gun is good, with a nice finish to wood and metal.
There are two complaints I have about the gun: It is not drilled and tapped for a receiver sight and the area around the loading gate had some sharp edges which tended to bite a finger.
Sights are marginal for target accuracy or hunting, but might be fine for the cowboy shooting games.
I purchased a Turnbull Restorations mount for a Vortex Venom and really like it on this rifle, though eventually I plan on going to a Lyman 66A and removing the red dot.
The red dot has been a good tool for testing loads for accuracy from the bench.
Red Dot Mount for Model 94 and 1892 | Use with Vortex and Burris Sights
I have seen some negative reviews about the Chiappa online, but I’m happy with this little carbine. Perhaps quality control is held to a higher standard on the Taylor versions?
smoothshooter
Member
I bought one a couple of years after they came out, and mine is almost total junk. Sank another $150 into it for a gunsmith that was supposed to be fluent in 1892 rifles to fix the feeding problems, but that money was wasted also.
The action has so many problems that when I try to cycle a round through the action it not only jams, but the round forces the loading gate out of it’s slot and it protrudes between an eighth and a quarter of an inch.
I suppose I could send it to one of the CAS gunsmiths, but that would be another $300 and a year turn around time. At least one or two of those CAS guys have even quit taking on new work.
The action has so many problems that when I try to cycle a round through the action it not only jams, but the round forces the loading gate out of it’s slot and it protrudes between an eighth and a quarter of an inch.
I suppose I could send it to one of the CAS gunsmiths, but that would be another $300 and a year turn around time. At least one or two of those CAS guys have even quit taking on new work.
smoothshooter
Member
Taurus is better quality. Especially the CBC models from the new factory and management.
Only bad thing is that the butt stock profile is all jacked up.
Do not know why they did not simply copy the original shape.
I have a Chiappa 1892 rifle and it is junk. Bought it a couple of years after they came out.
Only bad thing is that the butt stock profile is all jacked up.
Do not know why they did not simply copy the original shape.
I have a Chiappa 1892 rifle and it is junk. Bought it a couple of years after they came out.
Can't speak for the Chiappa, but I too can recommend the Rossi 92. I have a 16" 357/38 Special model and it has cycled everything I've loaded, including 158 gr LSWC. The safety isn't much of a bother and can be easily eliminated. my neighbor liked shooting my Rossi so much he went out and got his own, a 20" stainless model in the same caliber. I was with him when he bought it. The shop had a 357 Henry, and a pair of new Winchesters. The Rossi is lighter and handier than the Henry. Cheaper too by about $200, and the Winchesters cost almost twice as much as the Rossi.
John
John
There are only a couple posts so far that are really responsive to the OP.
Chiappa acquired and became the parent company for Armi Sport and those are Italian companies not Japanese.
I own a few Rossi 92s, two rifles and a carbine as well as a few original Winchesters in both rifle and carbine formats, and an Armi Sport copy of the Model 1892 takedown rifle.
It gives me a good basis for comparison.
——
In terms of smoothness and function the Armi Sport / Chiappa Model 1892 is on par with the old Winchesters and the current Miroku made Japchesters (which despite the hate they receive for being made in Japan are none the less very well made high quality guns).
The color case hardened finish on my Armi Sport was also very good (and it’s also very good on my 1859 and 1874 Armi Sport Sharps rifles):
The overall quality is excellent for both metal work and wood work, and the details are very well done right down to the correct execution of the hammer serrations consistent with the other period features on the rifle, like the front sight, butt plate, etc. It’s obvious they closely copied a vintage Winchester 1892 in all respects. The wood even accurately reflects the fairly plain walnut or gum wood stocks the Winchester guns were known for in the standard grade.
Similarly the take down mechanisms are exact copies of the Winchester:
——
I like the Rossi 92s and they are real bargains. But they need some work if you want smoothness close to any of the above rifles.
A Rossi 92 needs some elbow grease to clean it up and to polish the cartridge guide and lever detents as well as the camming surfaces on the bolt. You’ll also need to shorten, lighten or thin, the mainspring, the magazine spring, and the loading gate spring, as well as a obtain a lighter replacement ejector spring, and a metal magazine follower. Once you’ve done that it’ll deliver about 90% of the smoothness of the other rifles/carbines.
The newer Rossi 92s also have an annoying pig tail safety on the bolt that I found was way too prone to being moved without the shooters knowledge. IMHO that makes it worse than useless, so I removed mine and replaced with with a plug.
The exterior metal polish and blue on the Rossi 92 is very goos although inside you’ll find a lot of machining marks and grit left over from its manufacture. You’ll also not the slightly different profile of the lower receiver on the Rossi 92.
What isn’t as obvious are the use of coil springs inside that are arguably more reliable than leaf springs. Rossi has made lever actions for modern magnum pistol cartridges since the mid 1960s and has more experience with it than even Winchester. They know their stuff and it’s a very strong action.
The major issue is the stock finish, which to be fair has varied over the years. Mine all had a stock finish with all the charm and grace of shoe polish, and it would run in the rain.
However, it makes a nice base dye for an oil finish. You can apply either Tru-oil or pure tung oil by hand rubbing directly on top of the original finish. The first couple coats will take a day or two to integrate and dry, but the subsequent coats will go on like normal.
If you use Tru Oil, you’ll want to lightly rub the final coat with 0000 steel wool and then some stock sheen to cut the bright shine down to a nice semi gloss finish. All of mine now have oil finishes over the original finish.
Rossi offers, or at least offered, a color case hardened finish and it’s nice but not quite on par with the Armi sport CCH finish. It’s closer to the current Winchester/Miroku CCH finish which is in my opinion a little to garish color wise. (Of course I also think the current Winchester “blue” is way too black and losses the depth the older Winchesters had.)
Over time original CCH finishes faded and I’ve seen more than one “knowledgeable” LGS owner claim a CCH Winchester either has no blue left on the receivers, or claims they are nickel plated when it’s just faded color case hardening. The modern CCH finishes are just surface finishes done with a propriety mix of salts and moderate heat, but they will also fade over several decades.
The short Rossi 92 rifle on the right has a CCH finish.
——
In summary, I’m a fan of the Chiappa- Armi Sport Model 1892 and (assuming they haven’t had any quality changes the last decade or so) I’d buy one of them before I bought a Miroku Made Winchester.
The quality is very similar, I like the finish better, and the Armi Sport still has the original operating system with no tang safety. And they normally sell for a little less money.
For a working gun, it’s hard to beat a Rossi 92. They offer great value for the money costing about half as much as an Armi Sport and a third as much as a deluxe model Winchester.
Chiappa acquired and became the parent company for Armi Sport and those are Italian companies not Japanese.
I own a few Rossi 92s, two rifles and a carbine as well as a few original Winchesters in both rifle and carbine formats, and an Armi Sport copy of the Model 1892 takedown rifle.
It gives me a good basis for comparison.
——
In terms of smoothness and function the Armi Sport / Chiappa Model 1892 is on par with the old Winchesters and the current Miroku made Japchesters (which despite the hate they receive for being made in Japan are none the less very well made high quality guns).
The color case hardened finish on my Armi Sport was also very good (and it’s also very good on my 1859 and 1874 Armi Sport Sharps rifles):
The overall quality is excellent for both metal work and wood work, and the details are very well done right down to the correct execution of the hammer serrations consistent with the other period features on the rifle, like the front sight, butt plate, etc. It’s obvious they closely copied a vintage Winchester 1892 in all respects. The wood even accurately reflects the fairly plain walnut or gum wood stocks the Winchester guns were known for in the standard grade.
Similarly the take down mechanisms are exact copies of the Winchester:
——
I like the Rossi 92s and they are real bargains. But they need some work if you want smoothness close to any of the above rifles.
A Rossi 92 needs some elbow grease to clean it up and to polish the cartridge guide and lever detents as well as the camming surfaces on the bolt. You’ll also need to shorten, lighten or thin, the mainspring, the magazine spring, and the loading gate spring, as well as a obtain a lighter replacement ejector spring, and a metal magazine follower. Once you’ve done that it’ll deliver about 90% of the smoothness of the other rifles/carbines.
The newer Rossi 92s also have an annoying pig tail safety on the bolt that I found was way too prone to being moved without the shooters knowledge. IMHO that makes it worse than useless, so I removed mine and replaced with with a plug.
The exterior metal polish and blue on the Rossi 92 is very goos although inside you’ll find a lot of machining marks and grit left over from its manufacture. You’ll also not the slightly different profile of the lower receiver on the Rossi 92.
What isn’t as obvious are the use of coil springs inside that are arguably more reliable than leaf springs. Rossi has made lever actions for modern magnum pistol cartridges since the mid 1960s and has more experience with it than even Winchester. They know their stuff and it’s a very strong action.
The major issue is the stock finish, which to be fair has varied over the years. Mine all had a stock finish with all the charm and grace of shoe polish, and it would run in the rain.
However, it makes a nice base dye for an oil finish. You can apply either Tru-oil or pure tung oil by hand rubbing directly on top of the original finish. The first couple coats will take a day or two to integrate and dry, but the subsequent coats will go on like normal.
If you use Tru Oil, you’ll want to lightly rub the final coat with 0000 steel wool and then some stock sheen to cut the bright shine down to a nice semi gloss finish. All of mine now have oil finishes over the original finish.
Rossi offers, or at least offered, a color case hardened finish and it’s nice but not quite on par with the Armi sport CCH finish. It’s closer to the current Winchester/Miroku CCH finish which is in my opinion a little to garish color wise. (Of course I also think the current Winchester “blue” is way too black and losses the depth the older Winchesters had.)
Over time original CCH finishes faded and I’ve seen more than one “knowledgeable” LGS owner claim a CCH Winchester either has no blue left on the receivers, or claims they are nickel plated when it’s just faded color case hardening. The modern CCH finishes are just surface finishes done with a propriety mix of salts and moderate heat, but they will also fade over several decades.
The short Rossi 92 rifle on the right has a CCH finish.
——
In summary, I’m a fan of the Chiappa- Armi Sport Model 1892 and (assuming they haven’t had any quality changes the last decade or so) I’d buy one of them before I bought a Miroku Made Winchester.
The quality is very similar, I like the finish better, and the Armi Sport still has the original operating system with no tang safety. And they normally sell for a little less money.
For a working gun, it’s hard to beat a Rossi 92. They offer great value for the money costing about half as much as an Armi Sport and a third as much as a deluxe model Winchester.
Last edited:
I have a 24" octagon barrel case hardened(real) in 45LC. Prettiest 92 I've owned. From Navy Arms. Has been flawless for over 25 years. I also have have an early Rossi 92 in 357 mag. It too has been flawless........Doubt I'd take Chiappa home if it was free......Quality just ain't there.
In that era the Navy Arms 1892s were made by Rossi, and have the same receiver profile as the Rossi 92.
Much m ore recently Val Forgett cut a deal for unfinished Miroku made Winchester parts that he then finishes here in the US. They do actually use a bone charcoal trie color case hardening process.
Rossi never has used an actual bone charcoal CCH process.
——
Don’t make the mistake of comparing the cheap Chiappa revolvers, Little Badger, semi auto knock off rifles, etc with the 1892, 1886 and Sharps copies they acquired from Armi Sport. They are still by all reports very well made guns.
Objectively comparing my three Armi-Sport made rifles (1874 Quigley model Sharps, 1859 Berdan Sharps and 1892 Takedown Winchester rifle) with my three Rossi made rifles and carbines Model 92 24” rifle in .357 Mag, 20” short rifle in .357 Mag, and 20” carbine in .45 Colt) the Armi-Sport firearms are significantly higher in both quality of fit and finish.
Last edited:
Some of the replicas are actual bone and wood charcoal case hardened.
Some have the case hardening done by the cycanide process.
This leaves colors and patterns as well as the former. But can usually be picked out from the bone/wood charcoal process if you have some experience with both.
The two patterns and colors look slightly different.
Cyanide case hardening w/colors was a very popular way of doing the work and much easier/faster.
Several US firms used it including Remington on their small parts needing such (mostly on rifles).
Their 'Parker' shotguns made after they aquired that firm were also cyanide case hardened w/colors. The orig Meriden, Ct. Parkers were bone/wood charcoal case colored.
Most of the IJ, Stevens/Savage post WW2 guns were cyanide colored.
AH Fox used cyanide colors on their shotgun actions and parts after WW1.
They shipped the parts over to Fred Heintzelmann in NJ for the work.
Fred & Co would still do gun parts in cyanide colors the last I knew, same as the AHF. Don't know if they still do.
That's where the restoration shops had their period correct cyanide case colors done when needed.
Gee, it looks just like when it left the Fox Factory in Philly!!
Those 2-tone Colt pistol magazine bodys of pre-war vintage got their look from an upside-down mechanized drag run thru a cyanide bath to harden the feed lips.
The charcoal/Furnace bluing process left the already soft magazine body metal still soft in spite of any work hardening from the stamping and shaping procedures.
The bluing was lost from that area in this process leaving the 2-tone look.
In Europe, the cyanide process was and still is used by many of the makers.
An industrial process that has many applications,,not just gun frames.
Cyanide case hardening is for one thing always going to produce that glass hard surface.
A file will not bite.
Wood&Bone charcoal color case hardening can be done with temperature and quench adjustments to produce nice colors, but little or no hardening to the surface.
The part(s) will be soft just like they went into the furnace.
That is one advantage of sorts,,to avoid cracking and warping if that is a problem for the proprietor.
We used to call these 'Soft Colors'.
They looked great, but they wore off very easily. If the gun didn't go back together easily, like some SxS's with Single triggers or Ejectors that were stubborn and needed repeated disassembly/reassembly to make things right,,the colors would already be worn from the high edges of the frame and parts.
Not good.
The 'fix' was to rub a patch dampened with Brownells cold blue (Oxphoblue) all over the frame and parts. That'd recolor the worn areas. Then swab thinned orange shellac over the CCH parts as a sealer/protector.
Just like Factory!
Doing old firearms, each presents it's own list of unk's inclu what is the steel alloy.
Doing brand new production that is not an issue nor is past history of the frame. You don't know what old guns have been thru and it can make a differerence when heating them to 1430F and then quick quenching in a tub of water.
Results are much more repeatable with new mfg and on a production basis if one frame suffers damage it's not the end of the world.
Try explaining to the owner of the pre WW1 H&H double rifle that your CCH'dg had bent the tangs and there's just a small crack at the standing breech.
Faux case colors can be done in a number of ways. Ruger has a propietary process to do their revolvers.
Ithaca used to 'Re-color' their SxS and SBT shotgun frames with a torch and daubed on oil process w/a small brush in their repair shop.
I have a printout of their service memo somewhere on that.
Cold blues will work for small touch ups.
In a factory setting there are coloring systems that use heat and dye combinations to get colors and patterns.
None are very long lasting.
Some of the orig CCH colors can be very wear resistant. Others wearing off very easily.
They seem to fade. Some say sunlight will wipe them easily. Sunlight seems to fade most anything.
Some have the case hardening done by the cycanide process.
This leaves colors and patterns as well as the former. But can usually be picked out from the bone/wood charcoal process if you have some experience with both.
The two patterns and colors look slightly different.
Cyanide case hardening w/colors was a very popular way of doing the work and much easier/faster.
Several US firms used it including Remington on their small parts needing such (mostly on rifles).
Their 'Parker' shotguns made after they aquired that firm were also cyanide case hardened w/colors. The orig Meriden, Ct. Parkers were bone/wood charcoal case colored.
Most of the IJ, Stevens/Savage post WW2 guns were cyanide colored.
AH Fox used cyanide colors on their shotgun actions and parts after WW1.
They shipped the parts over to Fred Heintzelmann in NJ for the work.
Fred & Co would still do gun parts in cyanide colors the last I knew, same as the AHF. Don't know if they still do.
That's where the restoration shops had their period correct cyanide case colors done when needed.
Gee, it looks just like when it left the Fox Factory in Philly!!
Those 2-tone Colt pistol magazine bodys of pre-war vintage got their look from an upside-down mechanized drag run thru a cyanide bath to harden the feed lips.
The charcoal/Furnace bluing process left the already soft magazine body metal still soft in spite of any work hardening from the stamping and shaping procedures.
The bluing was lost from that area in this process leaving the 2-tone look.
In Europe, the cyanide process was and still is used by many of the makers.
An industrial process that has many applications,,not just gun frames.
Cyanide case hardening is for one thing always going to produce that glass hard surface.
A file will not bite.
Wood&Bone charcoal color case hardening can be done with temperature and quench adjustments to produce nice colors, but little or no hardening to the surface.
The part(s) will be soft just like they went into the furnace.
That is one advantage of sorts,,to avoid cracking and warping if that is a problem for the proprietor.
We used to call these 'Soft Colors'.
They looked great, but they wore off very easily. If the gun didn't go back together easily, like some SxS's with Single triggers or Ejectors that were stubborn and needed repeated disassembly/reassembly to make things right,,the colors would already be worn from the high edges of the frame and parts.
Not good.
The 'fix' was to rub a patch dampened with Brownells cold blue (Oxphoblue) all over the frame and parts. That'd recolor the worn areas. Then swab thinned orange shellac over the CCH parts as a sealer/protector.
Just like Factory!
Doing old firearms, each presents it's own list of unk's inclu what is the steel alloy.
Doing brand new production that is not an issue nor is past history of the frame. You don't know what old guns have been thru and it can make a differerence when heating them to 1430F and then quick quenching in a tub of water.
Results are much more repeatable with new mfg and on a production basis if one frame suffers damage it's not the end of the world.
Try explaining to the owner of the pre WW1 H&H double rifle that your CCH'dg had bent the tangs and there's just a small crack at the standing breech.
Faux case colors can be done in a number of ways. Ruger has a propietary process to do their revolvers.
Ithaca used to 'Re-color' their SxS and SBT shotgun frames with a torch and daubed on oil process w/a small brush in their repair shop.
I have a printout of their service memo somewhere on that.
Cold blues will work for small touch ups.
In a factory setting there are coloring systems that use heat and dye combinations to get colors and patterns.
None are very long lasting.
Some of the orig CCH colors can be very wear resistant. Others wearing off very easily.
They seem to fade. Some say sunlight will wipe them easily. Sunlight seems to fade most anything.
I had a Chiappa 92 carbine in 44-40 for a while. It was a pretty rifle but, unlike most, I did not have good luck with it. The extractor quit after about 250 rounds. It didn't break, it just lost it's spring and would no longer hold onto the rim of a case. It would have been an easy fix but getting a replacement from Chiappa proved impossible. I finally gave up after a while and sold the rifle to someone who wanted it anyway. Actually, I think a Winchester extractor from a Model 92 might have worked but I didn't want to spend the money for the real thing. Anyway, I guess my experience was unusual, and I know that happens, but I was not impressed with the rifle or the service.
Baltimoreed11754
Member
I wore out a Rossi 1892 big loop carbine in .45 caliber in a year of hard cowboy action shooting. Returned it to Interarms in Va and got another which I promptly sold and bought a used Marlin 1894. Still running the Marlin [25 years]. But some shooters have good experiences with them so I guess its a **** shoot.
How many rounds did you shoot to wear out that Rossi? My curiosity is getting the better of me.
Baltimoreed11754
Member
I honestly don’t remember but I was shooting multiple monthly matches, 150-200 rds a month plus practice and cycling to help break it in. I eventually started having rounds going under the lifter. I contacted Interarms and they said send it to them. They sent me another rifle and I put it in the local bargain trader and it sold it right away. Put me off of ‘92s. I’ve since bought 2 1894 Marlins and several uberti ‘66 and ‘73 rifles. Also one real ‘73 Winchester.
Last edited:
smoothshooter
Member
Very expensive, though.
