Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L

Special Interests - Groups & Societies => The Winchester Model 1892 => Topic started by: Niederlander on March 01, 2017, 05:56:29 am

Title: Why the 1892?
Post by: Niederlander on March 01, 2017, 05:56:29 am
I love the '92!  After all, it's basically a downsized '86 for pistol cartridges.  I think it's easily the best pistol caliber lever action rifle ever designed.  The original Winchesters are so good you just assume they're going to work every time if they've received any care at all.  Great little rifles!
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Blackpowder Burn on March 01, 2017, 07:13:58 am
While not as slick as a '73, they are undeniably more compact, lighter and stronger.  I have two originals.  One was my great grandfathers saddle ring carbine in 44-40.  The other is somewhat unique.  The action serial number dates to 1898, but it was never built into a rifle until 1996.  It is now a 28" rifle chambered in 32-20, and is the slickest '92 I've ever handled.  It's now my go-to CAS rifle.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: King Medallion on March 01, 2017, 09:17:38 am
Mine is a Rossi pre safety SRC without the ring, my go-to CAS rifle. Been shooting it for almost 20 years, not a single problem.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: 44 centerfire on March 01, 2017, 11:46:07 am
Had a 1917 1892 44WCF saddle ring carbine that I purchased from an importer in N.Jersey that bought the well used 92s from So. Amer.  I got the 92 late 70s. The US importer buffed and blued them and they were listed in some gun magazine for sale. I wanted one real bad and didn't care of the condition. Well, the barrel had pits and shallow lands and a large chamber. I still have a few swelled up 44-40 cases....pain in the a** to reload.

The story was South America bought the new 92s from Winchester without the wood back in the day. Mine had mesquite wood, looked decent....but, early 80s Rossi came out with first 92 copy. So I traded the Winchester for a Interarms 65 in 44 Mag.....Rossi 1892....only caliber that was available at the time. I was thrilled of the trade. Action was very stiff, so I got Steve's Gunz modifacation kit for the 92 Rossi, of which it is now easier to cycle.

Yes, as someone said that it is much lighter than my Navy arms 1873 early copy. Also a sweet carbine. OPPS....my 1873 is made by Euroarms Brescio, Italy......

44 centerfire
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Coffinmaker on March 02, 2017, 04:57:37 pm
The '92 get a lot of shady press.  I don't really understand why.  Anything you want to use in CAS requires a certain amount of tuning to work well for what we do with them (any rifle). 

Before the Short Stroke '73s, the Go-To CAS rifle was the '92.  Cleaned up, adjusted, good springs and the '92 can be very fast indeed.  Only after the advent of the Short Stroke rifle and the insane race for SPEED got into full swing, did the '92 fall into disfavor.  If a shooter is not after the Brass Ring and just desires a reliable and smooth rifle, the '92 is pretty hard to beat.

Coffinmaker
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: treebeard on March 02, 2017, 06:46:56 pm
I have been in love with 1892's since I was a kid and now that I am an old man I've been able to acquire several. They are light and handy and I find them very smooth.  I am not a speed demon so I have not had the jamming problems I heard about. My two favorite ones are a 24 inch rifle 1st year production  now in 44-40 and a late production 25-20 SRC.  Neither are what collectors look for . The SRC has zero finish but an excellent bore and smooth action and costs pennies to reload. The rifle was a rust bucket that when received would not even open for all the crud in the action. I did a total strip and clean and it now functions as designed but lots of patina. The 38-40 bore was hopeless so I had Bobby Hoyt rebore to 44-40 and it is now shoots excellent groups when I do my part.
I have prettier 92's but none more fun than these two.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: PJ Hardtack on March 03, 2017, 01:35:36 pm
If the '92 was good enough for John Wayne, It's good enough for me. He's the guy that made it famous even if it wasn't the right rifle for the era of the movie.

Then there was Chuck Connors in the "Rifleman", Steve McQueen and how many others .... ?
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Isom on March 08, 2017, 12:58:34 pm
I'm not that much in love with the 92 ,,,,,,,,,, I just like a "good" deal. I've 3, 32-20,, 38-40 ,,, 44-40, originals. One Rossi SRC in 44-40. They are great rifles, but to me, they're a pain to take apart and put together. I can do a cursory strip to clean but I'm not going much past that. All are rifles, 24'', the 44-40 is round barrel, the other two have octagon barrels. The 38-40 I got from a guy that was carrying it around in a gun show. Asked what caliber, we talked price ,,,,,,, great price. I was so happy with it, I forgot I was on my motorcycle. I'm thinking if I can find a cheap scabbard and some rope, I'll be good to go. Luckily my friend came by and he took it home for me. They're all good shooters, and the barrels are good. Foul a little, but no big deal. I only shoot smokeless in them. They're all good for smokeless. Well, that's my 92 story.
Shoot safe,
Isom
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Blair on March 08, 2017, 02:30:44 pm
I don't care much for the '92's.
This is not to say they are not good firearms, it is to say they were over used in most movies and films. I grew to dislike them for this reason.
They came about very late within the Cowboy time period considering the other options of the historically firearms correct for the day.
Remove the forearm, and a little yellow paint on the receiver and you could call it a Henry, even if the time period was set in 1843!
My best,
 Blair
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Isom on March 10, 2017, 11:56:59 am
Blair,
I call it a 1892 Henry  :)
Isom
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Buck Stinson on March 10, 2017, 10:37:01 pm
I have been a model 92 fan for many years.  I bought my first .25-20 carbine when I  was thirteen years old.  In the 54 years since, I've  owned around 30 other '92 rifles and carbines.  I still have 8 carbines in all four calibers and 1 rifle in .38-40.  In my opinion, they are as smooth as any lever action Winchester ever made and I find them to be extremely accurate.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Niederlander on March 11, 2017, 05:49:38 am
Buck, you bring up an interesting point.  When I first started reading about lever actions, all the writers talked about how inaccurate they were.  I can't speak for carbines, because I haven't tested more than one or two, but I've found the rifles, regardless of model, to be VERY accurate.  I'm not saying they'll keep up with target rifles, but all of mine will shoot clover leafs at fifty yards.  It would be interesting if there was a way to mount a scope on them to see just how accurate they really are.  I think they're limited by the sights much more than by any supposed intrinsic lack of accuracy.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Scattered Thumbs on March 11, 2017, 08:30:34 am
Lighter and stronger than the 1873. Designed by JMB. For those who would carry it back in the day it's hard to beat.

Now for Cowboy action shooting, thats a different thing.

My answer. Why not.

PS. Have a Rossi 24" in .44 Mag. Use it for hunting.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Buck Stinson on March 11, 2017, 10:53:22 am
Like most other Winchester lever actions, a tang peep sight makes a big difference  as far as accuracy is concerned.  I have several original 73's and 76's, some of which are mounted with original Vernier  mid-range tang sights or long range graduated peep sights.  From my experience, they definitely improve accuracy on these rifles.  A standard Lyman adjustable tang peep would work great on a '92 carbine or rifle.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Niederlander on March 11, 2017, 12:55:38 pm
I've used them and I would agree they help a lot.  I've found, though, when I'm using a rifle at relatively close range the barrel sights are a lot faster when I don't have to be real precise.  For hunting, when the first shot is the only one that usually matters, the tang sights are great.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: PJ Hardtack on March 11, 2017, 08:18:38 pm
True, but growing up watching all the great 'B' western and TV duster shows, I fell in love with the '92.

But I feel the way you describe about '73s with short stroke kits. They just ain't Cowboy and neither are the people that use them with powder puff loads.

This is not to say they are not good firearms, it is to say they were over used in most movies and films. I grew to dislike them for this reason.
They came about very late within the Cowboy time period considering the other options of the historically firearms correct for the day.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Niederlander on March 11, 2017, 09:19:28 pm
Wow!  You opened a can of worms there!  (Personally, I agree with your point on the short stroked '73's, etc.)  Back when I was a member of SASS (#934), people would get all bent out of shape at someone using a '92, or mouse fart loads, etc., because people didn't do it that way back in the "cowboy days".  Those same people would get at least as upset with me if I pointed out no one at that time shot using the modified Weaver stance and cocking with the off hand, either.  We tend to get awfully selective sometimes in what we consider "authentic".  (Not sure what my point is in all this.  I just really like '92's!)
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: PJ Hardtack on March 12, 2017, 11:35:08 am
Yes, it is odd that even back in the day when .44s and .45s were King and we shot REAL loads, most of us shot with two hands ala IPSC. I did as I came into CAS as an IPSC burn out. Then things changed and CAS became IPSC in Cowboy boots, minus the power factor.

Wasn't long that I began to shoot Duelist style when it dawned on me that was the "Cowboy Way".

Happily, our club still favours the .44s and .45s and most of us are shooting Duelist.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Baltimore Ed on March 12, 2017, 01:31:20 pm
I've never shot cas any way but duelist. Is there another way?
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: PJ Hardtack on March 12, 2017, 04:11:45 pm
Nope.

Back in the day when the rule book fit into a shirt pocket, under "Equipment Eligibility", it stated - "If John Wayne would use it - it's OK".
That was in the book long after only lip service was paid to the statement. I presume that applied to shooting style as well.

I recall being accused of "gaming" when I declared (yes, we had to declare our loads) that I was shooting 25 grs BP in .44 Spl. cases from my .44 Magnum Ruger Vaquero in the era of one gun.
I got sideways looks for shooting my Marlin 94 carbine in .357, so I bought a B-92 in .44 mag and that was barely acceptable, but more so than the .357 chambering.

Now if someone wants to pay for it, he can shoot several short, non-authentic cartridges in both rifle and pistol. The times and the guns have changed.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Coal Creek Griff on March 12, 2017, 07:11:09 pm
Similar to Blair, a '92-style rifle was lower on my wish list in part because of the number of times it appeared inappropriately in western movies and in part because of the late date of the design.  I recently ended up with a Rossi '92 carbine in 44-40 (pre-safety, blued), however.  I can't really afford originals of very many guns for which reproductions are made, but I got this idea of having at least one example of the Winchester 19th century lever action rifles starting with the Henry.  They are almost all reproductions, but I now have a Henry, an 1866 carbine, an 1873 short rifle (all in 44 WCF), an 1876 carbine (45-75), an 1886 rifle (45-70), the new 1892 and two original 1894's (a 32-40 octagonal barrel rifle and a 30-30 carbine).  Now I'm saving my money for an original 1895.  It seems that decent non-collectable shooters are relatively inexpensive in this model.  No doubt before I have the money saved up, someone will make a movie where the hero carries one and the prices will skyrocket, but I hope not.

Anyway, I have found the little Rossi to be a decent rifle so far.  It was barely used, even though it was an older production.  I did a little polishing, but it was actually not too bad when I got it.  I put 100 rounds through it the other day and it gobbled them up just fine.  I wasn't really shooting for accuracy, but I had no trouble hitting those tin cans at 30 yards!

I think that some of the springs are a bit too stiff and I'll probably replace them, but I'm pretty impressed with the overall quality considering that it cost maybe 1/4 what an original might.  OF COURSE I'd like to trade most of those reproductions for good originals, but I'm in that financial position where I would have to choose maybe two or three guns if I wanted originals, but I can have "all of the above" if I settle for reproductions.

CC Griff
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Niederlander on March 12, 2017, 08:02:39 pm
I've got the same collection, but fortunately, I started it before marriage, kids, etc.  In other words, when I had more disposable income for such things!  My reproductions are the Henry, 1866, and 1876.  The rest are originals.  To give an idea of how things have gone up,   my original 1873, 1886, 1894, and 1895, all rifles, cost me right at $2500 put together!  Ah, for the good ol' days!
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: PJ Hardtack on March 13, 2017, 11:30:54 am
In the not too distant future, the 'kids' of today will be referring to these times as "the good ol' days" when good original Winchesters could be had for as little as $3500.

I do sincerely hope that the price of Colt Pythons will drop through the floor after the "Living Dead" fades from memory.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Tuolumne Lawman on May 03, 2017, 11:24:21 pm
I just picked up another 92 Rossi in 44-40.  I started CAS with one in 444-40 in 1994, and it served me well until I got bit by the 1860 Henry bug a couple years later.  My SASS/CAS persona is an ex-military Law dawg in the 1870s, so I have open tops, an 1860 Henry and a mule eared double for my main match guns.  

As far as a versatile rifle goes, the 1892 wins hands down. A 44-40 loaded for CAS with 200 grain RNFP and Trail Boss for my back up CAS rifle, or loaded for hunting with a .428 JSP over 23.5 grains of IMR 2400 for 1950 fps for whacking deer and black bear.  Mine will probably go camping with me loaded with the HV pills I do (for Marlin and 1892 ONLY).

As far as not being a real "Cowboy gun" that's BS.  they were used in the Johnson County war, and were getting very common in the era of Butch Cassidy and the Wild Bunch.  The Oklahoma territory was untamed until the 1920s or later.

Additional: Wikipedia list 13 major old west gunfights between 1892 and 1918.  Daltons, Doolins, Brooks, Mc Farlin, etc.  I would lay odds that 1892s were in more than a few of them.  IIRC, there were several 1892s listed as seized in the Johnson County War.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: PJ Hardtack on May 04, 2017, 10:48:21 am
It took a while for the '86 and '92 to be accorded due respect as "Cowboy" guns on this forum.

The only rifles that I question are the modern Henrys with the .22 type mag tube. That's a bit of a stretch for me.

There was a time when the SASS Rule Book, under 'Equipment Eligibility' stated: "If John Wayne would use it, it's OK." That pretty much summed it up.

I wonder what JW would say about short stroke kits and all the other gadgetry in common use today?
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Tuolumne Lawman on May 04, 2017, 11:30:44 am
Recently, I was at a match and asked a shooter if his rather modern rig "would pass the John Wayne Test?"  He asked me what was that!  He had no clue.  Same guy asked me why I shot an unmodified Uberti 1860 Henry when it is so darn slow.  I told him that I don't care about speed and scores.  I just shoot to have fun and honor the Old west and the men that forged it.  He looked at me like I had a third eye or Unicorn horn in the middle of my forehead!
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Slamfire on May 04, 2017, 12:01:15 pm
I'm with ya',,,i have a older model,,ROSSI,,44/40,,stock,,just polished centain areas,( the loading gate ,,sharp!!),shoot's to POA,,CAS loads for now,,going to load ,,up to 7.5gr,ww231,,for rifle,,have 2, 1875 outlaw's,,44/40,,,,work's for me!!!! " Just be true to your self ".





 "SMOKE"M if'a GOTUM.,,,,HOOTMIX.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Coffinmaker on May 04, 2017, 02:40:21 pm
PJ,
AH, JW wouldn't care.  He was an actor.  He used whatever gun the prop department handed him.  Only a few of his "movie" guns were his personal guns.

Tuolumne,
Unmodified Henry??  If I might be so bold, you would do well to change out your lever side springs and the Main Spring before extensive use.  The OEM springs will cause undue wear on the bearing parts.  Changing the Main Spring will also result in a much more user friendly rifle.

May the Fourth be with You

Coffinmaker
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Tuolumne Lawman on May 04, 2017, 06:17:04 pm
CM. Yep stock. I don't shoot enough to worry about it ::). I'll be dead before it wears out. LOL
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: PJ Hardtack on May 04, 2017, 08:02:55 pm
Of course, but you missed the point.

Wayne shot movie blanks, but his guns were likely stock. I don't think he would have thought much of powder puff .38s and a two hand hold on pistols (read IPSC in Cowboy boots minus the power factor).


PJ,
AH, JW wouldn't care.  He was an actor.  He used whatever gun the prop department handed him.  Only a few of his "movie" guns were his personal guns.



Coffinmaker
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Tuolumne Lawman on May 04, 2017, 08:26:28 pm
Funny, the closer it gets to getting the 92 in 44WCF, the more excited I get about shooting it in matches!  I have about 275 rounds of brass, powder, a LEE 4 die set with factory crimp die (an absolute necessity with 44-40), Trail Boss, and primers.  I also have a 5-pack of the Cheyenne Pioneer cartridge box 44 WCF boxes.  All I need to do is stop at the LGS and pick up a 500 box of Bear Creek 200 grain lead RNFP .428s.

I have a feeling my Henry will sit out more than a few matches! ;D
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Gabriel Law on May 05, 2017, 05:09:49 pm
Coffinmaker:  can you suggest a source for the springs of which you speak?  I have Uberti Henry - love it - but I'll change the springs if it will make the rifle better.

GL
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Coffinmaker on May 06, 2017, 05:27:10 pm
Gabriel,

There exist two sources of really nice Lever Side Springs.  I personally like SlixSprings.  They do require careful fitting.  Also "Whisper Springs" a product of "The Smith Shop."  They are both intended to be used in a rifle with some action work.  If the rifle is chambered in 45 Colt, I strongly suggest modifying the Carrier Block Arm for Positive Slam Down.  Bottleneck cases run clean enough a grungy carrier block is seldom a problem.

Main Springs are available from "The Smith Shop" and "Slick Magic."  

Just changing these three springs will result in a marked improvement in serviceability.  OEM lever side springs cause an awful lot of unnecessary wear on the Lever Cam and the Carrier Block Arm.  Your rifle will love you.

Coffinmaker

PS:  With a lighter Main Spring, I also suggest reducing the Firing Pin Return Spring.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Gabriel Law on May 06, 2017, 05:47:02 pm
Thanks Coffinmaker:  I'll GOOGLE them and see if they can send to Canada.  I appreciate your help.  It's hard to imagine liking my Henry more than I already do, but I'm willing to take the chance.

My original '92 Winchester is also in 44 WCF and it is so sweet to shoot.  There's no new left on the old girl, but she sure runs smooth.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Gabriel Law on May 13, 2017, 09:24:03 pm
Well, I called the Smith Shop, talked to a nice fellow there who took my order of whisper springs, mainspring, and pin return spring.He said to send him the money when I get the parts and am happy with them.  Hard to fathom in this day and age.
So thanks guys, for the great advice.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Gabriel Law on May 15, 2017, 05:05:05 pm
Spring kit arrived this morning from The Smith Shop...installed new whisper springs, mainspring and firing pin return spring.  The mainspring is so soft that I wondered if it would set off a primer, but surprise, surprise!  The action of my Henry is very soft and smooth now.  Thanks again for the great advice.
Title: Re: Why the 1892?
Post by: Coffinmaker on May 15, 2017, 05:15:45 pm
TA DA.  ;D

Coffinmaker   ::)