Why not a Puma 1892???

[Deadeye Dick]

Hee Ya! Can that man shoot!!!
Deadeye Dick

[RRio]

As far as outrunning one, I disagree with that also. I would like to see a '66 or '73 do this:

http://www.riflemansrifle.com/video/original_demo.html

The only way the '66 and '73 can outrun a '92 is because of short-stroke kits.

My apologies, Camille.

Actually, I stand corrected. A '73 can outrun a '92. But I really doubt that a stock '73 could. Check this out, go to 2nd place "Rifles" :

http://www.jspublications.net/records/SantaFeRiverStanRifle204.wmv

Totally awesome!

[Camille Eonich]

Rawhide we're going to have to agree to disagree.  All the '92 that I have seen end up stove piping at some time or another, or not feeding or throwing entire rounds out as the carrier comes up.  They weren't designed for straight walled cartridges at all.


A short stroke kit doesn't make as much difference in a '66 or a '73 as an action job does.  Even out of the box the action isn't as long as the action on the '92.  There's a reason that the top shooters shoot '73s and '66s.  We have a couple of new shooters now that went the '92 route.  I want to cry for them at every match.  The latest one may get through 2 stages a match without having to ground his jammed up '92.  One newer shooter just recently thanked me for talking him out of buying a '92 after seeing all the trouble that the other guys were having.  I wish that I had listened as well as he did because I have a completely useless rifle sitting in my safe because of my hard headedness.  At least useless for CAS.

Whet Leather had the most reliable '92 that I have ever seen but as he got faster and faster the '92 got less and less reliable and cost him more and more time in jams.


Rio, I don't guess that you have been looking at the world records being set over on Doc's sight. I would bet a lot of money that there isn't a '92 anywhere that could ever beat those times.  I would also bet that even if those rifles being used in the records weren't short stroked but had a good action job on them the difference in times would be unnoticeable.

[Advertising]

[RRio]

Rawhide we're going to have to agree to disagree.  All the '92 that I have seen end up stove piping at some time or another, or not feeding or throwing entire rounds out as the carrier comes up.  They weren't designed for straight walled cartridges at all.

I agree that we are going to have to agree to disagree. (Jesus, that sounds like something out of a movie!  ) In all the years that I have used my '92s, I have never had a "stovepipe". Honestly.

A short stroke kit doesn't make as much difference in a '66 or a '73 as an action job does.

They must, or folks would not be paying the prices they are, for them. Why dump a couple hundred $ in a gun?

Rio, I don't guess that you have been looking at the world records being set over on Doc's sight. I would bet a lot of money that there isn't a '92 anywhere that could ever beat those times.  I would also bet that even if those rifles being used in the records weren't short stroked but had a good action job on them the difference in times would be unnoticeable.

I know I can't come close to those guys, but when my son comes home from Wyotech, I'll have him video me with my Puma, and a timer if I can get ahold of one.

All I am saying is you can not rule '92s out. There was a lot of past EOT champs that used them, and some that are looking at them again.

 

[Camille Eonich]

I agree that we are going to have to agree to disagree. (Jesus, that sounds like something out of a movie!  ) In all the years that I have used my '92s, I have never had a "stovepipe". Honestly.
 

They must, or folks would not be paying the prices they are, for them. Why dump a couple hundred $ in a gun?

I know I can't come close to those guys, but when my son comes home from Wyotech, I'll have him video me with my Puma, and a timer if I can get ahold of one.

All I am saying is you can not rule '92s out. There was a lot of past EOT champs that used them, and some that are looking at them again.

 

You can get an action job and the short stroke for right at $200 from Cody.  Just the action job is not that much less.  The short stroke makes the gun more enjoyable to use and run for people with smaller hands like me.  People like me are the ones that get the most advantage from a the short stroke.  There used to be a thread on the SASS wire where times had been compared with the same rifle and same shooter before and after the short stroke kit and the difference was in the hundreths of a second.  When you get to the point that the top 20 at EoT are at though .01 can add up.  The top shooters do it for that .01 second per stage.


I know a lot of EoT champions and shoot with them on a weekly basis and I don't know of any that would even consider a '92.  Heck let's write China Camp and see if he wants to go back to shooting his.   I bet that you will hear a resounding HELL NO.


However, there are a lot of top shooters going back to double barrels.

Oh and honestly, I have never seen anyone with a '92 get through a whole match without some type of problem.  Never.

[Arcey]

Y’all skooze me, I try ta stay outtah these things. But I’ve been followin’.

Cammy, I’ve been thru several shoots without a problem with my old, retired’ 92. I’ve seen Bathwater, opps, Badwater Bill do the same with his. But if ya look at his ‘n mine yer gonna see bent levers from where we hit ‘em so hard. Yer hand gets kinda sore by the end of the day. Whet wanted it bad ‘n I applaud the kid for the level he’s reached. He got to where he was outrunnin’ his ’92. On what he was makin’ the ’73 was surely a dear sacrifice. 

Rio, my friend. The first link ya submitted is of a trick shot shooter. I don’t doubt he’s excellent at it. The hip shot thing he does at the beginnin’ I can do as fast with what I shoot. The balloon trick thing I wouldn’t pretend to be able to do without practice ‘n knowin’ what loads he was usin’.

The big loop levers are rare among cowboy shooters. In ten years of local ‘n larger shoots, locals at the rate of at least two a month, I’ve seen one. That pard wasn’t competitive in the least. He just wanted to play. That’s all I do since my back went flooey.  Won’t run these days ‘n I’m real careful bendin’ on transitions. With the big loops ya get killed with lost motion.

The second takes me straight to a vid clip of someone doin’ a ten round dump with a ’73.

To a competitive shooter ‘out of the box’ means little. They’ll spend whatever they have to for the best equipment they can get. By ‘n large they’re toggle links with a few Marlins thrown in. Least ways that’s the way it is on the east coast.

A look in the guncarts at the shoots will tell what the most popular rifles are.

[RRio]

Rio, my friend. The first link ya submitted is of a trick shot shooter. I don’t doubt he’s excellent at it. The hip shot thing he does at the beginnin’ I can do as fast with what I shoot.

I realize that. Arcey. What I was trying to demonstrate was the '92 is capable of speed without bobbles. And that may have not been the best video to demonstrate that. Perhaps this video would have better demonstrated my point:

http://stevesgunz.com/SightSG.htm   (click on the banner that says "Home of Rossi 92 Specialist")

The balloon trick thing I wouldn’t pretend to be able to do without practice ‘n knowin’ what loads he was usin’.

I'd be willing to bet he's using the same kind of blanks that Cowboy Mounted Shooters use.

The big loop levers are rare among cowboy shooters.

I've got one on a trapper. I would rather throw rocks at the targets, than use that!     It's a real PITA!  (but it looks cool on the wall!  )

The second takes me straight to a vid clip of someone doin’ a ten round dump with a ’73.

Yeah, Cammie was right about that, I think it was off of Doc's site of record holders. Again, just to show how fast a short stroke '73 could run. Quite frankly, it looks like it could smoke a '92. 

Anyhoo, I still love my '92s, and...     ...I'm done now. 

[REV. MAC DUNCAN]

Cool!
It is a pity I cannot make similar on mine!

[Arcey]

Anyhoo, I still love my '92s, and...     ...I'm done now.

In my way of lookin’ at things that’s all that matters………..

[Camille Eonich]

In my way of lookin’ at things that’s all that matters………..

Yep!

[texasgeneral]

 ;)I have a Rossi SRC in .357 that I have had for years. Bought it at a feed store for $159. Hnadles real well and is accurate. it is much lighter, round barrel, that the current Pumas. I like it and intend to use in in CAS.

[Fiddler Green]

I have a Puma (.45 LC) that I use for CAS. It didn't cost me a fortune,  it shoots where I aim it, I've never had a stovepipe (yet) and it'll hit stuff at 100 yards with BP loads.  What more can you ask for?

[Professor Honeyfuggler]

This is an old thread, but maybe this will spruce it up a little. Besides, you never know when another new member will wander down these back alleys like I did.

I started shooting CAS with borrowed rifles, to see how I liked the game before I made the investment. And I watched others carefully to see what they were shooting and how things went for them. Those early experiences lead me to choose a '92 Chiappa Puma (after a false start with a Rossi '92) that I'm happy with. At this point, at least, it's the right choice for me.

Why did I choose the '92? First, because I noticed that in general '73 shooters had more problems than '92 shooters. There were more of them, to be sure, but even taking that into account, I observed that the '73 shooters were a small army of tinkerers, with lots of screwdrivers and funny tools, always having issues and fiddling with their guns, whereas the '92 shooters pretty much just got up and did their shooting. For my own part I managed to jam up every model I tried equally wel, until an old hand taught me to stop babying them and to cycle the action fully, and with gusto, yet smoothly. Even though that sounds contradictory, I learned to do that, and a lot of the problems went away. He opined that most of the time a lever gun stovepipes, it's due to operator error, not the equipment.

I also learned from experimentation that small details like cartridge length and bullet shape in the cartridges made big differences in the reliability of different guns, especially shooting .38 Special in a .357 rifle. And I tried everything I could get my hands on. Took up handloading so I could try different combinations that I couldn't buy off the shelf (and also to have real lead bullet cartridges to shoot when none were available at the dealers). One day another old hand showed me the "lever action rifle" .38 Special loads he shoots (.38 special brass loaded bullet high to nearly .357 overall length), and it all clicked in. Most factory loads are a bit shorter than the max design length allowed by the industry standard, which is 1.55" For example I just miked two name brands of .38 Special round nose, and one averages 1.46" long and the other is 1.49" That's about 1/16" shorter than they could be. And that 1/16" makes them feed less reliably in a lever gun, especially in one chambered for the longer (1.59") .357 cartridge. That's one of the secrets of why the older model "yellow boys" chambered for .38 Special seem like more relaible guns, as long as you disregard all the other issues they have. They're using length appropriate loads, so they load smoothly..

The second biggie is bullet shape. Flat nose round points are traditional, and seem to be the most common for CAS lever guns, but flat point conical (or truncated cone) seem to feed a little easier, and factory cartridges with that shape, such as the Black Hills Cowboy line, seem to enjoy a good reputation. I'm no Elmer Keith, but I've noticed that these little things do add up. I decided not to load all the way up to .357 length because it limits magazine capacity in my gun to 8 or 9 rounds, but loading to 1.54" with flat top conicals works like a charm.

And to give full disclosure, I'm not a high speed "gamer" and never will be. I just love the cameraderie and the "bang and clang" of CAS shooting. And I'm mostly shooting in competition with myself. I concentrate on trying to shoot clean matches and trying to betteri my previous stage times, so absolute maximum top speed is not even on my radar. Minimum equipment hassle on the range is.

So that's why I chose the '92.
 
And as always, your mileage may vary.

[Camille Eonich]

Why did I choose the '92? First, because I noticed that in general '73 shooters had more problems than '92 shooters. There were more of them, to be sure, but even taking that into account, I observed that the '73 shooters were a small army of tinkerers, with lots of screwdrivers and funny tools, always having issues and fiddling with their guns, whereas the '92 shooters pretty much just got up and did their shooting.

My experience has been exactly the opposite.

[Tensleep]

My experience has been exactly the opposite.

Having owned 2 92s, I am of the same opinion as Camille.

92s can be big trouble.

[Deadeye Dick]

Never owned a 92, but my 73 is a joy to shoot and I think one of the puritest lever guns out there.
Deadeye Dick

[Professor Honeyfuggler]

And that's why we're not all out there with identical rigs. 

Hey, at least we breathed a little life into a dusty corner...

[Buffalo Creek Law Dog]

I bought a 92 in .357 and it shoots perfectly with OAL being above 1.5.  I tried .38 with an OAL of around 1.4 and they had a tendency to stovepipe.  Went to .357 above 1.5 OAL with 158 gr SWC = flawless.

[Professor Honeyfuggler]

By a complete coincidence, as i was walking out of the range today, i noticed from across the room that they had a lever-action rifle I hadn't seen before on the used rack. Could it be a '92 ? I practically leaped across the room to look at it, and by George it was... a real one... a '92 Winchester! It had obviously been rode hard and put away wet many, many times. The stock had no finish left on it, just crud and lots of deep scratches (patina, I believe they call it in the antique busiiness), plus somebody's initials crudely carved in it on both sides. And there was no bluing on the action, just banged up white steel. And the 20" octagon barrel had some rust spots.

But it was a real, by God, 100 year old Winchester '92, in .32-20, somebody's trusty old varmint gun, probably traded in by a grandson on a new deer rifle. The insides were clean and well oiled, and action was real nice. Not quite as slick as my Chiappa clone, but real nice. Too bad I have no use for a .32-20.

And then again, some folks say '92s don't last... 

[lethal larry]

I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you on this my dear Camille.  

I've been shooting Rossi-made '92s since my very first one in 1978. I've never had any problems with any of the 7 or 8 that I have owned. The LSI Puma .357/ .38 that I use regularly, is stock straight out of the box, no action work at all, and smooth as silk.
The other that I use regularly is an EMF Hartford '92 SRC in .45 Colt, again, stock straight out of the box, no action work at all, and almost as smooth as the Puma. I have never had any problems with either one.

As far as outrunning one, I disagree with that also. I would like to see a '66 or '73 do this:

http://www.riflemansrifle.com/video/original_demo.html




Neat video! Thanks!
The only way the '66 and '73 can outrun a '92 is because of short-stroke kits.