Can a Rossi R92 45colt handle "ruger only" loads?

CraigC said:

Yep. Folks run their custom five-shot Rugers at 50-55,000psi without issue.

Click to expand...

I wonder if they're using large rifle primers rather than pistol primers for the thicker cups. Are they grooving the primer pocket too? Regardless, Bill_Rights was referring to 60,000 psi + and possibly up to SAAMI's MAP rating of 65,000 psi. That's a lot more pressure.

Nope, usually CCI 350's. Large rifle primers are too long.

As CraigC noted Dick Casull drove 250-260gr bullets 2000 FPS with his 454.I have read that this was "the goal" he had set out with.
I know Craig agrees with me that while it's a neat feet it's totally unnecessary as a 300gr bullet at 1200fps will shoot through any game in north america.

I know Craig agrees with me that while it's a neat feet it's totally unnecessary as a 300gr bullet at 1200fps will shoot through any game in north america.

Click to expand...

Except for that pesky subject of external ballistics...

I know Craig agrees with me that while it's a neat feat it's totally unnecessary as a 300gr bullet at 1200fps will shoot through any game in north america.

Click to expand...

Yep! I'd want a little more bullet weight for grizzlies but that's about it.

Casull developed his load/cartridge back in the `50's and `60's when shooters were terribly obsessed with velocity. Almost as bad as they are now. We've learned a lot since then and owe a debt to Casull for sure. We've proven that bullets need not expand to kill reliably, which Elmer Keith taught us back in the 1930's. Cast bullets have really come into their own in the last 20yrs. More importantly, we've learned that there's not much reason to push a good cast bullet over 1200-1300fps (within handgun velocity ranges) and that sectional density has a FAR greater impact upon penetration than velocity. So these days, we (mostly) understand that the .454's velocity does little more than flatten trajectory. Most folks can't properly utilize that trajectory to make 150yd shots with a revolver so it's really unnecessary for most of us. We particularly don't need the .454 if we handload for the .45Colt, especially for a strong gun like the 92.

Except for that pesky subject of external ballistics

Click to expand...

Have you actually done the math on what that gets you

Have you actually done the math on what that gets you

Click to expand...

Yes, I have. Have you?
It's not huge, but it's enough that you can't make the blanket statement that it's "totally unnecessary".

Rossi convert 45LC to 454Casull

Hi all, I was reading this post and I just had to get into it.


The best way to find out if you can convert a 45LC to a 454Casull is to check the part numbers from Rossi and compare the part numbers.
If they are the same then there is no difference in metal and heat treating for the different calibres.
The receivers, locking bars and bolts are probably all made out of the same 4140 steel with the same heat treating.
If they didn't do this it would be very dangerous down the road when people start buying off the shelf components from firearm parts suppliers.

Marlin and Winchester do not use 4140 (chrome moly steel)for their lever action receivers.
I think they have used Ductile Iron and 1137 in the past.
Its the 92 design and the use of 4140 that allows Rossi to have very strong lever action rifles.
If someone is willing to sit on the phone with Braztech for a hour this issue could be resolved.
Best Regards

Many, many posts over the years about hot-rodding the 45 Colt in one gun or another.

I guess I'm the only crazy guy in the world who doesn't see a need to jack the 45 Colt beyond its intended purpose? If a 250 at 1,000 (easy from a rifle) doesn't do it I'll get a bigger rifle. Call me kooky.

Rossi/Braztech parts, parts suppliers and part #s

muskoka,

Good points

The best way to find out if you can convert a 45LC to a 454Casull is to check the part numbers from Rossi and compare the part numbers.
If they are the same then there is no difference in metal and heat treating for the different calibres.

Click to expand...

That would work for every part except the barrel, which I assume has the firing chamber machined into the receiver end of it, which therefore absolutely must be two distinct part numbers for the .45LC and .454 Casull barrels.

Has anyone ever bought individual Rossi M92 rifle parts? I have never noted them at, for ex., Brownells (but never looked too hard or called a tech there, either). I don't get the feeling that there is much of a supply chain for M92 parts. I guess the right gunsmith might know. I have another reason to call Steve Young (AKA Nate Kiowa Jones) at Stevz Gunz (or whatever). I will ask him. Then let you know what he says....

But I just wondered if anyone on this forum had actually tried to buy parts from Braztech?

I did check with a gunsmith who works on Rossi's and he advised the only parts with different numbers are Guides, carrier and loading gate and of course as you mentioned the barrel would be a different part number.
If this is true, its good to at least know, that whatever rossi you own it is very very strong. 45LC would shoot forever.

I would absolutely NOT recommend anybody convert a .45Colt to a .454 for multiple reasons. Part numbers are irrelevant. It's the barrel that contains the pressure and that is most certainly going to be different. It's the receiver that must withstand the backthrust. Part numbers for the receiver? Probably not. The .45Colt typically has grossly oversized chambers so a .454 reamer probably won't clean up a .45Colt chamber and you wouldn't want to be running a 65,000psi cartridge in an oversized chamber cut from a generous .45Colt. I seriously doubt ANY reputable gunsmith would do such a conversion.

A handloader doesn't need the .454 anyway.

If a 250 at 1,000 (easy from a rifle) doesn't do it I'll get a bigger rifle.

Click to expand...

Or drive that bullet 1000fps faster and double your effective range.

Yes I agree about converting 45LC to 454, dont do it.

I was just trying to find out if the receiver and locking bars are common on all versions.
For example, can a Rossi 44 Mag handle the 45,000 to 50,000 PSI Buffalo Bore +P+ loads?

There are no 60,000psi Buffalo Bore .44Mag loads. Such loads would be suicide for Buffalo Bore. Even the .454 is typically not loaded over 55,000psi.

CraigC is correct. According to SAAMI, the chamber dimensions for .454 Casull are much tighter than the SAMMI specs for .45 Colt:

[Images Deleted]

I had to remove these images because they are protected by Copyright. They can be downloaded by going to the SAAMI site.

Dan

OK, OK - "Uncle"!

OK, I agree that it is a bad idea to convert .45LC to .454 Casull. Bergmen's SAAMI dimension are pretty sobering. If I read correctly, the cartridge diameter is given in two places, 1) near the base/rim after any deformation from that is healed and 2) near the bullet crimp after any deformation from that is healed. Again, if I read correctly, the .45 LC firing chamber is bigger in diameter, as follows:

Location: ......Near Base .......... Near Crimp... Case Taper
.45 LC.......... 0.4862" ............. 0.4806" ....... 0.0056"
.454 Casull.... 0.4797" ............. 0.4779" ....... 0.0018"
Difference: ... 0.0065" ............. 0.0027" (.45LC is LARGER)

These (above) are from the bottom panel of each cartridge's SAAMI drawing. Apparently the top drawing panel for each cartridge gives a "CYL" dimension, which I take to be a nominal or average diameter. These are:

.45 LC.......... 0.4800"
.454 Casull.... 0.4775"
Difference: ... 0.0025" (.45LC is LARGER)

As I read it, all diameter dimensions are toleranced to allow for up to 0.004" larger than given. So the .45 LC chamber diameter could be as much as 0.0065" larger in diameter than a minimum-diameter .454 Casull chamber. And the minimum diameter of the cartridge casing could be even smaller than that, by how much? Another 0.004"? (That call-out of the tolerancing is an odd one, if my presumed interpretation is correct...)

OBSERVATIONS:
a) The .45 LC case taper is steeper than the .454 Casull's
b) If we take the 0.004" larger-diameter tolerance as some sort of a low-side indication of how much the case expands during explosion of the powder, then it might be reasonable to speculate that a .454 Casull case will expand to seal/grip in a .45 LC chamber. (This may strain and work-harder a .454 Casull casing faster than would happen in a true .454 Casull chamber...)

I have a .454 Casull Rossi M92. I might be able to measure what Rossi/Braztech is cutting these chamber diameters to. All I have is dial calipers, however, not really the correct measurement tool... But if it can reach into the receiver/chamber port, I will report the inside diameter of the rim-end of the chamber.

The problem is the generous dimensions the industry has accepted for the .45Colt. Manufacturers run them on the large end of the range to ensure reliability. When custom gunsmith's build a .45Colt, they cut a tight .480" chamber. Which does not present a problem with factory loads or .45 dies. Unless they're loaded with incorrect .454" bullets. This is one reason why I prefer the .44's over the .45Colt. They tend to run right out of the box.

Rossi stopped manufacturing their .454 Casull version because there were too many failures. Too many guns came back and it was proven that it just couldn't handle it longterm. Don't do it. You'll just ruin your gun.

So, WardenWolf, where did you hear this? How do you know this?

Rossi stopped manufacturing their .454 Casull version because there were too many failures. Too many guns came back...

Click to expand...

WardenWolf said:

Rossi stopped manufacturing their .454 Casull version because there were too many failures. Too many guns came back and it was proven that it just couldn't handle it longterm. Don't do it. You'll just ruin your gun.

Click to expand...

What is the substantiation of this? Is there anything official anywhere that states this?

This is important since I have a new Rossi 92 in .454 Casull that I am just getting started with. If this were indeed the case I would think that Rossi would issue some sort of formal notice.

BTW, Rossi still lists two Model 92 .454 Casull models on their website (R92-68011, R92-68001).

Dan

I also would like to see the supporting evidence for such a claim.

I think because there aren't any for sale anywhere, people think they stopped making them. Truth is they can't make them fast enough!

If they have stopped making them there sure are a lot of them on their website and in their current catalog.

I just called BrazTech this morning with questions about my Rossi 92, from the Interarms days, and they sent me to this guy for warranty work and parts information.

http://www.mmgunsmithing.com/

They may have fixed them and resumed production, then. They pulled them from their lineup for a while.

(I think) I heard, from a dealer on GunBroker.com who once sold me one, that the .454 Casull M92s were taken out of production when the Rossi/Puma/Legacy tooling was being moved to a Braztech factory. All inside Brazil, I guess. I think the association with Braztech (Taurus?) happened a few years ago and may have been a buy-out of the former owners of Rossi/Puma/Legacy (but wasn't Legacy always only the USA importer anyway, not an actual manufacturer?).

Anyway, this "explanation" doesn't really explain much... How could the .45 LC M92 be kept in plentiful production while the .454 ground to a halt? Wouldn't most of the factory tooling be the same? From here, my mind spirals into speculation. If there had ever been doubt about the strength of the Rossi .454 Casull receiver/chamber under prolonged 65,000 psi firings, and there appears to have been (see comments above), then it is possible the Braztech legal team did not want to take any chances with liability. One could further speculate that the metal for the .454 ought to have extra quality control, such as supplier certifications (ISO 9000) and x-ray inspection of every part, to check for voids, inclusions, micro-cracks and such in the machined/heat-treated final forms. I certainly would insist on that regimen, if there was any doubt. Maybe the QC/certs took a long time to get transferred? Again, the last three statements are wild-eyed speculation . And I certainly can't vouch for the original "explanation" from my old dealer - it had to be third-hand, at least .