'92 Winchester jones...

[halfmoonclip]

Been after the pistol caliber frame for some time. Currently have a '94 Winchester angle eject trapper, and a 20" Miroku '73, both in .45 Colt.
But what I'm itching for is a '92 in .45 Colt. Tried to order one after it was shown at SHOT, but none were to be found, and I settled for the '73, which I really do like...it was already drilled for a tang sight, and I can clang steel off my hind legs 80yds away.
The '94 likewise has a tang (had to drill and tap it myself; a job with some risk...), and I took a deer with it, but I'd still like a '92.
Soooooo, after that wordy lead in, what says the group?
-Any chance of getting the Miroku version this year? Any tips?
-What do you think of the Uberti version? It would have to be drilled/tapped, I presume.
Any other suggestions?
Thanks in advance,
Moon

 

[Jeff olson]

Were all the 92s made in Japan by miroku or was there another manufacturer?

 

[BreechFace]

Uberti makes a 92 as well.

 

[PapaG]

Rossi. Puma, which I think is Rossi. There's another one that makes big caliber versions but name escapes me. I'd personally prefer 44 Mag which gives you all the starch you need without handloading, or 357 (But I'm prejudiced with an original Winchester 92 I had converted in '67).

 

[halfmoonclip]

I have a '94 Marlin in .44 Mag that has been my deer rifle nearly forever, whacked to 16"; with H110 reloads, the deer have always been DRT. The same loads have worked as well in a 629 Smith.
The .45 Colt carbines (and a couple of Italian revolvers) are basically for my own entertainment, usually with Trailboss loads. PapaG, you are right about Rossi; I've one of their .22 pumps, and it is a great gun.
Moon

 

[Crunchy Frog]

I don’t think Uberti makes an 1892. Chiappa is the Italian 1892. The Miroku ‘92 is well made but they added a rebounding hammer and tang safety. The exception is the Miroku made B92 carbine, if you can find one. Most were .44 Magnum with a few in .357.

 

[Oregontrail]

There is one on gun broker
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/883995734

 

[Oregontrail]

I have the that model in 44 mag
Vary nice shooting rifle and is definitely some eye candy as well
You will enjoy it if you get so lucky

 

[gotboostvr]

There is just something great about a '92.

Sounds like you'd like the real thing, but I can say that my Rossi is outstanding. I bought it as a "project gun" fully expecting it to need tuned up, but the action is real smooth and the trigger while a touch heavy, has zero take up. I've just left it alone and shot the heck out of it. One hole groups at 50yrds with 240gr XTP handloads and reliable with SWC's to boot.

 

[Tommygunn]

I don’t think Uberti makes an 1892. Chiappa is the Italian 1892. The Miroku ‘92 is well made but they added a rebounding hammer and tang safety. The exception is the Miroku made B92 carbine, if you can find one. Most were .44 Magnum with a few in .357.

I have a mid 1980s era Browning B-92 in .44 magnum, and it is a nice rifle. I have a Miroku made 1892 takedown rifle in .32-20 with Checkered grip, oct. barrel and pistol grip from @2015. Yes, rebound hammer & tang safety, but it's not that bad, really.
.44 magnum in a carbine is a stout recoiling rifle --- I swear I cannot tell the difference between it and my .30-30.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Tommygun, maybe there's a difference in stock shape, or my loads (H110), but I never thot' the Marlin 94 in .44 Mag was a hard kicker...my 100 lb daughter took a deer with it, tho' I did load down a little for her.
Oregon trail, thnx, put a watch on it; no bids so far. Do you or Crunchy Frog know off hand it that is the model with a tang safety?
I may end up going with the Rossi; lots cheaper, and nothing on the tang, tho' I would have to drill/tap one hole. It appears the Marbles tang sight uses the stock screw.
Thanks, guys
Moon

 

[Tommygunn]

Halfmoonclip, is your Marlin a rifle or carbine? A difference in weight of the gun can make a difference. Maybe stock length and shape could too?
Anyway, 1.) IMHO, felt recoil is a rather subjective thing. I recall at a range a guy saying his .45-70 rifle was a nasty kicker with the load he was using. I asked to fire a shot and he let me, and I didn't find it very punishing at all (I did not tell the gun's owner this), 2. ) I thought my B-92 and Winchester 94 were similar .... neither however is what I'd call a nasty "bruiser." However, no scientific tests were made (obviously) and I have never done a "side by side" test. I was only going by memory ..... hardly scientific at all, I think you'd agree.
I guess in the end I'd say that the .44 magnum carbine was stouter than I thought it would be since it was heavier than a handgun.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Tommygun, my Marlin started life as a 20" (carbine? rifle?), and I had it whacked to 16", just for convenience. Should have chronoed it before the chop, to see how much loss, if any, 4" makes in this caliber.
A lot of it is perception; been years since I shot a .30-30, but it kicked more than it seemed it should. OTOH, thought the M14 I fired in the service was a harder kicker than my Garand...same ballistics, the 14 is only slightly lighter. Go figure. The stubby .44 makes a great woods gun; here in Westsylvania , you rarely can see more than 100yds unless you're on a powerline or a railroad.
Still wrestling about doing something/nothing about a .45 Colt.
That linked, Gunbroker '92, does anyone know if it has the tang safety? Remember, a tang sight is part of the program; it lets codgers shoot iron sights!
Moon

 

[Ru4real]

...But what I'm itching for is a '92 in .45 Colt...

Hands down Chiappa is making the best 92’s. They come in a few different models. My personal favorite, which I bought a few years ago for $900 is a Chiappa 92 carbine with 20” barrel, takedown, in 45 Colt. It shoots lights out, very accurate and reliable.

Chiappa is the only maker of original 92’s. Some they make go to other manufacturers and are resold under other labels. I’ve read original Winchester 92 parts will interchange with the modern Chiappa and this is something you can’t do with modern Winchesters. Just like Winchester, Chiappa sells with bland wood and beautiful wood, synthetic too!

Here is mine with a pair of 45 Colt pistols.View attachment 955089

 

[halfmoonclip]

Oh boy, something else to research. I have a couple of Chiappa bottom chamber revolvers, and think well of them. Even if they seem to have a lot of parts hung on it.
Ru4real, first question...you say the Chiappa is a virtual copy of the original. So, no tang safety. Is the tang drilled for a tang sight?
Thanks again,
Moon

 

[halfmoonclip]

Well, damn, they are pricey and out of stock; the Chiappas, that is.
Back to square 1...
Moon

 

[Ru4real]

Well, damn, they are pricey and out of stock; the Chiappas, that is.
Back to square 1...
Moon

Yes, they are pricey, but if you want a new original 1892, I don’t know of any other options. You may have seen the video here on HighRoad of a girl twirling handguns. There are a whole lot of Europeans doing Wild West re-enactment type stuff, and I think Chiappa sells a lot to that crowd.

It bothers me that I can buy a new original 1892 that was made in Italy, but I cannot buy a US made 1892 by the company that made them famous. Sure, Winchester calls their’s a 1892, but it’s not a real 92.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Concur entirely about domestic Winchesters. My angle-eject 94 was on toward the end of domestic production; it's not a bad rifle, the cross bolt safety is an irritating feature.
Ru4real, your Chiappa is a beauty. Thanks.
With any sense, I'd blank off the safety with a couple screws, and live with what I've got.
We'll see.
Moon

 

[Tommygunn]

Yes, they are pricey, but if you want a new original 1892, I don’t know of any other options. You may have seen the video here on HighRoad of a girl twirling handguns. There are a whole lot of Europeans doing Wild West re-enactment type stuff, and I think Chiappa sells a lot to that crowd.

It bothers me that I can buy a new original 1892 that was made in Italy, but I cannot buy a US made 1892 by the company that made them famous. Sure, Winchester calls their’s a 1892, but it’s not a real 92.

I think you're abusing semantics a bit. The Miroku made Winchester 1892 is a "real" Winchester 1892. It even says "Winchester" on the barrel and tang. Yes, they added the "inertia ignition" to it in the bolt, and a tang safety. Perhaps there were other minor differences.
The Chiappa version may maintain a more exact fidelity to the original Winchester 1892, possibly even parts interchange. As it is made in Italy, I believe it may use metric thread screws rather than English threads though. I know Uberti uses metric in their 1873 repros. They claim their 1873 parts will interchange with originals except where threads are a concern.

I've never seen a Chiappa, but judging from your earlier photo ID be very proud to own one if I was in the market for a 1892 and found one locally. They look like very nice rifles. Please don't think I was trying to criticize the rifle in any way; I have a tendency to be a bit of the pedant, though .... and a bit of that surfaced prompting me to write this.

 

[Project355]

The 92 Mirokuchester is designed in such a way to be very difficult to overcome any of the rebounding hammer function. I have one, and have studied it carefully. You cannot cut the hammer strut's rebound arm, as that will allow the strut to move forward... and it will fall off at the other end.

The Miroku firing pin beaks easily. Replavement is damn near $100 and other model 92 pins wint do. I know, mine is at Browning/Winchester right now getting a new one.... when parts are available again.

The Miroku is nicely finished. A Vaquero hammer spring fits and slicks it up a LOT. It also has a hammer with a chunk out of one side for the safety internals, and that is an entryway for debris. Tang sight can be fit, but its too far rearward for good hand placement.

Miroku has deeper cuts in the bolt at its rear travel, and very strong lever detent. Couple that with "two stage" cycling/cocking due the rebounding hammer. Result is a real bumpy cycling experience.

A slicked up Rossi is 2/3 the price, ugly, but feels like an old USA Winchester.

If you shop... You can get a Miroku for just over $800, or at least two months ago you could. Rossi is just under $600

The Miroku reads worse than a Ruger....

Barrel right side
Made in Japan by MIROKU
Imported by BROWNING Morgan UT
Winchester is a registered Trademark

Barrel left side
Winchester Model 1892 -- .45 Colt ONLY --

It does say Winchester in very small letters on the upper tang.

I like my '92, but the next one will be a Rossi

 

[Tommygunn]

Project355, the rebounding hammer never bothered me. Possibly because my first rifle was a @1991 1894AE Winchester in .30-30 with a rebounding hammer.
So far as how it cycles, it doesn't bother me.

"To each his own," I guess.

I will say, I do own a Rossi R92 in .45 Colt. While I do like it, it isn't really as nice. I think even my Uberti 1873s and my Uberti Burgess 1883 are nicer --- though of course those are a different design. The Rossi 92 receiver is shaped differently than either original Winchester 1892s or the Miroku version, which retains the original's profile even if internals are different.

I'd be really curious to get a look at a Chiappa 1892. They sound interesting!v

 

[sisyphus]

I bought a Chiappa last week and pick it up tomorrow. I'll see if I can borrow my son's phone to take a couple pics.

 

[Mosin77]

I got to handle a Chiappa 92 “Mare’s leg” a few months back. Had no interest in the gun itself due to the ridiculous stock or lack thereof, but the action itself seemed very nicely finished, and made me want a 92.

Of course, looks can be deceiving, if the metal is soft or things are out of spec. So while I can’t say for sure, it *seemed* like a very nice gun.

 

[Project355]

Project355, the rebounding hammer never bothered me. Possibly because my first rifle was a @1991 1894AE Winchester in .30-30 with a rebounding hammer.
So far as how it cycles, it doesn't bother me.

The Rossi 92 receiver is shaped differently than either original Winchester 1892s or the Miroku version

I'd be really curious to get a look at a Chiappa 1892. They sound interesting!v

Yup, I had a 94AE and lived the changes during my days working at the range. They went from half cock only, to half cock/crossbolt, to rebound no crossbolt, which I liked the best and so got one. Can't remember the "list" price, but I don't think I paid $250 for it at cost - mid 1990's. How times have changed. I wouldn't mind one in 38-55, but... alas, those is very hard to come by.

If you look at the R92 vs 1892, its obvious cost cutting was involved in the shape of the receiver's lower edge. The 1892 has more a "relieved" radius on the forward and rear portions of that edge, and less relief around the lever. The Rossi has more or less uniform relief, which makes it a bit fuller in the front and rear sections, and less full at the lever. They just about straight lined that lower edge at a happy medium radius.

I've been told that the Cimarron 1892 is a part for part clone of the Winchester, even down to the screw threads. I've not seen one on the market for a while though.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Checked on the Gunbroker '92; has the tang safety, and pretty pricey.
Handled a .357 Rossi at a local shop; action was commendably smooth, and the finish looked good. On a cost effectiveness basis, think that is the direction I'll go. The wrist of the stock isn't drilled; I've an E mail to Marbles about the screw kit to go with the tang sight, and a tap for the thread.
Drilling/tapping the wrist isn't one of my favorite jobs; offcenter or a broken tap being bad outcomes; I've avoided them before, thankfully.
Moon