With a couple 45 colt companions for company. This lever is a takedown model.View attachment 774284
Brand new JMB Model 92 lever in 45 colt...
- Thread starter Ru4real
- Start date
- Status
Tommygunn
Member
Is this a Miroku - made Winchester 1892? It looks like a very nice rifle! That means we need .....MORE PHOTOS! 
I have a Winchester 1892 take-down in .32-20 with 24" octagonal barrel and checkering with pistol grip.
I love the 1892 design!
(Need more photos!)
I have a Winchester 1892 take-down in .32-20 with 24" octagonal barrel and checkering with pistol grip.
I love the 1892 design!
(Need more photos!)
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,477
It sure looks nice
I may have looked at a couple Miroku's, I'm not sure. I looked at two at LGS the day before I got this one. They were winchesters with ingraved receivers of a deer scene, and one was blued for $1400 and the other had gold inlay of the same engraving for $1600. Both had tang safeties and rebounding hammers. Miroku?
The one in photo post 1 is made by Chiappa in Italy. As true to the Browning design as can be found new these days, I learned.
Last edited:
Tommygunn
Member
Those two you saw do sound like Miroku made guns --- tang safety. They're very well made guns. ChIappa makes nice weapons too. I haven't seen any they make, so I don't know how faithfully they reproduce the originals. Miroku puts tang safeties on their Winnies, and while that is not a deal breaker for me, some purists don't like them.
I might grab up a Chiappa 1886 in .45-70 were I to see one at a store. I once almost bought a Browning 1886 about 25 years ago; also a Miroku made gun. But back then, no tang safety!
Last edited:
loose noose
Member
Any tang safety is a deal breaker for me, especially that ugly receiver safety that Winchester put on some of there lever rifles. At least the older Marlins had a receiver safety that you could get a screw that would by pass that unnecessary safety and look rather proper. I believe a gentleman by the name of "Ludwig something" was/is responsible for that device. If anyone is interested I'll look up his internet connection.
Riomouse911
Member
I had an 1894 Legacy in .45 Colt that had that safety with the hideous divot gouged into the receiver.
Now I kinda wish I still had it because it was a great gun to shoot, but the damage to the "legacy" of the 1894 caused by that stupid safety was too much to look at so off on consignment it went.
That's a very nice 1892, and it's companions are pretty darn sexy themselves!
Now I kinda wish I still had it because it was a great gun to shoot, but the damage to the "legacy" of the 1894 caused by that stupid safety was too much to look at so off on consignment it went.
That's a very nice 1892, and it's companions are pretty darn sexy themselves!
Tommygunn
Member
Wow. You're hardcore! You're entitled to your opinion, but.....REALLY?....you would never buy one of the really good Mirokus because of a tang safety? What about that bolt safety the Rossis use? IMHO that is much uglier.
I wish Miroku didn't do the rebound hammer & tang safety. I have a Browning 1892 in .44 mag made by Miroku in the 1980s that does not have either, it's pretty dang close to the original Winchester except for caliber. If I found a Chiappa and liked it I'd grab it, but I still like the Mirokus for what they are, and the Rossis for what they are.
"To each his own," as they say.
I have a new dilemma now and I'd like to hear some options that anyone may have. Any ideas?
Only my handloads with 300 grain Cast Performance WFN bullets will function 100% in my new rifle. I have about 500 rounds of 255 grain MBC Keith style SWC's that sometimes cycle in the rifle. I have about 500 rounds of MBC 325 grain WFN Slammers that won't cycle at all in the rifle. I have abou 500 rounds of Beartooth Cast Performance 340 WFN that won't cycle at all in the rifle.
Do I modify the rifle to cycle the ammo? Or should I look for a new 300 plus grain bullet that will work in the rifle and pistols? What suitable cast bullet is great for elk?
Only my handloads with 300 grain Cast Performance WFN bullets will function 100% in my new rifle. I have about 500 rounds of 255 grain MBC Keith style SWC's that sometimes cycle in the rifle. I have about 500 rounds of MBC 325 grain WFN Slammers that won't cycle at all in the rifle. I have abou 500 rounds of Beartooth Cast Performance 340 WFN that won't cycle at all in the rifle.
Do I modify the rifle to cycle the ammo? Or should I look for a new 300 plus grain bullet that will work in the rifle and pistols? What suitable cast bullet is great for elk?
Last edited:
Riomouse911
Member
Before you tinker with the gun and possibly making it worse than it is, that 300 grainer should work just fine for elk at short range...as long as it's loaded to pressures compatible with the rifle. Give it an accuracy test and let us know how they do. If it works and is accurate, I would use them. The others, save for a Ruger revolver or other gun they will fit in.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
The Chiappa 92's are nice rifles and that 300gr should do fine on elk.
Success! All the 45 colt loads I have on hand will now reliably feed. Also, I can work the lever fast or slow, it doesn't matter, everything feeds. Smooth as butter.
This is what I did, most of which can be applied to any 92 in 45 colt.
Relieved inside of receiver opposite of cartridge stop to create room for LBT style bullets (WFN, LFN, etc.)
Beveled bottom corner of cartridge stop to allow cartridge stop to kick LBT bullets over to relieved area.
Chamfered bottom of barrel extension OD to prevent catching sharp cornered bullets (Keith and LBT)
Chamfered top and bottom of chamber entrance to promote feeding Keith style bullets.
These are my necessary cartridge overall length requirements based on my modifications.
255 Keith 1.60" +/- 0.01"
300 Speer JSP 1.60" +/- 0.01"
300 Horn XTP-M 1.60" +/- 0.01"
300 CP WFN GC 1.60" +/- 0.01"
325 MBC Slammer 1.55" +/- 0.01"
340 CP LFN GC 1.57" +/- 0.01"
For those interested, I'd be happy to explain why each mod is necessary. I really like this gun. Wanted one for years.
This is what I did, most of which can be applied to any 92 in 45 colt.
Relieved inside of receiver opposite of cartridge stop to create room for LBT style bullets (WFN, LFN, etc.)
Beveled bottom corner of cartridge stop to allow cartridge stop to kick LBT bullets over to relieved area.
Chamfered bottom of barrel extension OD to prevent catching sharp cornered bullets (Keith and LBT)
Chamfered top and bottom of chamber entrance to promote feeding Keith style bullets.
These are my necessary cartridge overall length requirements based on my modifications.
255 Keith 1.60" +/- 0.01"
300 Speer JSP 1.60" +/- 0.01"
300 Horn XTP-M 1.60" +/- 0.01"
300 CP WFN GC 1.60" +/- 0.01"
325 MBC Slammer 1.55" +/- 0.01"
340 CP LFN GC 1.57" +/- 0.01"
For those interested, I'd be happy to explain why each mod is necessary. I really like this gun. Wanted one for years.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Congratulations, you now have a 6lb levergun that will take nearly everything that walks or crawls.
Did the original 92 have a leaf spring or coil spring?
I'm starting trigger work and watched some Rossi take apart videos. Those had coil hammer springs. This Chiappa has a leaf.
View attachment 775695
I'm starting trigger work and watched some Rossi take apart videos. Those had coil hammer springs. This Chiappa has a leaf.
View attachment 775695
Tommygunn
Member
Leaf springs I'd guess.....I don't think coil springs appeared until into the twentieth century.
I think you are correct. I should have thought of that. Thanks!
Chiappa polished the hammer sear surface and trigger surfaces from the factory. The trigger leaf spring is polished stainless steel. Nice.
However, there was a nick or small dent on the sear which made the trigger feel like a two stage. Maybe something hard hit the hammer sear before the hammer went in the gun, I don't know.
So I filed out the dent, re-polished with 600 grit lapping compound and put the trigger / hammer back in. Now a nice crisp break at 4 lbs, just what I wanted. Easy to make trigger pull lighter or heavier.
Did you know on a model 92 you can pull the trigger before the bolt is all the way closed and the hammer will fall? I didn't. The 'safety' in this instance is that the case isn't up against the bolt face until the bolt is fully closed. Unlike a model 94 which needs the lever all the way closed before the trigger works and the case is on the bolt face the whole time.
Tommygunn
Member
The 1873 model, and the 1894, had a spring loaded tab that a projection on the front inside of the lever pushed in that released an internal safety that allowed the trigger to engage the sear and fire the gun. The 1892 apparently didn't need this....I think the 1886 also didn't need it. John M. Browning did a great job designing the 1886, 92, 94, etc.
But I still think people should use lever actions safely, responsibly....leave the spin Cocking and rifle flipping to John Wayne, Chuck Connors, and other Hollywood heroes who fire off 5 in 1 blanks, not real ammo.
- Status
