Interarms Model 65 (Rossi 92) Carbine in .44-40

[Dave Markowitz]

Back in May I picked up an Interarms Model 65 carbine in .44-40. It's simply a rebadged Rossi 92, which is a replica of the Winchester 1892.



The exterior condition and the bore are excellent, however the action was rough. This was long before Rossi bought new CNC machinery and not a lot of attention was paid to the internal fit.

One nice thing is that a prior owner installed studs for quick detach sling swivels. They will come in handy. I ordered a Hunter Company 1" carrying strap for it. (I have one on my Cabela's Hawken and like the simple design.)

As typical of Rossi 92s it was oversprung. I ordered reduced power springs for the hammer and ejector from Steve's Gunz.

Disassembly wasn't not difficult with the assistance of documents found online and a couple YouTube videos. Reassembly, on the other hand, was a bear. I wound up enlisting the assistance of my friend Nick who aside from being a shooter, is a mechanical engineer by training and generally the handiest guy I know.

Aside from fiddling to get it reassembled, we also had to debur a the ejector and ejector collar. The action is much smoother than it was when I got it but to feed properly you need to work it like it owes you money. I think as it gets shot more it'll get even smoother.

After we got it back we ran 31 rounds of my black powder, .44 Henry-equivalent handloads through it shooting at a gong (1.9cc or ~28 grains of 3Fg BP, a 1/8" thick nitro card to take up air space, and a 219 grain bullet cast in an Accurate Molds 43-215C.)

I'd forgotten to bring a bottle of moose milk with me so I just ran a patch with some Ballistol on it through the bore while still at Nick's, then finished cleaning it at home. I first wet brushed the bore and then after about 8 patches they came out clean. There was zero black powder fouling in the action because the thin .44-40 brass seals the chamber so well.

The 1892 and replicas have a very strong action. However, due to the simpler and easier to maintain design, if I was limited to one, I'd still prefer a Winchester 1873 over the 1892 for a long-term survival rifle. But there's nothing handier than an 1892 carbine.

 

[Tommygunn]

Sorta cool!

Does this have the goofus safety switch on the rear of the bolt? I can't get a good view on my device, but it doesn't look like it ....

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I have four Winchester Model 1892 rifles. All Winchesters.

44-40 that shipped in 1897. This one was refinished when I bought it, so I got it for a good price. Used it for my first several years in CAS. Pretty much only shot Smokeless through it.






A 44-40 Saddle Ring Carbine that shipped in 1918. Haven't shot it a whole lot.






A real nice one chambered for 32-20 that I bought a few years ago. Have only put Smokeless through it. This one left the factory in 1911.






Apparently my 25-20 Saddle ring carbine is camera shy, I don't have a photo of it.




Anyway, I have only taken that one at the top apart once. I find a '92 much more complicated and difficult to put back together again than a Toggle Link rifle such as a Model 1873. In fact, I recall the time I took my old '92 apart there was one part that could easily be put back in backwards, and the rifle would not work correctly.

The other thing about the '92, when shooting Black Powder, is the action is more open inside than a Toggle Link like a '73. With a toggle link, the carrier is in front of the section with the toggles. In this photo, the carrier is just visible at the bottom of the frame to the left of the toggles. So any BP fouling that gets into the mechanism is not likely to get past the carrier into the area of the toggle links.






However with a '92 the carrier and all the rest of the action is in the much more open area of the frame. Any BP fouling that gets past the chamber will get into the rest of the mechanism and need cleaning.





That's why I pretty much limit my shooting of '92s to Smokeless and shoot BP in a toggle link, mostly in my 44-40 Uberti 1860 Henry replica.

Of course anyone who shoots these rifles with Black Powder knows that the thin brass at the mouth of 44-40 and 38-40 allows the brass to expand and seal the chamber better than a more robust straight walled case such as 45 Colt. My Black Powder 44-40 ammo seals so well in the chamber of my Henry that all I need to do is run a patch soaked in my favorite BP solution down the bore a few times, then swab out the area of the carrier a little bit and I am done.

Here is a hint that you might not be aware of when cleaning up a rifle fired with Black Powder. Insert a fired case in the chamber and close the action. Hold the rifle vertical and take a patch soaked with your favorite water based BP solvent and slide it into the slotted end of a cleaning rod. DON'T USE A JAG! Twirl the patch down the bore and remove it. After a few times with new patches, when the patch comes out dirty gray you will have washed all the fouling down into the case in the chamber. Then turn the rifle upside down and eject the case in the chamber onto the ground. Watch out, it will be accompanied by a spray of dirty solvent. But your bore will be clean. Run another patch down the bore soaked in Balistol, then a dry one to mop up most of the Ballistol. This will leave a nice film of Ballistol in the bore which will prevent any corrosion from any fouling you did not happen to remove. Some of my antique rifles have pitted bores, and this technique will leave a film of Ballistol on any bits of fouling down in the pits and prevent any corrosion from happening. Clean up the areas of the frame you can reach with another patch soaked in your favorite BP solvent, then wipe a little bit of Ballistol on everything as a rust preventative. Total time to clean Henry, about 10 minutes.

I suppose you are curious why not to use a jag. Because a jag can jam the patch into the case in the chamber and you will be very unhappy. Trust me. The slotted end of your cleaning rod will fit into the case mouth and not get stuck.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

Does this have the goofus safety switch on the rear of the bolt? I can't get a good view on my device, but it doesn't look like it ....

This rifle predates the bolt-mounted safety by probably at least a decade.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

@Driftwood Johnson As always, thanks for your excellent pictures.

I had a Winchester 1892 Sporting Rifle in .38 WCF which unfortunately was stolen. It was manufactured in 1895.

Other lever guns I own include a Rossi 92 in .357, and Uberti 1860 Henry, 1866, and 1873. The Ubertis all have 24" barrels and are in .44 WCF, except for the '66 in .38 WCF. I also have a Winchester 1873 in .38 WCF manufactured in 1893, and a Marlin 1889 dating to 1890, also in .38 WCF. I prefer .44 WCF but the original 1873 and the Marlin just kinda got added to the collection.

The original 1873 needs some work but the Marlin functions and shoots pretty well.

When I removed the side plates from the Henry after about a year and a couple hundred rounds of black powder cartridges, there was absolutely zero black powder fouling in the action. The original WCF cartridges seal the chambers exceptionally well, keeping all the fouling in the bore in my rifles.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The original WCF cartridges seal the chambers exceptionally well, keeping all the fouling in the bore in my rifles.

Absolutely. That is why all my lever guns, old and new, are chambered for WCF cartridges, not 45 Colt.