Carl N. Brown
Member
What I have heard is the 1873 has a very tightly controlled feed and when used with the right ammo, function is perfect and smooth.
The 1892 (I have a Rossi LSI Puma in .357) is more compact but the feed control on any of the 1892's is not as perfect as the 1873. The action is stronger. Most sources I have read say the 1892 action is stronger than the longer Winchester/Browning 1894.
The sticking point (and selling point for the Win 1892 and Marlin 1894) is that if you have a Win M1892 or Msrlin M1894 in .38-40 and get a .44-40 round in the mag it won't feed but you can eject it. If you get a .44-40 stuck in a .38-40 M1873 you have to disassemble the gun.
My stepdad had a 1866 replica in 38 Spl and I regret snagging it. But the sale provided him and mom with money when they needed it.
The 1892 (I have a Rossi LSI Puma in .357) is more compact but the feed control on any of the 1892's is not as perfect as the 1873. The action is stronger. Most sources I have read say the 1892 action is stronger than the longer Winchester/Browning 1894.
The sticking point (and selling point for the Win 1892 and Marlin 1894) is that if you have a Win M1892 or Msrlin M1894 in .38-40 and get a .44-40 round in the mag it won't feed but you can eject it. If you get a .44-40 stuck in a .38-40 M1873 you have to disassemble the gun.
My stepdad had a 1866 replica in 38 Spl and I regret snagging it. But the sale provided him and mom with money when they needed it.