Newer production Winchester '92 (a little review)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Project355

Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
672
While ago I was looking for a nice 375 H&H Model 70. Looked at some of the Euro rifles but they were just a little "thick" in the middle. The Model 70 is more svelt. At any rate, the one I found slipped thru the cracks, but...in the process I found another rifle I've been jonesing for - '92 with 20" tube in 45 Colt.

Just came in today. Appeared new in the box, still had that factory preservative smell on it, all the papers, lock, and was spotless clean all around, and all inside. I'm sure somewhere someone has a list of Miroku serial numbers so I can establish the date, but it doesn't really matter.

First thing I noticed was the near flawless fit of wood to metal. Amazingly precise at the buttplate, all around the upper and lower tangs and at the forearm. Since this was a short rifle, it has a forearm cap, and that is fit equally great. Zero issues. The wood appears to be actual black walnut, and its a little on the open grained side (not filled with finish), but the applied matte finish is nice, smooth too. Second thing I noticed was the really nice trigger. First pull or two was a little gritty, but that was probably preservative. After that, light and crisp, almost no takeup. Gun range el cheapo "spring type" trigger gauge said just under 4lbs. Feels like 4lbs to me, a good shootin' trigger.

One complaint is the hammer's strong spring. I think they're doing that to get up enough oomph to overcome the rebound geometry used on the forked mainspring strut. Top fork powers forward until there's no contact, and the bottom fork powers "backward" to rebound. That's easily adjustable though, and less "rebound" can be obtained and a lighter mainspring employed. I probably won't mess with it until its gotten quite a few rounds through it.

Sights suck. I can use flat-top rear, or full buckhorn rear, but that semi buckhorn just irks me. Front sight bead is too small for the kind of ranges a 45 Colt will shoot at. I won't be pinning the tail on the jackass, just hammering the chest of some critter. There's a company that makes a brass piece that you slip over the existing Marbles front sight. The bead can be increased to one of several sizes up to about .093 inches. Dunno about what to do for sights yet. Might put a ladder there, or full buckhorn. We'll see.

The action is smooth, even with the strong mainspring. Rifling is shiny, crisp. Chamber like a mirror. Loaded up 10 rounds that I assembled this last weekend, and they cycled through the action with one hitch - my fault - a short stroke on the lever. Empty brass I tried sailed two feet over my right shoulder and made a small pile on the carpet.

All the metal is nicely finished, really no complaints there, except... the engraving. Its the only gun that has more engraving than any Ruger I've seen. Left side "Winchester Model 1892 - caliber 45 Colt ONLY". Are they saying 45 Schofields are out? 45 Short Colt? Well, maybe not the Schofield, its got a little bigger rim. Dunno on that, might come down to individual lots o' brass and individual bolts. On the right side...In letters larger than all the rest is a line about being made by Miroku in Japan, then a smaller set of letters on the same line about being imported by Browning, then under that a line about Winchester is a Tradmark blah blah blah.... Gaudiest stuff I've ever seen on a fine rifle. Under the receiver is three lines of comprising of the serial number, which has been laser engraved. Yup three lines and it appears the serial number is 14 alpha numeric characters. Really? They made that many? I doubt it. Its a far east ploy to confound Yankee gun owners!

Seriously, a nice rifle. Would like to take it out and kill some paper this weekend just to try it out a bit. There's a local place that has a 25 yd indoor range that will probably allow me to shoot it there. More on that as it comes.

So, no 375, but... still a nice grab. It appears to have been unfired, just sitting in a box, and was exactly as described, so... I'm happy with it.
 
Last edited:
I'll see what I can do after work.
I looked at the serial number... YM prefix. I found a table on another site that translates to 2020 manufacturer. I guessing someone bought the rifle then had to liquidate for some cash?
 
Yea, PHOTOS!!!
I have four Miroku made Winchesters, a Winchester 1873, a 1866, an 1892 carbine (actually a 1980s vintage Browning 1892 in .44 mag.) and a 1892 Winchester take-down rifle in .32-20. The 73 is .45 Colt, the '66 is .38special. All are very nice rifles. Ok, the Winchester branded do have those lines of printing on the barrels. Be happy the name says "Winchester," atleast! I really don't find it gaudy. I have a Winchester 1894AE in .30-30 that has writing on the barrel. I have a few Italian made lever-actions that have other names on them, like Uberti, Dixie Gun Works, Navy Arms, or Stoeger.
Congratulations on your most excellent choice of what I'm sure will be a fine, highly prized rifle! !:thumbup:
 
My Rossi 1892 .45 Colt is my favorite PCC and one of my favorite guns, period.

It’s a hoot shoving those cigar butt sized rounds into the action and levering away as I’m plinking at my herd of steel silhouettes and plates. :thumbup:

Have fun with your new ‘92, I’m sure it’ll climb up your list of favorite guns, too. :)

Stay safe.
 
Does it have the tang safety? I've been hankering for one but those dang modern lawyered-up safeties bug me.
 
Yes, tang safety, which I find no big deal. Just don't use it!

Hammer down on a live round is safe for several reasons. The safety does give an extra margin against whoopsie if you desire, when lowering a cocked hammer on a live chamber.

Folks complain the mainspring is heavy (it is), and causing a heavy trigger pull. No. The mainspring isnt the issue. Sear/hammer geometry is. Miroku must have corrected the angles because my rifle has a perfect trigger for hunting and carry about use (aka in the Jeep). Four pounds and not enough creep to mention. It breaks clean.

I know zip nada nuthin about CAS. From what I read the 1892 it's not the best choice for that sport. I think a lot of people consider the 1873 a better gun for that. I have no idea.....

For me as a carry about lever action rifle it's just about perfect. My only complaint so far is that the lever is a bit stiff because of the heavy mainspring, but not unbearably so. There are some obvious tricks that can be done which I haven't seen online. There are cautions about using lighter main springs but I think you can get away with one that is a little bit lighter. The other trick is you can alter the amount of rebound versus forward travel.

One of the things I want to do is measure the mainspring. Wolff springs do not currently offer I main spring for the Miroku 1892. But if I measure the inside diameter and the wire gauge they should be able to sell me something that's about the same inside diameter but a lighter wire gauge, from their vast stocks. Springs are cheap so I can order a few and try different lights to see what works okay.

I really don't want to eliminate any safeties on the rifle. if it were purely a target gun I would but it's not going to be a target gun for me, except for killing old hubcaps or milk jugs.

I know I still need to get some pictures taken but I've been working 12-hour days : ( Tomorrow I'll have half a day off and then the weekend! One of the things I promised to do is it get a few better shots of the rifle.;)
 
Well, it rained all day, so maybe some pics tomorrow if the weather clears.

In another thread, I mentioned the really well fitting Brownell's screwdriver tip set. As things worked out, I decided to pull the butt stock and have a look inside. There was no disassembly beyond the buttstock coming off, but I was able to sleuth something right from the get go.

Miroku has changed things a bit, again, inside. They must have responded to the oft told internet instruction, whereby the "rebound" was taken off the hammer's travel by cutting/shortening the lower leg of the mainspring strut. Well folks, welcome to geometry class. They changed the geometry of the parts. As the hammer travels forward, the "forward" or top leg of the strut will lose contact with the hammer, and the "rebound" or lower leg of the strut begins to put counter-force on the strut, pushing it ever so slightly backward. So far so good.

Here's the catch: Should one decide to bubba the strut, and remove or shorten that bottom leg, the top leg will keep moving the hammer forward. However, the way they have the spring and strut set up is that when the strut is fully forward (which is the equilibrium point of the hammer, not when the hammer is fully forward), there is almost zero length of the strut in its retainer at the far end of the tang. So... if you let that strut move forward maybe 2mm more, the strut is out of the retainer, and that's the end of that. The rifle's lockwork will cease to function.

I'd say Miroku tried to make it impossible to shorten that bottom strut and get rid of the rebounding effect, which would negate a safety feature of the rifle.

I'm not interested in negating the safety features, but I would like less force on the lever when chambering a round (and cocking the hammer). I think the only recourse is a spring made from lighter gauge wire, of the same overall length. Shortening the spring won't do too much as there is not much there to begin with.

Anyway, just a little update.
 
Thanks for the update.
I have a Miroku made B-92 carbine made in the 1980s which has the more traditional half-cock safety notch. I also have a Miroku Winchester 1892 take-down rifle I bought about five years ago, and that has the tang safety and rebound hammer. I prefer the original style half cock safety system, but the rebound hammer was obviously not a deal-killer for me or I wouldn't have it.

Curiously, this past year I've obtained a Winchester 1866 and 1873 by Miroku. Neither one has a tang safety, or rebound hammer. They both use the half-cock system. I note that both those, and the newer takedown 1892, have a different ignition system, a "inertia" ignition. It isn't so obvious on the 1892, but on the 1866 and 1873 it is as it makes the firing pin extension a more complex mechanism.

I can't understand the rational behind leaving the 66 and 73 design as a half cock, while altering the 1892 mechanism. I don't find it objectionable .... just sorta wish it had been left original. If they did it for safety reasons (????) then I just don't see why.
 
My 1894 from the 90s had a rebounding hammer, inertia firing pin and a half cock shelf, but no safety. Go figure!
 
DSCF0858.JPG
DSCF0860.JPG
DSCF0861.JPG
DSCF0862.JPG
DSCF0863.JPG Promised closer shots of wood/metal fit. Not bad at all... while not a perfect fit, you can see they did some obvious hand fitting around the action, there are no rough edges. Some of the edges are sort of blended into the level of the metal, but that's ok, they're non-snag, and quite comfy. I'd say... they didn't go whole hog, but at least gave some attention that probably required a few fittings on each rifle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top