*sigh* Rossi, I'm done with you. (brand disappointment)

[FireInCairo]

I remember when I first started looking into getting a handgun I came across a Rossi .38 special revolver. It had adjustable rear sights, a 4 inch barrel, and it just felt perfect in my hand. It wasn't too expensive, but I didn't have the dough for it yet, so I went home and did some research. My first handgun was a Smith & Weson 642, which was more than servicable, though undoubtedly without that deceptive charm of the Rossi revolver which never made it into my gun cabinet.

 

[Speedo66]

I don't have any Rossi/Taurus pistols, but I've got nothing but praise for my Rossi M-92 carbine in .357.

It's nicely finished, accurate, and functioned perfectly right out of the box. On the other hand, I do not hear good things about Winchesters in .357 or the Rem-Lin lever actions.

There are lots of people who love their Rossi 92's, so to paint an entire brand as bad based on experiences with pistols only is a little short sighted.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

I've had a Rossi .38/.357, 2 1/2 barrel rubber grips since 1986-and I still have it and love firing it. I found it accurate as well.
Heavy, for a snub but very reliable. Now my carry all the time is a Smith and Wesson Model 638 .38 and +P. That has become my perfect fit with the Kahr .380 as backup. But they don't interfere a visit to the range with my Rossi.

 

[natman]

I don't have any Rossi/Taurus pistols, but I've got nothing but praise for my Rossi M-92 carbine in .357.

It's nicely finished, accurate, and functioned perfectly right out of the box. On the other hand, I do not hear good things about Winchesters in .357 or the Rem-Lin lever actions.

If the Winchester's in question were 94s, it's a case of trying to fit a cartridge into the wrong sized lever action, something that rarely works out. If, OTOH, you're referring to the Miroku 92s, they are superbly made, night and day above the best Rossi ever made.

There are lots of people who love their Rossi 92's, so to paint an entire brand as bad based on experiences with pistols only is a little short sighted.

At one time I had 5 Rossis; a 357 92 carbine, a 357 92 rifle, a 22 pump, a 20 ga coach gun and a stainless 22 revolver.

I hope that's a broad enough sample for a meaningful conclusion. Now Rossi has been cranking out guns for a long time and there may have been some period when their guns were of acceptable quality. Unfortunately if such a period ever existed, none of mine were made during it.

 

[Dragon breath]

I have owned two Rossi's ever. The first was 3 inch barrel 38spl that was a gift from my grandfather. He bought it new in the 80's to carry while he was working in some rough neighborhoods. He gave it to me in the early 90's along with 35 rounds of ammo left from the box of 50 he bought with the gun. I Could not hit the broad of a barn with it. I messed with it on and off for several months til one day while cleaning it I discovered the problem. The barrel wasn't rifled. Their were groves in the barrel, but they were straight. No twist at all. I traded it in at a pawn shop for a shotgun.
The second Rossi was a 6 inch barrel .357 magnum I bought new in 2014. On the second cylinder of ammo, the firing pin broke. Two months latter, I get the gun back from Taurus. I fired 15 shots before the cylinder paw broke allowing cylinder to freewheel. The gun store that I bought it from refunded my money.
The gun store that I bought it from refunded my money.

 

[Paladin7]

Personally, what bothers me is how many gun articles you read and reviews you watch on line that NEVER involve detail stripping a firearm to evaluate its' materials, design, and build quality. Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part.

When you do this, it becomes very easy to see why certain manufacturers products are so problematic. Designs count, the more parts in the design, the more points of failure, rough fit and sloppy finishing is indicative of the time the manufacturer devotes to producing a quality product, materials used is another indication. All of these things are indicators, but they need to be looked at holistically. Just because some of these things are evident, it doesn't make the product sub-standard, but it is a very good indication of what you can expect.

When all of these things are taken into consideration you find that the old adage, you get what you pay for, rings true.

I just wish there was a forum for this kind of review and discussion, it might be very helpful to educating buyers and improving the overall quality of firearms in general.

 

[Rebel Dave]

I have 3 Rossi 92 rifles .357, .44 mag, and a .45 colt. They all shoot excellent.


BUT............the .44 mag had a bent ejector right out of the box. I called Rossi CS, and thats where I was given the biggest run a round. They wouldn't let me buy an ejector, as they say it is a restricted part, but I was welcome to buy the whole bolt assy @ $150.00. I finnaly got a supervisor to sell me the ejector.
Well they sent the wrong part. I call them back, and all the BS starts all over again. I told them to forget it. I fitted an original 92 ejector in it and ithe .44 mag functions great now. I like my Rossi rifles, but the company sucks.

They also wanted me to send the rifle back, and I did not want to as I have heard horror stories, from people who did. Check out the Rossi Rifleman site, for lots of info on Rossi firearms. Lots of good info over their, good and bad.


Rebel Dave

 

[RugerBob]

I have 3 Rossi rifles. All 45LC. 24" & 20" octagon, and 20" round. Use them for cowboy shooting events. The wife use's the 20"round barrel.

I have a Taurus 1911 that I use in local 3 gun events. I did put fiber optic sights on it.

All were flawless out of the box.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Waveski]

Paladin -

The story about rifling is priceless.

As previously stated , I gave up on Rossi a while back. However , my soft spot for my first revolver still makes me look back ... As to the present day Rossi revolvers , a few months back I saw a new ss Rossi 357 at a local Gander Mountain. Nice looking - I had to give it a feel. I quickly found that when in lock up , the rotational play in the cylinder was excessive , AND as I wiggled the cylinder with trigger fully drawn back - the trigger moved side to side beneath my finger.

I gave up again.

 

[SwampWolf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by natman View Post
At one time I had 5 Rossis; a 357 92 carbine, a 357 92 rifle, a 22 pump, a 20 ga coach gun and a stainless 22 revolver.
I hope that's a broad enough sample for a meaningful conclusion. Now Rossi has been cranking out guns for a long time and there may have been some period when their guns were of acceptable quality. Unfortunately if such a period ever existed, none of mine were made during it.

I have to wonder why you kept buying them if they never worked for you? I'm not nearly so tolerant-"First time, shame on you. Second time, shame on me"; that's my mantra. Third, fourth and fifth time? Well, I guess I don't know what to say...

 

[natman]

At one time I had 5 Rossis; a 357 92 carbine, a 357 92 rifle, a 22 pump, a 20 ga coach gun and a stainless 22 revolver.
I hope that's a broad enough sample for a meaningful conclusion. Now Rossi has been cranking out guns for a long time and there may have been some period when their guns were of acceptable quality. Unfortunately if such a period ever existed, none of mine were made during it.

I have to wonder why you kept buying them if they never worked for you? I'm not nearly so tolerant-"First time, shame on you. Second time, shame on me"; that's my mantra. Third, fourth and fifth time? Well, I guess I don't know what to say...

A fair question. At one time I had a really good paying job and an FFL. I had more money than time and I was buying them faster than I could work on them. I couldn't decide between the rifle and the carbine so I bought both. I made the mistake of putting a lot of work into both before I fired either. The 92s were older, the 22 pump was new and I thought / hoped that Rossi had gotten their act together. Nope. The 20 ga came in a package deal. It was so simple it could hardly go wrong, but it was still cheap and roughly made. One of the sears had almost zero engagement so it would fire if you looked at it funny. I fixed that, but it was the last straw.

But you're right, looking at it with 20/20 hindsight I should have dropped them much sooner than I did.

 

[Hondo 60]

Luckily for me, I never owned a Rossi (followed the forums). But, I stupidly bought a Charter Arms Mag Pull, without checking first. What a POS. Can't wait for the next "buy back" from the local police, because the thing is so bad I wouldn't want anyone else to ever own it, it's so unreliable.

Send it back!
Last year (2015) I sent in a "less than usable" Charter that I purchased new in 2009.
Charter went far and above to rehab that gun.
Now it's one of my most accurate .38s (I have 5).

 

[Jim NE]

I now have this rad Ruger to play with. Looking forward to it.

Anyone else ever been disappointed enough with an entire brand you'd once liked to give it up for good?

Yes, but with Ruger revolvers, not Rossi. Had some good Rugers, including a great .357 Blackhawk. But then, I've also had a mediocre single six and SP101. I'm giving Ruger revovlers another chance, however, as I just picked up an LCR. (I've always liked their semi-autos, and currently own a few.)

I currently have seven Rossi revolvers, and several are what I would call Smith and Wesson quality in terms of function. (Not the same quality finish or fit, though - the S&W's are better.) At least one other Rossi is obviously not up to the same level of quality that the others are, but with some tweaking I've made it a very reliable knock-around gun. So Rossi revolvers don't have the consistency that S&W does, but they have been capable (at times) of making guns that perform at that level; not competition level guns, of course. I'm talking about snubbies and defensive guns. On average, my Rossi revolvers have cylinder lock up that's superior to my S&W's.

 

[beag_nut]

Send it back!
Last year (2015) I sent in a "less than usable" Charter that I purchased new in 2009.
Charter went far and above to rehab that gun.
Now it's one of my most accurate .38s (I have 5).

Tried that, with no joy. Sorry, but they shouldn't even be on the market (that model).

 

[Jim NE]

Send it back!
Last year (2015) I sent in a "less than usable" Charter that I purchased new in 2009.
Charter went far and above to rehab that gun.
Now it's one of my most accurate .38s (I have 5).

I agree, Hondo. My dumbest decisions regarding guns was unloading poor working weapons rather than sending them back to the manufacturer for repair. Part of what you're paying for with a new gun purchase is a warranty. Why do some people (including ME, at one time) not understand this? I had two Charter Arms back in the 80's that had problems, and I wish now I'd sent them back rather than selling them. I see it didn't work for beag nut, but usually they make it right.

 

[midland man]

you know I wonder why ruger dosent make leveraction rifles in pistol calibers like 45c 357 44 etc??

 

[natman]

you know I wonder why ruger dosent make leveraction rifles in pistol calibers like 45c 357 44 etc??

They did, the Ruger 96/44 in 44 magnum, from 1996-2007.

But they didn't look "western", not enough were sold, and they dropped them.

 

[midland man]

yep I wished they would make some in 45c western style!!

 

[rondog]

Well, I've got an R92 in .45 Colt just like this on layaway. 24" octagonal barrel, stainless steel. I wanted a blued one with the case-hardened receiver, but I'm told they've discontinued the octagonal models, so whatcha can find is what there is, and this one was local. I can't ANY in-stock on the internet!

I can't wait to get it home, I've got great hopes that we'll become fast friends!

 

[DPris]

Ruger built their leverguns based on Ruger designs, which were non-traditional & not accepted well enough by the market to keep in production.

They've never had any interest in joining the traditional levergun market, too crowded already & a limited return on the start-up investment.
Denis

 

[brewer12345]

I hear the guys saying that they really wish that more attention was paid to quality workmanship, etc. That said, that stuff costs money. Many people either do not have the dough, are unwilling to spend it, or are unwilling to take a spendy gun into the field. You will never catch me chasing game with a $3,000 rifle or shotgun, personally. Sometimes good enough is good enough is it meets the price point. Do I wish my R92 were slicker and prettier? Sure, but at $400 out the door (used) I have a fun plinker, a target challenge (at 50 yards with peeps and my eyesight), and a totally usable small game gun.