Winchester 94 vs 92?

[Owen]

It seems that as my debt situation is about to evaporate, i have developed a serious jones for a .357 lever action. I want to stick with Winchester, because I get a pretty good employee discount.

Is there a significant advantage of the 94 over the 92? I have been told the fit and finish on the 92 is quite a bit better, but does the 92 have any fatal flaws?

owen

 

[six 4 sure]

I have several 94's including one in .357 and enjoy them all. However, the 94 was designed for rifles rounds such as the 38-55 and 30-30. Although I've never experienced any problems shooting pistol rounds like the .357 or 44-40 they due occur.

OTOH the 92 was designed for pistol rounds. Currently the only Winchester 92's available are special editions and are quite expensive. There are 92 clones available from Rossi/Legacy/EMF in a variety of configurations and would probably be the best way to go. The tend to be cheaper than the Winchester 94's and with a little bit of work are quite good shooters.

Six

 

[Dave Markowitz]

Ditto what six 4 sure said.

Both are fine designs from the fertile mind of John Moses Browning. The 92s generally have a somewhat smoother action, at least after being broken in, IME.

One advantage held by the 92s, specifically the Rossis imported by EMF, is that they don't have a safety. Current production Winchester 94s and 92s have a tang safety. OTH, the EMF/Rossis rely on the traditional half-cock notch. I ~think~ that the Rossis imported by Navy arms are built the same way. Rossis imported by Legacy Sports have a safety on top of the bolt.

If lever guns with hammers needed safeties, JMB would've designed them that way.