Barrel length .44 magnum Rossi?

[Morgan]

Opinions on optimum barrel length on Rossi M 92 rifle, 20" or 24"? Have a 16" in .357 but I think the big rocks need more stability (?).

Your opinions, advice will be appreciated.
Thanks...........Ken

[Ysabel Kid]

Welcome aboard!

Not necessarily so. Just depends on what your going to do with it. The extra inches get you added sight-radius and more fps (more complete powder burn). But with a handgun cartridge like the .44 Magnum, the longer barrel is not needed for stability.

Handy, toting around in woods - the shorter barrel is great. Hunting, semi-open fields, go with the longer sight-radius.

[reo]

Get what you like looking at and carrying the best. The rest will work itself out.

[Bob]

I've got a '94 Winnie trapper in 44mag and it's quite accurate. Buy the one you feel most comfortable with and you'll be happy.
Bob

[TedH]

I prefer the 20". The extra 4 inches won't make much difference in velocity or sighting. At least for me, one of the attractions of these little carbines is their compactness and ease of carry.

[Leverdude]

I find I shoot better with weight up front & have started leaning towards longer barrels. I'd likely go with the 24" unless its their straight oct barrel, 20" is about perfect for me with those.
Longer barrels dont offer more stability to the bullet if thats what you mean, but for me its easier to remain stable for a clean shot.

[gak]

I have all lengths and configurations in .44...and like the 20" carbine the best for all-around handiness and usefulness. I enjoy them all immensely for each format's special traits, but comparatively I don't care for the extra weight of either octagonal barrel lengths, favoring the carry-ability aspect of the carbines, but understand why some do. So, for me 20" carbine, best of all worlds and the most "cowboy." The extra barrel length over the trapper (16") for me does help a little in sighting, slightly reduced recoil/muzzle flip or rise - which with a heavy load every little bit helps - and the extra 2 rounds or so capacity. I like shooting .44 Specials or reduced load .44 Mags in the Trapper. 2nd choice, if I could only have one, would be the 20" "short rifle" (octagonal) then the trapper then the 24" octagonal. Don't have a 24" round barrel - don't think Rossi ever made (someone correct me here), but it'd take 2nd place if they made 'em...I know it was a popular choice in the original Winchesters. And, truth be known, as a "survival" rifle would be my #1 all 'round choice - in either the 92 or 94 (30-30)....for that extra "reach"/ballistics.

[Morgan]

I,m leaning towards the 20" oct. barrel and was wondering if the 20" was enough to counter-act my flinch with the 44, at least I anticipate the recoil on a 44 hand gun. My .357s do not bother me at all, even the Buffalo bores.
..............I'm still listening.
Ken

[gak]

Yes the extra weight of the octagonal aspect on a 20" can help. Opinions on this vary widely, but I have not found "standard" 240 gr loads that objectionable in the 20" carbine even. Generally I don't shoot the 300+ stuff anyway (though the 92 action can handle it). Yes, just about all the recoil "charts" show the .44 as having greater recoil than the 30-30 out of similar formats. I have not found this to be the case in the real world. The 30-30, while no big deal among the deer gun rifle choices - in fact quite mild compared to other rifle caliber choices - had a much bigger "boom" factor. THEN when you compare a 94 Trapper (16") in 30-30 to a 92 44 Trapper, to me no comparison. The 30-30 16" by comparison is a real brute....again in my experience. I'll take a 44 trapper any day--again talking standard (not wimped down but "regular") loads. (Btw, lest I appear to not be a .30-30 fan I have 4 of them - all 20" - and love them).

While I'm a carbine fan through and through - trekking a lot as I do - you're leaning toward a very good compromise choice with the 20" short rifle/octagonal -- especially in that caliber, as it does (or can) have some pretty good push.

[Tommy Reb]

My Rossi 45 Colt has a 24 inch barrel. I picked that length mainly because I like the look of the longer barrel rifle. There will not be a significant difference in velocity between the barrel lengths in the 44 Mag chambering. Go for what looks "right" to you.

[CraigC]

I don't own a `92 in .44Mag but I do have two Marlins, both 20". I sincerely appreciate the light weight, even in the octagon model, when toting them all day but there are times when I wish I had the added heft of the 24".

My new-production Winchester 92 Trapper .45 is almost as handy as a pistol but much easier to hit with and significantly more potent.

The first thing I noticed about the .44 carbines was how easy they were both on the ears and on the shoulder. I was quite surprised at how pleasant they are to shoot. Nothing like shooting the cartridge in revolvers.

[Morgan]

Thanks all, I ordered the Puma 44/ Octagon 20" Case Hardened frame.
-30-

[Hobie]

I,m leaning towards the 20" oct. barrel and was wondering if the 20" was enough to counter-act my flinch with the 44, at least I anticipate the recoil on a 44 hand gun. My .357s do not bother me at all, even the Buffalo bores.
..............I'm still listening.
Ken

You need practice and you'll get over that flinch!

I have or have had carbines with similar or shorter barrels. I'm of the opinion that what feels best is what you should get. IOW REO is absolutely right.