'92 vs '73

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
laocmo
Levergunner
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:12 am

'92 vs '73

Post by laocmo »

I've read everywhere what a big improvement the '92 Win was over the '73. Better reliability, better steel, stronger action, etc. Why then do so many folks still buy '73 replicas. Internally have they been updated to '92 standards? Are they really more prone to malfunction, breakage, etc. Thanks
User avatar
J Miller
Member Emeritus
Posts: 14880
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Not in IL no more ... :)

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by J Miller »

laocmo wrote:I've read everywhere what a big improvement the '92 Win was over the '73. Better reliability, better steel, stronger action, etc. Why then do so many folks still buy '73 replicas. Internally have they been updated to '92 standards? Are they really more prone to malfunction, breakage, etc. Thanks
laocmo,
The 73s and 92s are totally different concepts of the same end result.

There is nothing wrong with the 73 design when you look at the cartridges it was designed for. Considering it was made from 1873 to the 1920s it was very successful.
The 73s are not prone to malfunctions, but they are very cartridge length critical. They use the cartridge in the carrier as the stop for the next one in the magazine.
The 92 uses an actual mechanical cartridge stop to hold the next round in the mag.
The 92 is another very successful design that was also smaller than the 73 and considerably stronger. It's also somewhat cartridge length critical, but not as bad as the 73.

The one advantage the 73 has over the 92 is the straight cartridge feed.
Whereas the 92 transitions the cartridge from horizontal in the magazine, to an angle on the carrier, then back to horizontal as it's fed from the carrier to the chamber, the cartridge in 73s remain horizontal all the time. The 73s can be made to function smoother and faster than the 92 for use in CAS. But even in normal shooting they are quite smooth and reliable.

I'm one of those who want a 73 replica, I just like the design and am quite willing to keep my ammo within the pressure limits of the design.

I've got a Marlin and a Winchester if I want to shoot warm loads.

Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts ;) .***
Booger Bill
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:23 pm

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by Booger Bill »

Might also be because of the era. The 73 was the deal in the 1870s. The 92 was starting out at the end of the cowboy era. Back around 1970 when I wasnt quite as gun educated as now, I traded into a shot out 32-20 winchester 73. I got the brainstorm to have it converted to .38 special. Had the barrel rebored etc. That one I DIDNT refinish but left it as it was except for the caliber conversion. I sold or traded it off. I also once had a shotout 92 rifle in 25-20 that I bought as a teen. It had no finish and looked like it sat under a chicken coop for 50 years! That one I had completely restored, new blue and new wood. Had it rebored and rechambered to .357 mag. It was beautifull! I had a friend painstakeinly polish it out for reblue. I also was friends to my local gunsmith that put it together. We had sent the barrel out to be rebored and rifled. I stupidly sold that one too. I really didnt have that much mony in those rifles compared to what the guru`s would get today! Sure wish that I had them back!
User avatar
Rube Burrows
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:27 pm
Location: Louisiana

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by Rube Burrows »

I love both rifles for different reasons. Obviously the 73 is just one of the most beautiful rifles ever and then it has all the history that goes with it.

I have several rifles in both 73 and 92.

As for the replicas of today the 73 can be made into a much faster gun for Cowboy shooting and if you are a speed shooter you will outrun the 92 action and will eventually want a 73 so that the gun can keep up with you. None of that is my concern though as I just like to have fun when shooting.
adirondakjack
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1925
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Upstate NY
Contact:

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by adirondakjack »

If it's gotta handle bear loads, or if I have to carry it all day up a mountain, the '92 (or Marlin '94) wins hands down. But for strictly cool factor, and fun as all git out to shoot, a slicked up (especially short stroked) 73 is a blast, and a whole pile faster to run.
Certified gun nut
jnyork
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4412
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:33 pm
Location: Wyoming and Arizona

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by jnyork »

I have a Uberti '73 in 44-40 that I shoot in Lever Action Silhouette, I likely have 4-5 thousand rounds thru it and no malfunctions, very accurate, I initially bought it because it was a helluva good deal I couldn't pass up, plus it has what , to me, is a lot of 'cool' factor. It balances very well for me with the 24" barrel and the trigger is pretty good as well. A '92 would have done me just as well, I dont think there is any particular advantage of one over the other , just depends on your tastes and what you want to do with it. k
User avatar
RIHMFIRE
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 7627
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:51 am
Location: Florida

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by RIHMFIRE »

the reason the 73 is more desireable than the 92, at least for sass,
single action shooting society,
is the short throw kits you can install to improve your time cycling the action....

other than that, the other guys have covered it....
I have had no malfuntions with either....
just beware of chapparall 73s......and the 76s......stick with uberti, taylors or cimarron

The 73 is just a prefect design...and lasted 52 years without any changes...
both have classic line and just look great.....and have real slick actions....

I bet you will end up with both :wink:
LETS GO SHOOT'N BOYS
Grizzly Adams
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: New Mexico
Contact:

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by Grizzly Adams »

Winchester envisioned the model of 1892 as replacing the model of 1873. It didn't! At least not in the minds of the shooting public. The model 1873 remained "the Winchester" and continued in production concurrent with the 1892 up into the 1920's. It remains today one of the most elegant expressions of the Victorian gunmakers art. The 1892, particularly the carbine, is possibly the finest little saddle gun ever made. Get one of each! :D
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a Vet!
COMNAVFORV, Vietnam 68-70
NRA Life, SASS Life, Banjo picking done cheap!

Quyana cekneq, Neva
User avatar
J Miller
Member Emeritus
Posts: 14880
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Not in IL no more ... :)

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by J Miller »

Grizzly Adams wrote:Winchester envisioned the model of 1892 as replacing the model of 1873. It didn't! At least not in the minds of the shooting public. The model 1873 remained "the Winchester" and continued in production concurrent with the 1892 up into the 1920's. It remains today one of the most elegant expressions of the Victorian gunmakers art. The 1892, particularly the carbine, is possibly the finest little saddle gun ever made. Get one of each! :D
And that is the best answer I've heard yet. I guess I'd best get busy, I don't have one of either ... :oops:

Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts ;) .***
jnyork
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4412
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:33 pm
Location: Wyoming and Arizona

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by jnyork »

Grizzly Adams wrote: Get one of each! :D

Well, there you have it. :D
coyote nose
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:25 am
Location: NE Ohio

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by coyote nose »

Have or had several 1873's, and have 2 1892's. World of difference....the 73's have HISTORY behind them. The 1892's are slick, light, and so cool in a different way. For me though, I ONLY shoot pyrodex in my 73's, whereas I shoot smokeless in my 92s. I know most shoot low pressure smokeless in 73's, but even with modern steels, it is a low pressure design and I just wont do it. No doubt strong enough for low pressure smokeless, but the margin of error isnt there if I screw up a load (no one is perfect... only 1 guy walked on water). The 92's need proper loads too of course, but the margin of error is much more tolerable with that twin bolt design. Browning was a genius. The weight difference is very noticable if you do a woods walk with them. What is amazing to me is how the 73 survived so long after the 92 came out. I love both gun designs, but if I were limited to one it would be hard to choose between history and strength/weight. Like the idea of owning both!!!!
"...for there is a cloud on my horizon...and its name is progress." E. Abbey, 1958
Driftwood Johnson
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Land of the Pilgrims

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by Driftwood Johnson »

Howdy

Yup, it's pretty much all been said. Because all the toggle link rifles present the cartridge straight on to the chamber, they tend to jam less when operated at light speed by the really fast guys in SASS. No, they are not fragile, you do not have to limit them to 'light' smokeless loads. They are all proofed for standard SAAMI loads, and can take a lifetime of them.

When the Winchester Model 1873 was first introduced, the frame was made of iron, not steel. A few years later, that changed to the mild steel that was commonly available at the time. But today's Italian replicas are all made from modern steel which is going to be stronger than any original made in the 1800s. So there really is no worry about shooting SAAMI strength loads in one day in and day out.

I started out in CAS with an original Winchester Model 1892, chambered for 44-40, made in 1894. It had been refinished, so I got it for a very reasonable price. I was very happy to shoot it at every match for the first couple of years.

Image

But eventually, I wanted to start shooting Black Powder, and I had read that it is easier to clean BP fouling out of a smooth, shiny new bore than a pitted old bore like my '92 had. So I bought a used Uberti 1873, chambered in 44-40 of course.

Image

Eventually, I got tired of having the exact same rifle as everybody else, so I saved my pennies and bough a Henry. In 44-40 of course. I shot the Henry exclusively with Black Powder for the last few years.

Image

Then last year I happened to walk into a toy store that had a wonderful Winchester 1892 saddle ring carbine in the rack. Refinished, so the price was less than what most folks pay for a Rossi. I grabbed it and ran. Did I mention, 44-40. Made in 1919.

Image

The problem is now, I have trouble deciding which one to take to a match.

By the way, that business about it being easier to clean BP fouling out of a shiny new bore doesn't really hold much water. Yes, it is easier to completely swab a new bore clean, but I have since learned that you really don't have to scrub out every last molecule of BP fouling and the gun will not fall apart. Any fouling clinging to any pits just needs a nice liberal application of Ballistol to soak it down, and it ain't gonna draw any moisture out of the air, and it ain't gonna cause any rust. I shoot ALL my guns with Black Powder now, shiny new bores or pitted old ones.
I don't know where we're going but there's no sense being late.
buckeyeshooter
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:57 pm

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by buckeyeshooter »

I went with the 92, also 44-40.

yes, I use it with black powder in CAS shoots too!

Image
DarryH
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:57 am

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by DarryH »

I own 3 model 92's.
A pre-1900 in 32-20 with a 24" barrel,
a 1912-1913 made 32-20 with a 24" barrel.
One has an octagon barrel, the other is half octagon and half round.
I also have a Miroku made in Japan in 357 Mag.
It has a 24" round barrel. I used it for cowboy action shooting for seven years.

These guns run smoother than the 73's.
The 73's make a lot of clucking sounds when you operate them.
The 73's are also more prone to getting crud inside them while hunting.
If you have the dust cover in place, then there is not much difference.

I want a 73, but have not found one at the price I CAN pay.
First choice of calibers in 38-40 to match up with a Colt Bisley I have.
Second choice is the 44-40.
No other calibers tempt me.
I am holding out for an original, but if a reproduction came to me
with everything being just right, I may jump on it.

Good Shootin!!
DarryH
firefuzz
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1351
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:17 am
Location: Central Oklahoma

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by firefuzz »

My luck with '73s hasn't been that good, but I've only had one replica, a Beretta/Uberti. I'll get another regular Uberti and give it a run someday, but not right now. However I own, have owned, several '92s and I truly love those little guns. Right now I've only got 2....a new Rossi 20" in .357 and a Browning B92 in .357 but I'd buy more of either gun I can find at the right price. I haven't handled one of the new Miroku/Winchester '92's but IMHO the Browning B92 is the finest/best '92 ever produced including the originals.

Rob
Proud to be Christian American and not ashamed of being white.

May your rifle always shoot straight, your mag never run dry, you always have one more round than you have adversaries, and your good mate always be there to watch your back.

Because I can!

Never grow a wishbone where a backbone ought to be.
User avatar
Griff
Posting leader...
Posts: 20803
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: OH MY GAWD they installed a STOP light!!!

Re: '92 vs '73

Post by Griff »

I have 3 1892 replicas, (Rossi); 2 are .38/357 carbines and a .45Colt EMF Short rifle. After a little work on smoothin' up the rough edges, they're slick enough for my purposes. The carbines were my wife's & son's CAS rifles, the 45 is my backup & hog huntin' rifle, short & handy enough for woods n' brush and stout enough for heavy +P loads. Almost any RFP will feed reliably, but very meplats can cause problems.

I have one Uberti 1873, also in 45Colt, w/24" barrel that's been my main CAS rifle since 1987. In that time I've broken ONE extractor. It's currently w/a gunsmith to replace the firing pin extension retaining pin with the new, thicker one the new production guns have and to replace a couple of buggered screws from its relatively frequent teardowns for cleaning. Since I shoot BP most of the time and it might be 2-5 months between matches nowadays, I tear it down more for a good cleaning much more often than I did when I was shooting once a month or more. It also now gets set aside when I use my 1860 Henry. The '73 is OAL cartridge length sensitive, and doesn't like SWC or WC ammo. Other'n that, it'll shoot just about anything.

Like said, it's really a matter of action strength, what you can safety and reliably shoot in an 1892 might just break or stretch a '73 action. The '73s are fine with factory level ammo, just don't push 'em. And, yes, most definitely, BUY BOTH! :P
Griff,
SASS/CMSA #93
NRA Patron
GUSA #93

There is a fine line between hobby & obsession!
AND... I'm over it!!
No I ain't ready, but let's do it anyway!
Post Reply