Weights differ between Rossi, Chiappa and Winchester 92's??

[Yanqui]

Why do the weights of the Rossi, Chiappa and Winchester 92's differ?


Rossi 92..............20" bbl.......37.5" overall length.......weight 5.0 lbs
Chiappa 1892.......20" bbl.......38.0" overall length.......weight 6,2 lbs
Winchester 1892...20" bbl.......37.5" overall lenght.......weight 6.0 lbs

The difference between Rossi and Chiappa/Winchester is ONE pound. Why the big difference?
Does Rossi use superior steel? I know that Rossi is the only leveraction manufacturer that chambers the 454 Casull. Not even Marlin does that.

Any credible thoughts on this?

[Old Savage]

Wood?

[dogngun]

FWIW, I have owned several Rossi revolvers and an old Puma .357 lever gun in addition to my brand new Rossi .357 lever gun. They have all been very solidly built guns. The revolvers were way overbuilt...my current .357 Rossi model 462 is a very heavy snubby, with a thicker top strap than my old S&W Highway Patrolman and a very effective triple lock system for the cylinder. It is a very accurate revolver, and I have never had a single problem with it. I frequently carry it. I think Old Savage may be right...whatever the hardwood that is used on Rossi's 92, it may be lighter than walnut. The steel parts on it seem pretty substantial, and I doubt there is much difference there as far as dimensions to account for so much weight difference...

mark

[gak]

My guess also would be the wood; the only aspect that makes much sense. As a guitar nut as well, I can vouche that otherwise identical spec instruments--especially with solid body guitars (think Fender Strats and pre 2005 or so Les Pauls) can be vastly different with different woods (especially varieties but also with the same type--age and density come into play--but mostly varitety/species). A pound difference doesn't shock me at all for a 92 sized gun.. I would also guess there may have been a difference in the old Wins between the gumwood and walnut--both used--but don't know for sure.

[Trailboss]

I wouldn't take the Rossi stated weight too serious. Rossi has quite a bit of latitude in choosing wood and that wood is of many species. I have a Rossi M92 with wood that is near blond and very light and another Rossi M92 with walnut which is dark and heavy. I suppose the M92 they weighed that day was five pounds, but the next one they produced may have weighed six.

[COSteve]

Deleted

[AJMD429]

Wood?

I'm with OS on this - I've seen the SAME manufacturer's guns vary quite a bit, depending on age and finish of wood. That's one reason I'd not count on the official 'specs' of a wooden-stocked gun down past the 4-6 oz. level, even with a carbine.

It would be interesting to weigh the actions alone.

Also - octagonal barrels seem deceptively light-weight in larger calibers (to the point I wonder if they are as strong as round ones). Never weighed them though.

[retmech]

I think COSteve nailed it. You are not going to get a 1 lb difference in stocks if they are all carbines or all rifles. The weight is in the steel and the size do the hole in the barrel makes a big difference. A ruger single action with 4 5/8" bbl in .45 colt weighs 39 oz. the same gun in .357 weighs 42 oz., a 3 oz. difference. Multiply that X 5 for a 20" bbl and you've got your pound.

[gak]

While woods can make a difference as stated, and I bet the Rossi Brazillian stuff averages lighter than the others' gen-u-wine walnut, I think you guys are right that the main "delta" is the caliber one manufacturer has chosen to quote (or misquote) over another, and possibly choosing a "wrong" model to use vs what they say it's for. In checking all three websites just now (Legacy's current "Puma" rep'ing Chiappa), these are actually all over the map. Rossi quoting 5 pounds for virtually everything, Legacy actually 7 (!) on some--you just know are for 24" octagonals of whatever caliber (finally acknowleding some lighter weights for some trapper types)....and Winchester also not differentiating a whole lot between calibers...I think quoting 6 for most 20" carbines.

IOW, as someone(s) said, take 'em all as a relative grain of salt. If a figure looks on the "iight" (5 lb) side it was probably taken off a 44/45 carbine and maybe a trapper to boot, if a lot heavier, .357 and/or 24" rifle - regardless of what they say it's for. Something in between (5.5 to 6 lbs, perhaps closer to the "truth" for a .44/45 vs .357, respectively, in a 20" round barreled carbine.

[gak]

I just tried editing my post just above, but it didn't take on my "smart phone." The clarification was that I was mostly comparing 20" round barreled carbine specs but did briefly scan over to some other configurarions for a sanity check.