45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

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
cvarcher
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:08 am
Location: NY

45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by cvarcher »

I have a Winchester Miroku 1892 rifle in 45LC and reload for that caliber. Depending on the bullets used the COL can vary some .I noticed when I go over 1.635" overall length they hangup in the feeding staying stuck at the bottom and not clearing the front edge to angle up on the ramp. I had some 300gr XTPS that were about 1.65" that hung up but I also had some 240gr XTPs that were 1.635 that all fed fine. SO ID like to know what yuou have noticed and is there anything I can do to get the longer ones to feed ?
User avatar
Malamute
Member Emeritus
Posts: 3766
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:56 am
Location: Rocky Mts

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by Malamute »

The cartridge stop nub on the carrier can be cut back a bit. If you go very far, you may have to also clearance the front edge of the ejector some.

Elmer Kieth mentioned it, and Ive heard of others in the recent past say that 92s could be altered to work with the Lyman/Keith bullet in 44 mag. In the Browning 92 I tried them in, they work perfectly in 44 spl cases, and no way in mag cases without cutting the stop back, The difference is 1/10 th inch, not positive it it requires that much clearance to work, that takes quite a lot off the carrier cartridge stop nub if you get all the clearance from that part. The rim also hits the ejector face, but I think it can be clearanced a bit without hurting it. You may be able to gain a tiny bit off the rear face of the barrel lower edge also.

All theory so far as far as my experience, but its been done before. Guess it depends on how much you want that load to work and if working on the gun concerns you. Let us know how ot works out.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt-

Isnt it amazing how many people post without reading the thread?
siberian505
Levergunner
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:50 am

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by siberian505 »

The bullet may be hanging up in the cartridge stop. Mine likes the rcbs 300 grain gas check swc quite well. At 1500fps it duplicates the 45/90 black powder load.
cvarcher
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:08 am
Location: NY

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by cvarcher »

Mine loves the 300 grain Hornady XTPs and so with the case cut to 1.275 the COL comes out at 1.653" which is about .015" too long for clearance. Rather than mess with the carrier wouldl I be ok to just shorten the cases a little bit more to say 1.260" . OR would there be a large pressure problem.?
User avatar
J Miller
Member Emeritus
Posts: 14880
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Not in IL no more ... :)

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by J Miller »

cvarcher wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2017 4:35 pm Mine loves the 300 grain Hornady XTPs and so with the case cut to 1.275 the COL comes out at 1.653" which is about .015" too long for clearance. Rather than mess with the carrier wouldl I be ok to just shorten the cases a little bit more to say 1.260" . OR would there be a large pressure problem.?
If you can find some Hornady brass it's already shorter due to the pointy bullet that came in it.
Personally I'd alter the rifle rather than the brass. But that's just me. I had that done to my Rossi some years back. It wouldn't even feed factory ammo so I sent it to M&M back east and had it fixed. With it I sent some dummy rounds with Keith bullets to make sure the gunsmith made the right fixes.

Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts ;) .***
longranger
Levergunner
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:04 pm
Location: Buffalo Wyoming

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by longranger »

I am using a Accurate mold @.456 and 300 grns. Lyman#2 alloy O.A.L is 1.61 and works flawlessly.Win/Miroku 92 and W.W. brass.I bought a couple thousand pieces that were factory primed and have the rib for the bullet for cheap.
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: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by Griff »

I'm mostly shooting 45 Colt in a couple 1873s and an 1860; in those, I need to keep my COAL to 1.575". At that length, they work perfectly in my 1892. Max length listed for most leverguns is 1.600". If you're venturing beyond that, you'll probably need to adjust the length of your carrier.

It's the length of the carrier that's critical... the cartridge stop is that spring loaded tab on the forward left side of the receiver that keeps subsequent cartridges in the magazine. Going much over that 1.600", you might also have to adjust the positioning of the slots in the guides to allow the rear of the cartridge to slip up thru the slots, allowing the cartridge to transition to horizontal before the nose engages the top of the chamber.
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!
Nate Kiowa Jones
Site Sponsor
Posts: 2507
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by Nate Kiowa Jones »

OK, The thing to keep in mind is these modern straight wall pistol caliber ammo leverguns (all, not just the 92’s) are a lot like semi-auto handguns. There’s just some ammo they aren’t going to work well with.
All leveraction, pump action and semi-auto guns (long guns or handguns) are ammo length and bullet shape sensitive. Some more than other. For example, you don't think about it much if you are dealing with a rifle cal. like 3006, 308 or 223 and even 30-30. Those are bottleneck calibers. Bottlenecks always feed better than straightwall ammo, whether it is a rifle cal or a pistol cal. That's because you have a small diameter bullet going into a really big hole by comparison, the bottleneck chamber being much like a funnel.
The original Winchester 92's were designed to work with bottleneck ammo in the 1.5" to 1.6" OAL with round nose flat point bullets. Ammo like 44-40, 38-40, 32-20 and 25-20.
What that means is they may not work well with really long really short ammo. (They can be too long to allow the carrier to come off bottom or if they do come up to chamber they tend to hit the top inside of the chamber before they make the turn into the chamber) . (One of the things Rossi did years ago was redesign the cart guides by changing the angle of the rim slots so the back end comes up sooner. So they tend to be less ammo sensitive than other pistol cal 92 leverguns)
The most common problem with the short ammo is the gun tends to throw out, flip or stovepipe live rounds with the empty's. This is because the shorter ammo coming onto the carrier from the tube can bounce forward enough that the rim is too close to the rim slots in the guides and when you lever it fast the carrier just catapults them up or out with the empty.
Also, bullet shapes can make a difference. Bullets other than the round nosed flat point profile they were designed for can cause issues. The truncated cone or TC style bullets will work but can end up too long for some guns. As for SWC, the cutter bands tend to hang going in the chamber.
However, the 92 tends to work better than say the Marlin 1894 or Win 73’ and 94’s. This is because they kinda roll the cart in as opposed to pushing it straight forward.
OK, so how do you make them work with longer ammo? As for modifying cartridge stops, there are two in a 92. One stop is the magazine cut-off stop. It's located there on the front end of the left side cart guide. The other is on the back end of the carrier. This is the one that determines the max OAL the action will cycle. It is true, you can take some off that stop. But, if you take too much (because it's angled as you take metal off the front you are also lowering it.) the incoming round will jump over it allowing a double feed on closing. (the mag cut off only works when the action is open).
cvarcher wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:44 am I have a Winchester Miroku 1892 rifle in 45LC and reload for that caliber. Depending on the bullets used the COL can vary some .I noticed when I go over 1.635" overall length they hangup in the feeding staying stuck at the bottom and not clearing the front edge to angle up on the ramp. I had some 300gr XTPS that were about 1.65" that hung up but I also had some 240gr XTPs that were 1.635 that all fed fine. SO ID like to know what yuou have noticed and is there anything I can do to get the longer ones to feed ?
Because of parts stack up variances, no two gun are the same. But, as you have found bullet shape can make a difference as well. The other factor is the Miroku 92's have cart guides pretty much like the originals. The rim slot angles are too slow so they tend to be more ammo sensitive than the Rossi. Granted, the 454 Rossi's have different carriers but I actually have one here that will cycle the 385 hammerheads at a 1.781 OAL
Image

Image

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jPf2x ... 38-h638-no

Image
Steve Young aka Nate Kiowa Jones Sass# 6765

Steve's Guns aka "Rossi 92 Specialists"
205 Antler lane
Lampasas, Texas 76550


http://www.stevesgunz.com

Email; steve@stevesgunz.com

Tel: 512-564-1015

Image
cvarcher
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:08 am
Location: NY

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by cvarcher »

Well I shortened up the brass from 1.275 to 1.265 for a total COL of 1.635 and this cycles flawlessly using the 300gr hornady XTP bullets which are very accurate and stout with Lil gun charged 22gr for 1640fps velocity. So now my final problem is how do I get that 7lb plus trigger pull lowered. Turnbull had converted this rifle to half cock safety.I asked about improving the trigger but that didn't happen. What is the standard remedy for this now--a lighter wolf hammer spring or trigger work on the hammer/trigger sear? or both?
Pete44ru
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 11242
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:26 am

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by Pete44ru »

cvarcher wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:57 pm
So now my final problem is how do I get that 7lb plus trigger pull lowered.
Turnbull had converted this rifle to half cock safety

I asked about improving the trigger but that didn't happen.

What is the standard remedy for this now--a lighter wolf hammer spring or trigger work on the hammer/trigger sear? or both?
There's nothing in this thread about the trigger pull you complained about in your other thread on your gun,

so,

I would second Bronco's comment there - you & Turnbull are both in NYS, so I suggest you call him about your work warranty issue and drive it over to him.


.
cvarcher
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:08 am
Location: NY

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by cvarcher »

I sent an email to Turnbull with my complaint. Lets see what they say.
User avatar
Malamute
Member Emeritus
Posts: 3766
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:56 am
Location: Rocky Mts

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by Malamute »

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:06 pm


What that means is they may not work well with really long really short ammo. (They can be too long to allow the carrier to come off bottom or if they do come up to chamber they tend to hit the top inside of the chamber before they make the turn into the chamber) . (One of the things Rossi did years ago was redesign the cart guides by changing the angle of the rim slots so the back end comes up sooner. So they tend to be less ammo sensitive than other pistol cal 92 leverguns)
Someone here (dont recall who off the top of my head) modified their carrier with a groove in the front top to allow the cartridge to lay slightly lower as it fed. It seems to have worked.


Regarding the trigger pull, you had them install other parts to be a traditional half cock? Did you tell them to lower the trigger pull or did you tel them to make it a particular weight? if you didnt specify weight, they may well have lowered it from whatever the new parts ended up being for pull weight, but without a specific weight to target, called it good enough for being better than the drop in parts had for a pull weight.

I had a 1911 once that had such a hard pull I often thought the safety was on when trying to shoot it. It could have been noticeably reduced and still been hard.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt-

Isnt it amazing how many people post without reading the thread?
User avatar
Malamute
Member Emeritus
Posts: 3766
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:56 am
Location: Rocky Mts

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by Malamute »

Malamute wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:23 am
Nate Kiowa Jones wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:06 pm


What that means is they may not work well with really long really short ammo. (They can be too long to allow the carrier to come off bottom or if they do come up to chamber they tend to hit the top inside of the chamber before they make the turn into the chamber) . (One of the things Rossi did years ago was redesign the cart guides by changing the angle of the rim slots so the back end comes up sooner. So they tend to be less ammo sensitive than other pistol cal 92 leverguns)
Someone here (dont recall who off the top of my head) modified their carrier with a groove in the front top to allow the cartridge to lay slightly lower as it fed. It seems to have worked. I saved pictures of it. Apologies for borrowing thew pictures to post.

https://www.levergunscommunity.org/down ... w&id=15362

https://www.levergunscommunity.org/down ... w&id=15363


Regarding the trigger pull, you had them install other parts to be a traditional half cock? Did you tell them to lower the trigger pull or did you tel them to make it a particular weight? if you didnt specify weight, they may well have lowered it from whatever the new parts ended up being for pull weight, but without a specific weight to target, called it good enough for being better than the drop in parts had for a pull weight.

I had a 1911 once that had such a hard pull I often thought the safety was on when trying to shoot it. It could have been noticeably reduced and still been hard.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt-

Isnt it amazing how many people post without reading the thread?
User avatar
Sarge
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:54 am
Location: MO

Re: 45lc 1892 COL maximum --anyone?

Post by Sarge »

Good pics, Malamute. I had to do that very thing to a Rossi 357 a couple of years ago, otherwise it'd bullets high on the chamber, randomly to either side . It had the flattest dang carrier I've seen. That mod centered the cartridge on the carrier and the groove lowered the feed angle enough to completely alleviate the hang-up problem.
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.
Post Reply