1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

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
User avatar
GonnePhishin
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1952
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Bodecker's BBQ Bar & Grill

1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by GonnePhishin »

Can anyone enlighten me in simple terms why the 1892 model has a stronger action than does the 1894?

UncleBuck
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

"I know not what course other men may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" - Patrick Henry
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: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Griff »

If your question is about the Win 1892 vs the Marlin 1894: Bearing surface, two equilateral locking lugs, solid side walls on the frame (no cut in the right for the bolt). Yes the "roof" on the Marlin strengthens the left frame wall, but actually provides only resistence to lifting of the bolt. IMO.
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!
Pete44ru
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 11242
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:26 am

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Pete44ru »

WinchesterModel 1886's & 1892's don't "drop their pants", i.e. the receiver bottom is solid and integral with the sidewalls, ILO a separate dropping link as in the Winchester Model 1894 design.

(EDIT: It wasn't clear in your OP, exactly what "1892" & "1894" guns you were referring to)
Last edited by Pete44ru on Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GonnePhishin
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1952
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Bodecker's BBQ Bar & Grill

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by GonnePhishin »

So, is that why the marlin 1894 can only handle pistol loads due to the lower operating pressure, or do I have it wrong?
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

"I know not what course other men may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" - Patrick Henry
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: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Griff »

UncleBuck wrote:So, is that why the marlin 1894 can only handle pistol loads due to the lower operating pressure, or do I have it wrong?
That, and the length of its action.
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!
User avatar
J Miller
Member Emeritus
Posts: 14880
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Not in IL no more ... :)

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by J Miller »

The Model 1894 Winchester, all variants, and the Marlins use a one piece angled locking bolt at the rear of the breach bolt.

The angled bolt of the 1894 Winchester is more than sufficient for the cartridges it's designed for. It is not week. However the receivers, and the internal parts are long and can flex allowing movement. Then there is the angle of the locking bolt as it locks the breach bolt. It is not totally resistant to rearward forces once they exceed the working pressures the action was designed for.

The single locking bolt of the Marlin design shares some of the attributes of the Winchester 94 design plus it does not fully block the breach bolt. It only slides up into slots towards the rear of the breach bolt. Their system is more than adequate for the cartridges their guns are designed for, but aren't even as strong as the Winchester 94 actions. (For you Marlin lovers don't gripe at me. There was an article posted here some time back about lever guns being chambered for the 454 Casull. The Marlins failed before the Winchesters.)

The Winchester 1892 and all it's variants and descendants use two wide vertical locking bolts that slide up and down in their own mortices and engage the bolt in two mortices. It is a much stronger design and when coupled with modern metallurgy makes a very strong design.

I'm sure somebody else can explain the details better than I can, but this is what I've learned.


Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts ;) .***
User avatar
Malamute
Member Emeritus
Posts: 3766
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:56 am
Location: Rocky Mts

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Malamute »

The "strength" issue makes for interesting discussions, but means little in real life unless you plan to build a gun in a very high pressure chamebering, all of them will last a lifetime with the rounds they were chambered for, (with the possible exception of the 307 and 356, we havent had much long term input on those rounds in winchesters or marlins). What Joe said covers most of the discussion tho.

When the "strength" discussion comes up, it is never, or rarely, so far as I recall, mentioned that neither action tends to "blow up" when the safe working pressure is exceeded, they tend to stretch (winchesters) or bulge the sidewalls out (marlins) and fail to function, making it impossible to fire them, or the bottom of the barrel tends to give way where the magazine tube clearance is milled in, and any other damage is related to that. Similar to revolvers failures. The frame is the last part to go, and is always preceded by the cylinder failing.
"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
GonnePhishin
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1952
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Bodecker's BBQ Bar & Grill

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by GonnePhishin »

Many thanks to all that replied to my post!

Hope everyone has a great 4th!

UncleBuck
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

"I know not what course other men may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" - Patrick Henry
User avatar
KirkD
Desktop Artiste
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:52 am
Location: Central Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by KirkD »

I've had and still have a variety of Model 1892/Model 92 rifles and carbines. The Model 92 action seems to me to be much stronger than what the original cartridges (25-20, 32-20, 38-40, and 44-40) ever needed. The only original cartridge that even comes remotely close to stressing the 92 action would have been the 44-40 high velocity version, and I doubt that even came close. As for modern cartridges, that's something I cannot speak to. With its two locking lugs on either side of the bolt, and closer to the breech, the Model 92 has one strong action for sane reloading. I practice sane reloading and am not interested in seeing how close to the edge I can live. +1 to Malamute's comments.
Kirk: An old geezer who loves the smell of freshly turned earth, old cedar rail fences, wood smoke, a crackling fireplace on a snowy evening, pristine wilderness lakes, the scent of
cedars and a magnificent Whitetail buck framed in the semi-buckhorn sights of a 120-year old Winchester.
Blog: https://www.kirkdurston.com/
w30wcf
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:23 pm
Location: Erie, PA

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by w30wcf »

Uncle Buck,

The Marlin 1894 is chambered for the .44 Magnum so it will certainly work fine with any sane handloads.

w30wcf
aka John Kort
aka Jack Christian SASS 11993 "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Philippians 4:13
aka w44wcf (black powder)
NRA Life member
.22 WCF, .30 WCF, .44 WCF Cartridge Historian
User avatar
GonnePhishin
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1952
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Bodecker's BBQ Bar & Grill

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by GonnePhishin »

Unfortunately I do not reload my own ammunition, but nevertheless if I did, I would not exceed recommended loading pressures.
My original inquiry as to the strengths of each respective action was to satisfy my curiosity since I am a relatively new owner of of a Marlin 1894 in 357 calibre, and have just made arrangements to purchase another.
This could bring up another potential question; that being is one more reliable than another (Marlin vs Winchester vs Puma) but that would be like debating whether a Chevy is more reliable than a Ford, etc.
I do appreciate everyone who took time to answer.

UncleBuck
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

"I know not what course other men may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" - Patrick Henry
User avatar
KirkD
Desktop Artiste
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:52 am
Location: Central Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by KirkD »

The Marlin 1894 will easily handle the normal loads of the 357. I once had the same carbine in 44 Mag. Like w30wcf said, if it will handle the 44 Mag, it will handle any sane load for which it is chambered.

As for reliability, I don't have sufficient experience to speak to that one, but given that the same action has been around for more than 100 years, I would expect it to be reliable, if the factory has done a quality job of manufacturing it.
Kirk: An old geezer who loves the smell of freshly turned earth, old cedar rail fences, wood smoke, a crackling fireplace on a snowy evening, pristine wilderness lakes, the scent of
cedars and a magnificent Whitetail buck framed in the semi-buckhorn sights of a 120-year old Winchester.
Blog: https://www.kirkdurston.com/
RSY
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:09 pm
Location: Georgetown, TX

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by RSY »

Read J Miller's response a few times. Therein lies the answer you seek, amigo.

Scott
Gun Smith
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:24 am

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Gun Smith »

There have been many M.92's rebarrelled and rechambered for S&W 44 Magnum. I did two almost 50 years ago. I have not seen any articles that discussed any blown up 44 Mags. I think the Model 92 Winchester is as strong or stronger than most any handguns chambering that cartridge.
User avatar
GonnePhishin
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1952
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Bodecker's BBQ Bar & Grill

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by GonnePhishin »

RSY,

I took your advice and re-read J Millers post and think I now understand: Winchesters 2 locking bolts vs the Marlin's 1.

Thanks :lol:
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

"I know not what course other men may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" - Patrick Henry
Nate Kiowa Jones
Site Sponsor
Posts: 2507
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Nate Kiowa Jones »

UncleBuck wrote:RSY,

I took your advice and re-read J Millers post and think I now understand: Winchesters 2 locking bolts vs the Marlin's 1.

Thanks :lol:

Unclebuck,
The two locking bolts are only part of the equation. The more important thing to consider is the angle in which the 2 locking bolt engages the breech bolt. Maximum pressure could be achieved if they locked at 90 degrees perpendicular. The problem with that is once the round is fired the breech bolt and locking bolts tend to bind up making the gun impossible to open. Actions like the marlin 1894, 336/95 and the win 94 with their single locking bolts have somewhat sever angles to overcome this binding up. But at the same time it limits the pressure. They tend to blow open with over pressures plus the Marlin 1894 tends to push the breech bolt up and over the locking bolt. This is because the 1894 breech bolt isn’t supported on the right side. The top support offers very little to the left side of the receiver for support.
Like the 86 action the 92 has more vertical angle and the twin locking bolts add more surface area, so it will take much higher pressures.
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
User avatar
Paladin
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1853
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:55 am
Location: Not Working (much)

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Paladin »

I am a mere novice in 1892s but they are my newest favorite firearm along with single actions with big bullets. Your information is greatly appreciated as I like to know as much as I can about my weapons.
It is not the critic who counts
rwt
Levergunner
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:31 pm
Location: SE Michigan

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by rwt »

Should the safety features of the new Winchester 1892 stop one from purchasing one? Are they much worse than the cross bolt safety on the newer Marlin 1894's?

What other factors should be considered in deciding between a Win. 1892 versus a Marlin 1894 in either .357 or 45 Colt?

I see that the 1892 was at one time produced in a 16" Trapper barrel length. Has the Marlin 1894 been produced in that length or do folks have the barrel shortened. I see that Marlin's are drilled and tapped for receiver mounted aperture sights and the Winchester is not.

I am looking for a hunting/plinking/critter rifle-not one for CAS.

Thank you.
User avatar
Tycer
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:17 am
Location: Asheville, NC

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Tycer »

No.
No.
Ford/Chevy, however don't forget the Rossi's. With a minimum effort and a modicum of mechanical aptitude the Rossi's will out-perform either new one at a fraction of the price. No

Don't know about factory 16", however with the 357 there is zero loss of velocity with a 16" barrel. That's actually the peak.

Good luck hunting for it and post pics and a range report when you're done.
Kind regards,
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
User avatar
J Miller
Member Emeritus
Posts: 14880
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Not in IL no more ... :)

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by J Miller »

I just read this thread not realizing it was 8 years old. When I got to my answer, quoted below, I could not believe I wrote it. Since being sick with the ecoli and pneumonia I've lost a lot of what I knew. I'm almost stupid now compared to when I wrote that. darn .... :(

Joe

J Miller wrote:The Model 1894 Winchester, all variants, and the Marlins use a one piece angled locking bolt at the rear of the breach bolt.

The angled bolt of the 1894 Winchester is more than sufficient for the cartridges it's designed for. It is not week. However the receivers, and the internal parts are long and can flex allowing movement. Then there is the angle of the locking bolt as it locks the breach bolt. It is not totally resistant to rearward forces once they exceed the working pressures the action was designed for.

The single locking bolt of the Marlin design shares some of the attributes of the Winchester 94 design plus it does not fully block the breach bolt. It only slides up into slots towards the rear of the breach bolt. Their system is more than adequate for the cartridges their guns are designed for, but aren't even as strong as the Winchester 94 actions. (For you Marlin lovers don't gripe at me. There was an article posted here some time back about lever guns being chambered for the 454 Casull. The Marlins failed before the Winchesters.)

The Winchester 1892 and all it's variants and descendants use two wide vertical locking bolts that slide up and down in their own mortices and engage the bolt in two mortices. It is a much stronger design and when coupled with modern metallurgy makes a very strong design.

I'm sure somebody else can explain the details better than I can, but this is what I've learned.


Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts ;) .***
.45colt
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4720
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:00 am
Location: North Coast of America-Ohio

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by .45colt »

As we get older Joe the old adage " He forgot more than You know" comes into play big time. most here are at best hobby Lever gunners . A few know guns inside and out. I'm just here to learn.
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: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Griff »

rwt wrote:Should the safety features of the new Winchester 1892 stop one from purchasing one? Are they much worse than the cross bolt safety on the newer Marlin 1894's? Other than them being unfamiliar to me, no. But then I don't have a crossbolt Marlin.

What other factors should be considered in deciding between a Win. 1892 versus a Marlin 1894 in either .357 or 45 Colt? Outside of normal fitment issues? (LOP, etc), and feel of the difference in "fat" vs thin forends, as usual it boils down to which YOU like.

I see that the 1892 was at one time produced in a 16" Trapper barrel length. Has the Marlin 1894 been produced in that length or do folks have the barrel shortened. I see that Marlin's are drilled and tapped for receiver mounted aperture sights and the Winchester is not. And Rossis are still avail in a 16" version.

I am looking for a hunting/plinking/critter rifle-not one for CAS. And, FWIW, if you ain't gonna "hotrod" either cartridge, Uberti 1873s are available in both cartridges and in a varirety of configurations.

Thank you.
And, Welcome to the Forum!
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!
jd45
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 935
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:29 pm

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by jd45 »

Paco has talked about the fact that the Rossi 1892s are chambered in the .454 Casull cartridge, which ought to be a gigantic clue as to how strong they are, compared to Win. or Marlin '94s. jd45
Nate Kiowa Jones
Site Sponsor
Posts: 2507
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Nate Kiowa Jones »

rwt wrote:Should the safety features of the new Winchester 1892 stop one from purchasing one? Are they much worse than the cross bolt safety on the newer Marlin 1894's?

................................................................................
Thank you.
Miroku copies of the Winchester 92's are nothing like the originals. They have way too many liability part. The Miroku 92 has an inertia style 5 piece firing pin. The original was full length one piece. Even with the hammer setting on it this firing pin is too short to reach the primers. It requires the heavy rebounding hammer spring to slam it forward for consistent ignition and you will feel that heavy hammer spring when levering the action. Even then some folks are reporting FTF's (with the 86's mostly) but I had one of the 92's that FTF-ed with CCI primers. The other problem won't show up early but these Miroku 92's have several tiny parts and springs the original did not have and history has shown that over time these small delicate part don't last.
This all can be fixed but it does require changing the fire control parts back to the original style 1/4 cock safety hammer, full length one piece firing pin and one piece trigger.


Here are the parts that get changed. The 5 piece firing pin not shown but is changed to the full length one piece original style.

Image

They are all replaced with just 5 parts.
Once this work is done you end up with a smooth traditional action in modern steel.

This one got the safety welded up then color cased.

Image

But, it almost doubles the price of the gun. So unless you want the better fit and finish of the Miroku 92 just buy the Rossi. The only addition is the ugly bolt top safety but it's easily fixed.

Image
The other advantage with the Rossi is they are less ammo sensitive than the Miroku. Rossi changed the geometry of the cart guides to handle the straight wall ammo, better. The Win Miroku's still use the old bottleneck cartridge type guides
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
rwt
Levergunner
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:31 pm
Location: SE Michigan

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by rwt »

Thank you!

I am not familiar with lever actions and their safe operation. So, I don't mind a safety and thought having one on the tang a good idea-where it is on my shotguns. It's a shame that Winchester made it so complex.

I also don't mind the look of the Marlin cross bolt, but can understand why it offends some. It does seem a bit awkward to use, but I'm sure you get used to it. The Marlin 1894 seems to get very good reviews.
Nate Kiowa Jones
Site Sponsor
Posts: 2507
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Nate Kiowa Jones »

rwt wrote:Thank you!

I am not familiar with lever actions and their safe operation. So, I don't mind a safety and thought having one on the tang a good idea-where it is on my shotguns. It's a shame that Winchester made it so complex.

I also don't mind the look of the Marlin cross bolt, but can understand why it offends some. It does seem a bit awkward to use, but I'm sure you get used to it. The Marlin 1894 seems to get very good reviews.

The original JM Marlins do have a good rep. The first batches of the current Remington made Marlins not so much. It does appear they are improving.
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
rwt
Levergunner
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:31 pm
Location: SE Michigan

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by rwt »

It's strange, but I haven't found any of the rifles mentioned at my local gun shows in SE Michigan or on the racks of my local gun dealers.

No Marlin 1894's, no Ross 92's and no Winchester 92's?

The specs on the websites don't provide length of pull info. I'll keep looking-another gun show is coming up in July.

Thanks, everyone for their help!

I also read mixed reviews on the Winchester 1894's handling of revolver calibers. Some say it's terrible, some say they have had zero problems. The tang safety on the angle eject model makes sense to me. I wish Marlin had placed their safety there.
User avatar
gundownunder
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: Perth. Western Australia

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by gundownunder »

There is another item to consider when deciding between the 92 and the 1894 Marlin. Recoil.
I use a Marlin 1894 in 357 to shoot a 180 grain bullet at 1750 fps, to knock down 200 meter rams in cowboy silhouette. It's fun, but that's a maximum load so I only use it about a quarter of the time and a lighter load for the rest.
A friend has a 92 Miroku, and shooting that load out of a rifle which is about a pound lighter and has a steel crescent butt is a bit more like work than play. I would think that with a 44 Mag or 45 with Ruger loads, a 92 would get to the point where things would be very unpleasant and you would probably hurt yourself before you hurt your rifle.
Someone mentioned the 454 Casull earlier. I read a couple of articles on it and if I recall correctly the only two notable problems the Rossi 92 had was that stocks would crack at the tang and magazine tubes would back out of the receiver.
Bob
***********************************
You have got to love democracy-
It lets you choose who your dictator is going to be.
***********************************
Trailboss
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:57 am

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Trailboss »

gundownunder wrote:....I would think that with a 44 Mag or 45 with Ruger loads, a 92 would get to the point where things would be very unpleasant and you would probably hurt yourself before you hurt your rifle.
Someone mentioned the 454 Casull earlier. I read a couple of articles on it and if I recall correctly the only two notable problems the Rossi 92 had was that stocks would crack at the tang and magazine tubes would back out of the receiver.
I have a Rossi in 480 Ruger that throws a 380 grain slug. Because Rossi redesigned the butt stock for the 454 and the 480, the stock is strong and also has a rubber recoil pad. Makes shooting the heavy cartridges almost pleasant. Rossi also threaded the magazine tube into the receiver to prevent further issues with it backing out. I've fired a few thousand rounds of 480R out of my Rossi 92 and it's holding up fine.

It's my favorite 92 out of many.
rwt
Levergunner
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:31 pm
Location: SE Michigan

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by rwt »

Trailboss wrote:
gundownunder wrote:....I would think that with a 44 Mag or 45 with Ruger loads, a 92 would get to the point where things would be very unpleasant and you would probably hurt yourself before you hurt your rifle.
Someone mentioned the 454 Casull earlier. I read a couple of articles on it and if I recall correctly the only two notable problems the Rossi 92 had was that stocks would crack at the tang and magazine tubes would back out of the receiver.
I have a Rossi in 480 Ruger that throws a 380 grain slug. Because Rossi redesigned the butt stock for the 454 and the 480, the stock is strong and also has a rubber recoil pad. Makes shooting the heavy cartridges almost pleasant. Rossi also threaded the magazine tube into the receiver to prevent further issues with it backing out. I've fired a few thousand rounds of 480R out of my Rossi 92 and it's holding up fine.

It's my favorite 92 out of many.
So, if you were interested in a 45 Colt, would you get the Rossi in 454 to get the hardier rifle?

"I use a Marlin 1894 in 357 to shoot a 180 grain bullet at 1750 fps, to knock down 200 meter rams in cowboy silhouette"-Sounds like great fun!
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: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by Griff »

rwt wrote:So, if you were interested in a 45 Colt, would you get the Rossi in 454 to get the hardier rifle?
Kind of a moot point for me, as I have a Rossi 92 in 45Colt, but I see no use for the features of the 454 in this chambering.
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!
User avatar
gundownunder
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: Perth. Western Australia

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by gundownunder »

So, if you were interested in a 45 Colt, would you get the Rossi in 454 to get the hardier rifle?
Not unless you can find and afford 454 brass. Otherwise you would have the same problem that 357 shooters have when they feed their guns with lots of 38 spl brass, crud buildup.

What I would probably do if I was going to use a 45 with Ruger only loads is try to buy a 454 butt for it, or remove the crescent and fit a rubber recoil pad. Another option would be a custom stock. There is a stock maker 20 minutes down the road from me who could make me a nice laminated stock in pretty much any color timber I choose.
Bob
***********************************
You have got to love democracy-
It lets you choose who your dictator is going to be.
***********************************
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 31933
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by AJMD429 »

rwt wrote:Thank you!

I am not familiar with lever actions and their safe operation. So, I don't mind a safety and thought having one on the tang a good idea-where it is on my shotguns. It's a shame that Winchester made it so complex.

I also don't mind the look of the Marlin cross bolt, but can understand why it offends some. It does seem a bit awkward to use, but I'm sure you get used to it. The Marlin 1894 seems to get very good reviews.
I actually like the Marlin safety - it is 'positive' and well made....I trust it to be 'on' when it says so, and 'off' when it says so.

I do NOT like the Rossi safety - they seem to flip around on their own, and in my opinion all would be safer if they were fixed with a dab of epoxy or replacement button.

I have no experience with lever guns with 'tang' safeties, other than a Mossberg shotgun and a Ruger M-77 rifle; both work ok.

ALSO - I believe there is a 'butt-pad extension' for the Ruger 10/22 that fits Mini-14's, and ALSO is a close fit for the Rossi 92's that have the plain buttplates.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/425407 ... bber-black
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
J Miller
Member Emeritus
Posts: 14880
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Not in IL no more ... :)

Re: 1892 Receiver Strength vs 1894

Post by J Miller »

My Marlin 1894 does not have a CB safety ..... any more. :mrgreen:


Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts ;) .***
Post Reply