Winchester 1892 in .357 Mag: What to watch out for?

[Old No7]

I sure could use some advice from all the 1892 Experts here...

I found a svelte little Winchester 1892 in .357 Magnum today, with a short (18"?) barrel and a button mag. The action is very slick & smooth, and she handles really well and comes up to the shoulder very naturally. With the slim forearm, I now better understand the "thin Winchester" versus "thick & pudgy Marlin" forearm battles. Seems like she would carry very nicely in the woods here in Maine. The blueing is in very good shape, and while the stock has a few rough spots, I think the walnut would clean up nice with some TLC and hand-rubbed oil.

Price is $475 out the door, with factory iron sights on it. So I put it "on hold" for a few days...

Now that I'm starting to research these, it seems I have a few things to think about and to check over again. I found this old post online:

"Conversion of 92's to 357 and 44 Mag were popular back in the late 50's and into the 60's. Well used 92's were not that expensive back than and many had rusted out bores. The cartridges the factory chambered them for were low power and everybody wanted more power. In fact, Numrich used to sell conversion barrels for both calibers ready to screw into a 92 frame. The conversion process was documented in an article in American Rifleman magazine. The firing pin, cartridge guides, bolt, and magazine all needed modification to facilitate the conversion. The 357 Mag conversion was popular because it could also handle 38 Special."

I found another posting that suggested I should also check if the firing pin was replaced and the breech face was "bushed", to match the smaller pin diameter. I read that full-house Mag loads and the old-style firing pins were a "good match" that made for a high risk of pierced primers. I'd most likely shoot plinking reloads in 357 brass most of the time, but I have to admit I'd be interested in some factory or handloads with JHPs for deer hunting.

What can you tell me about the barrels, firing pins, and other changes needed to make these guns work well for the 357 Mag?

Are they safe for occasional factory loads? (1 box/year.)

Anything else I should look out for?

I should check to see if there's any sign the barrel was relined or not too... The bore was very dirty at first, but the seller allowed me to run a boresnake through it a few times, and that revealed sharp rifling and no pits. I could not tell if it was an original barrel though (didn't really think to check of that then), and while I recall seeing the Winchester markings on the tang (no tang safety), I can't recall if there were any Winchester markings on the barrel or not. Should there be? But I do remember the caliber was stamped near the action, on the left side, and said "357 S&W".

A year ago, I sold off my rough and not-so-ready Remlin Model 1894C 357 Mag, and then the 32 Mag that followed it. I don't regret selling off those "pudgy" Marlins, as the forearms on my Marlin 39M Mountie and Marlin 38-55 Cowboy rifle are slim, but now I sorta regret not having a 38/357 rifle in the safe for plinking or short-range deer hunting.

I'd sure appreciate any feedback the gang here could offer me.

While this isn't the exact rifle, with some TLC to the wood, the one I'm interested in could look as good as this one:

W1892.jpg

Thanks all!

Old No7

[trooper joe]

I sure could use some advice from all the 1892 Experts here...

I found a svelte little Winchester 1892 in .357 Magnum today, with a short (18"?) barrel and a button mag. The action is very slick & smooth, and she handles really well and comes up to the shoulder very naturally. With the slim forearm, I now better understand the "thin Winchester" versus "thick & pudgy Marlin" forearm battles. Seems like she would carry very nicely in the woods here in Maine. The blueing is in very good shape, and while the stock has a few rough spots, I think the walnut would clean up nice with some TLC and hand-rubbed oil.

Price is $475 out the door, with factory iron sights on it. So I put it "on hold" for a few days...

Now that I'm starting to research these, it seems I have a few things to think about and to check over again. I found this old post online:

"Conversion of 92's to 357 and 44 Mag were popular back in the late 50's and into the 60's. Well used 92's were not that expensive back than and many had rusted out bores. The cartridges the factory chambered them for were low power and everybody wanted more power. In fact, Numrich used to sell conversion barrels for both calibers ready to screw into a 92 frame. The conversion process was documented in an article in American Rifleman magazine. The firing pin, cartridge guides, bolt, and magazine all needed modification to facilitate the conversion. The 357 Mag conversion was popular because it could also handle 38 Special."

I found another posting that suggested I should also check if the firing pin was replaced and the breech face was "bushed", to match the smaller pin diameter. I read that full-house Mag loads and the old-style firing pins were a "good match" that made for a high risk of pierced primers. I'd most likely shoot plinking reloads in 357 brass most of the time, but I have to admit I'd be interested in some factory or handloads with JHPs for deer hunting.

What can you tell me about the barrels, firing pins, and other changes needed to make these guns work well for the 357 Mag?

Are they safe for occasional factory loads? (1 box/year.)

Anything else I should look out for?

I should check to see if there's any sign the barrel was relined or not too... The bore was very dirty at first, but the seller allowed me to run a boresnake through it a few times, and that revealed sharp rifling and no pits. I could not tell if it was an original barrel though (didn't really think to check of that then), and while I recall seeing the Winchester markings on the tang (no tang safety), I can't recall if there were any Winchester markings on the barrel or not. Should there be? But I do remember the caliber was stamped near the action, on the left side, and said "357 S&W".

A year ago, I sold off my rough and not-so-ready Remlin Model 1894C 357 Mag, and then the 32 Mag that followed it. I don't regret selling off those "pudgy" Marlins, as the forearms on my Marlin 39M Mountie and Marlin 38-55 Cowboy rifle are slim, but now I sorta regret not having a 38/357 rifle in the safe for plinking or short-range deer hunting.

I'd sure appreciate any feedback the gang here could offer me.

While this isn't the exact rifle, with some TLC to the wood, the one I'm interested in could look as good as this one:

W1892.jpg

Thanks all!

Old No7

My first .357 rifle was converted by a guy in Northern Wisconsin in 1964. Later a gunsmith friend of mine, copied and improved the concept and converted a 32-20 SRC for me to .357. I carried this carbine on patrol as a State Trooper for several years in the late 60's. This gun would shoot anything (ie., wadcutters, .38 Spec., and .357 loads both hot and target quality).

The first barrel on my SRC had a .357/.38 liner. We bulged it the first time out probably due to a faulty reload on my part. Then my friend installed a new barrel, turned down to fit the carbine (of course I then lost all my neat Winchester markings on the original barrel).

Have had a love affair with .357 rifles ever since. Presently own a neat Model 94 Marlin .357, and a new Win/Miruko .357 take down 18" barrel, rifle. This last one will print less than 1 inch at fifty yards with 180 grn Rem factory ammo (with my wrinkled retina and open sights!!).

Enjoy your new rifle (just don't convert any old 32-20 or 25-20's anymore). They are too valuable and there are plenty of modern (old style) rifles available.

PS: I have also owned, and sold a Browning B-92 in .357. These are really rare but the new Winchester/Miruko SRC and rifles are actually nicer. My next purchase will be one of the Winchester SRC .357 rifles (made in Japan). Saw one in Florida several months ago but it has now been sold.

Just some thoughts,

Trooper Joe

[Story]

"Conversion of 92's to 357 and 44 Mag were popular back in the late 50's and into the 60's. Well used 92's were not that expensive back than and many had rusted out bores. The cartridges the factory chambered them for were low power and everybody wanted more power. In fact, Numrich used to sell conversion barrels for both calibers ready to screw into a 92 frame. The conversion process was documented in an article in American Rifleman magazine. The firing pin, cartridge guides, bolt, and magazine all needed modification to facilitate the conversion. The 357 Mag conversion was popular because it could also handle 38 Special."

Anyone know where I could find a copy of this conversion article?

[Booger Bill]

I would take a chance on it. I had a 1892 rifle converted many years ago and after that had a 1873 that was shot out converted to .38 special. I own a rossi puma in .357 and a browning 92 in .44 mag. The .357 is far nicer to shoot, less kick and probley more usefull. My dream is to have a 92 made up in .256 win mag. I have seen one and once had a martini built in it. Get that gun and work with it untill you get it eight. Maybe you hit the jackpot and its right now! I would like a new winchester 92 in 357 but dont want to pay the fortune. Put a peep on it, they can be accurate.

[Old Ironsights]

For less than $500? Buy it. You really can't go too far wrong at that price.

[earlmck]

Bushing of the firing pin was an issue when the conversion action was one of the early (1890's to .... 1920?). I don't know when they started using the smaller diameter pin, but by the late 20's I know the pin is smaller. And if your new baby does have the old "blunt instrument" black-powder style firing pin and you want to use some hot factory stuff, confine your use to Remington loads and I'll bet you have no problems. Those Remington primers are significantly tougher than everybody else's primers (I have an old Sharps-Borschardt in 22 Hornet that will pierce a primer occasionally but switching to Remington brand primers totally eliminated that occasional piercing and I avoided any more gunsmithing of the old thing).

Go bring that home. Now!

[Sixgun]

AAAhhh, stay away from it.............unless you know who did the work and will back the rifle up with a cash refund if there are feeding issues, shooting issues, or sloppy workmanship which many of these converted 92's are known for. They can easily loosen up with full power loads. Trooper Joe had a guy who knew what he was doing but many are not so lucky.


94 Marlins are out there like Carter has liver pills---at least they are around here. Then you will have a somewhat dependable rifle that can take the pressures as the same price as the converted one. ------------------Sixgun

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

AAAhhh, stay away from it.............unless you know who did the work and will back the rifle up with a cash refund if there are feeding issues, shooting issues, or sloppy workmanship which many of these converted 92's are known for. They can easily loosen up with full power loads. Trooper Joe had a guy who knew what he was doing but many are not so lucky.


94 Marlins are out there like Carter has liver pills---at least they are around here. Then you will have a somewhat dependable rifle that can take the pressures as the same price as the converted one. ------------------Sixgun

If it's a post WWI gun it will probably have the small firing pin. Plus it will have much better metal. The pre-WWI guns can shoot loose with hot loads, particulaly the 44mag conversions. The post WWI in 357 will probably hold up as long as the headspace was good.

As 6 said, feeding can be a hit or miss. If the person doing the conversion knows what he was doing you are good to go. But, I can't tell you how many of these old conversion I've had here that were hacked up. Rather than try to rebuild the butchered guides I usually just use Rossi parts.

[edwardyoung]

You may have gotten several private requests for the dealer's info if you decide to pass on this rifle. If you haven't, I'd like to ask you to post the dealer info if you decide to pass on this 357. Thanks

[Old No7]

You may have gotten several private requests for the dealer's info if you decide to pass on this rifle. If you haven't, I'd like to ask you to post the dealer info if you decide to pass on this 357. Thanks

Too late, sorry...

I did get it, and paid to bush the bolt and switch to a smaller-diameter firing pin, but I never was fully satisfied with the long headspace measurements I was getting -- and I wanted to shoot full-power 357 Mags in it.

So I moved it to a CAS shooter who would only use 38s quite awhile ago (that was an OLD post when it got resurrected...), and instead I got a nice used Marlin 1894C from a member of this forum that handles the mags just fine.

There were more posts I made about the trials and tribulations with that rifle while it was in my hands, and there's info on those about headspacing (risks and fixes, and risks of those fixes), the older/rechambered 92s and other info that someone might find interesting to review if they have the hankering for an old Model '92.

Not me, though, as I've moved on... Tight groups.

Old No7

[edwardyoung]

I remember those posts. Thanks for the update. I need to check the dates on posts before I reply

[Pete44ru]

"Conversion of 92's to 357 and 44 Mag were popular back in the late 50's and into the 60's.
The conversion process was documented in an article in American Rifleman magazine."

Anyone know where I could find a copy of this conversion article?

Any NRA member can request a reprint of any AR article, as a member service (free) - just one of the benefits of NRA membership.




.