|
The Leverguns.com Community Forum |
pricedo wrote:It is a club!!........ to kill the charging bear when the gun fails!6pt-sika wrote: That Puma/Rossi 480 I had would never appreciatte and the old black stock looked like a club!
You should have kept that 480 ........it was a masterpiece.......a ballistic DaVinci.
pricedo - motto - "Have Rossi will travel"
I haven't found that to be the case at all. Sure, I did an action job on mine when I first got them but I didn't have to to make them shoot, I wanted to so that they were smoother, that's all. Both of mine and my friend's I slicked up, all three would cycle both 357mag and 38spl loads without gagging right out of the box.pricedo wrote:Rossi guns remind me of the old Norton motorcycles like the ones I owned way back in the 60s...........you were always tinkering with this or that & adjusting something or other.
If you wanted a bike to just get on and ride you bought a Harley or a Honda.
If you don't like tinkering &/or you're not handy with your hands and tools you'd better stick to the take out of the box and shoot brands like Ruger & Savage or older JM Marlins & Remingtons.
Rossis are for tinkerers & "handy Andys" who don't mind adjusting & fixing stuff.
Well we can both agree that they're certainly not "race ready" out of the box & I don't mind getting my hands dirty in order to make them so..........in fact it's kinda fun & very educational to boot.COSteve wrote:I haven't found that to be the case at all. Sure, I did an action job on mine when I first got them but I didn't have to to make them shoot, I wanted to so that they were smoother, that's all. Both of mine and my friend's I slicked up, all three would cycle both 357mag and 38spl loads without gagging right out of the box.pricedo wrote:Rossi guns remind me of the old Norton motorcycles like the ones I owned way back in the 60s...........you were always tinkering with this or that & adjusting something or other.
If you wanted a bike to just get on and ride you bought a Harley or a Honda.
If you don't like tinkering &/or you're not handy with your hands and tools you'd better stick to the take out of the box and shoot brands like Ruger & Savage or older JM Marlins & Remingtons.
Rossis are for tinkerers & "handy Andys" who don't mind adjusting & fixing stuff.
They all were accurate and reliable too. They just were a bit stiff, that's all and the triggers were heavy. None of their actions were gritty or binding and all three were better than a couple of new Marlin 336's I picked up at the store. Further, since I've slicked them up, they cycle smooth as silk and the triggers are much lighter and crisp. I haven't had to do a thing to either of mine in over 3,500 rds each except clean them and of course, get them dirty again.
I fully agree with this. Having some sweat equity in my firearm personalizes it, and makes it unique to me. Special maybe even.The fact that some of my own elbow grease & workmanship went into "cutting the 3 diamonds" makes the guns that much more valuable to me.
Bringing this BTT for questions to Ranch Dog.Ranch Dog wrote:Sorry Shawn, I worded that wrong. I meant to say that the fellow complained that he could not find an extension that would fit the spur. You really don't need one as this is an part that is different from the Marlin. The entire hammer assembly is wider, as is the spur. The assembly is injection molded which makes it lighter.Hagler wrote:Ranch Dog,
I am not following your commentary about the Rio Grande's hammer spur. It clearly has a spur on its hammer, and it looks exactly like it should. Could you please elaborate?
Shawn
Here is a comparison of some of the weights against a 336 (Glenfield 30)
This picture, for me, shows the biggest difference between my Marlins and the RG.
The round on the left is loaded specifically for this rifle, 2.420" OAL. The one on the right is for my "G" with an OAL of 2.550", both loaded rounds using the bullet I designed for the 1895. The RG's brass had to be trimmed back to accommodiate the oversize cast bullet because the RG's chamber is cut to the SAAMI spec without all the airspace that Marlin has been cutting in their chambers.
Let me offer some details of the SAAMI spec, the Marlin cut and then the RG cut.
SAAMI lists the following:
Chamber length/diameter - 2.011" (+/- .015)/.465" (+/- .002)
Bore: .457" (+/- .002)
Groove: .450 (+/- .002)
Step: .069" at 12°45'.There is no throat,lead, or freebore.
The 1895G, from my chamber impressions:
Chamber length/diameter - 2.100" (+.089" vs. SAAMI)/.483" (+.018" vs. SAAMI)
Groove: .457"
Bore: .450
Step: This is where the Marlin really varies from SAAMI. The step is .050" at 12°79' but then they throw in .10" of freebore and another .1451" of throat at 1°5'. for a total length of .745" (+.676" vs. SAAMI). Because of the start diameter, this creates a huge gap of airspace around a SAAMI spec bullet that must be filled with ogive length and additional diameter, hence my .460" bullets.
The RG45-70, from my chamber impressions:
Chamber length/diameter - 2.102" (+.002" vs. SAAMI)/.463" (-.02" vs. SAAMI)
Groove: .457"
Bore: .445" (.005" deeper cut)
Step: .073 at 4°70' (+.676" vs. SAAMI)
This said, the ammunition I have was custom made to fit the oversized Marlin chamber. It does not fit well and must be forced in the chamber. For cast bullet shooting this cartridge needs a .458" or .459" at the greatest. Heavy bullets will need to have the brass trimmed to meet the chamber requirements. The SAAMI spec is based on 300-grain or 405-grain bullet. The two rounds of factory ammo I had on hand, WW 300-grain JHP, went from tube to chamber and out like poop through a goose.
Cast shooters should be extremely pleased with the chamber cut. What this means is that you can actually buy the typical cataloged mold and it is going to work and work well. If Rossi started to clone the Marlin lineup, my cast bullet business would be in trouble as I have bullets cut because a manufactured ventured from the spec.
On another note, the action on this rifle is extremely smooth except at the point that the lever starts to close moving the bolt back against the upper radius of the hammer. There is a bit of a hang up there that takes some effort to get across. The hammer actually moves up ever so slightly as it starts to rotate with the bolts forward movement exerting an upward pressure against the lower surface of the bolt. With the bolt in this fully aft and unsupported position it is binding ever so slightly as it tries to achieve alignment with the matching surfaces of the receiver. That concerns me for a couple of reasons that I will get into a little later today. I also have quite a few innards pictures that I would like to comment on but it is time to take my granddaughter to school. I will leave you with this, I remain very happy with the Rossi offering as it is what a carbine should be, lightweight and easy on the carry.
A SAAMI spec chamber is a know, the Marlin has never been without a chamber cast. In you your case and with your desire to shooting large bullets it works out fine. For the average guy trying to find cast bullets it can be a long process to find some that fills the void and shoots well.sore shoulder wrote:Ranch, I'm a bit confused by your analysis of the Marlin chamber vs. the RG, and which one cycles what better and how the Marlin chamber is a disadvantage or problem. In my own situation, I load a very long Lyman 462560 bore rider cast to .460 diameter. I load it to a COL of 2.59. I can in fact seat the bullet out further and cycle the loaded round from magazine to chamber, however it will not eject due to confines of the ejection port dimension, a problem easily overcome by porting. While I have no need to do so as a 560gr bullet doing 1450 from a guide gun is plenty, I would someday like to be able to load a custom 700gr bullet of the same bore rider design, and I believe the extra room in the Marlin chamber will be an advantage.
It took no time at all. The look see into the Rossi took less time that a chamber cast of the Marlin and designing a bullet to fit the over spec chamber.Also, it seems that the RG has required a massive amount of time and energy just to get it to normal working order for a Marlin. Perhaps I have the wrong impression.
The "bump" wasn't filed off. It was "dressed" to smooth it out a bit.Grizz wrote:I am a bit confused by the interest in 'filing the bump' off of the bolt, or modifying the hammer.
Thanks for the reply Ranch. I'll be honest, this is the first I've heard of the issue regarding finding a bullet that shoots well in the Marlin chamber, and you probably know I've been around the forums for many years. I certainly remember you, and the late Ranch Dog (RIP). Maybe I've just missed this being discussed or I've forgotten. In my own experience I've found the Marlin to be pretty forgiving, shooting jacketed and cast with very little, if any, fine tuning using published loads. In fact, my 405gr plinker seems to shoot well regardless of powder or charge, and the 350gr Hornady shot well at all velocities up to the flat shooting (for a 45-70) barn burner I'm currently using. Has Reflex had the same issue? I know he has done a lot of work and maybe even mentioned it, it's possible I simply ignored those threads as they didn't apply to me at the time.Ranch Dog wrote:A SAAMI spec chamber is a know, the Marlin has never been without a chamber cast. In you your case and with your desire to shooting large bullets it works out fine. For the average guy trying to find cast bullets it can be a long process to find some that fills the void and shoots well.sore shoulder wrote:Ranch, I'm a bit confused by your analysis of the Marlin chamber vs. the RG, and which one cycles what better and how the Marlin chamber is a disadvantage or problem. In my own situation, I load a very long Lyman 462560 bore rider cast to .460 diameter. I load it to a COL of 2.59. I can in fact seat the bullet out further and cycle the loaded round from magazine to chamber, however it will not eject due to confines of the ejection port dimension, a problem easily overcome by porting. While I have no need to do so as a 560gr bullet doing 1450 from a guide gun is plenty, I would someday like to be able to load a custom 700gr bullet of the same bore rider design, and I believe the extra room in the Marlin chamber will be an advantage.
It took no time at all. The look see into the Rossi took less time that a chamber cast of the Marlin and designing a bullet to fit the over spec chamber.Also, it seems that the RG has required a massive amount of time and energy just to get it to normal working order for a Marlin. Perhaps I have the wrong impression.
Do you have a site of where to find these, a search quote to find them? I've been looking for some time for one. Now I've seen the Uncle Mike ones for the Winchester 94 will they work?rodneyhsr wrote:For anyone interested. The Winchester model 94 hammer spur works perfectly on the Rio Grande. Snugs up and has clearance for the bolt.
I bought one a few months back and I must say it was one of the best finished guns both inside and out I've owned in over 40 years. Now the loading gate would bite as hard as a junk yard dog but with a bit of filing it now is as smooth as my Rossi 92 in 45 Colt. One minor burr on the carrier which just took a bit of polish. Aside from that it has been perfect. I found a guy to make me a stainless magazine follower and now another is also making them.buckeyeshooter wrote:Thank you for the interesting post everyone. Never thought I would have an interest in any Rossi. I will give them a look now.
Thanks Rod I will pick one up then.rodneyhsr wrote:Yes the uncle mikes is the one I currently use on mine. No problems with it at all.
