Winchester 92 on GB 25-20 SRC- Fun Lever

[rangerider7]

http://v2.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIte ... =172335686

[airedaleman]

Interesting forward configuration with rifle magazine, carbine forearm and sights...

[John in MS]

IIRC, that configuration is standard for 92 SRC's in .25-20 and .32-20. Not so for .38-40 and .44-40.

John

[airedaleman]

IIRC, that configuration is standard for 92 SRC's in .25-20 and .32-20. Not so for .38-40 and .44-40.

John

Cool!

[AJMD429]

Three appealing things about that gun:

1. the History of that particular make and model
2. that Configuration of a levergun
3. that particular Cartridge

Two unappealing things about that gun:

A. the Cost
B. the Condition (good but could be better)

I'll bet there are quite a few who would be willing to trade of #1 in exchange for improving # A and # B... I do appreciate the beauty and history of the old Winchesters, but not enough to pay four times what it costs to get a new shooter, with money left over to pay other bills or buy ammo.

If Rossi would take advantage of that, and make their 92's in .25-20, they could sell lots of them! ...and do it for 1/4th the cost of the one on Gunbroker.

It's not like there would be lots of research & development costs for producing them; I think the off-patent design has been pretty-well worked out, and Rossi would not have to invest much for what would likely be brisk sales.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

Three appealing things about that gun:

1. the History of that particular make and model
2. that Configuration of a levergun
3. that particular Cartridge

Two unappealing things about that gun:

A. the Cost
B. the Condition (good but could be better)

I'll bet there are quite a few who would be willing to trade of #1 in exchange for improving # A and # B... I do appreciate the beauty and history of the old Winchesters, but not enough to pay four times what it costs to get a new shooter, with money left over to pay other bills or buy ammo.

If Rossi would take advantage of that, and make their 92's in .25-20, they could sell lots of them! ...and do it for 1/4th the cost of the one on Gunbroker.

It's not like there would be lots of research & development costs for producing them; I think the off-patent design has been pretty-well worked out, and Rossi would not have to invest much for what would likely be brisk sales.

I have to disagree somewhat. The 25 and 32 cal 92's are much different inside than the Rossi 357 and up cals. It is do-able.
This is a 357 Rossi converted to 32-20.




To do this besides the barrel Rossi would have to make major changes to their bolts, levers and guides. The guides being the least problematic. To start with the guides need to be closer together to control this smaller case/rim. Easy enough but then to make the bolt pass through the narrower guides the ejector housing part of the bolt has to the reduced in size. The lever has to be clearance too. But the lever also has to have some metal added where it helps hold the cart on top of the carrier.
In all it wouldn't be that difficult for them to do this but the expense would have to be justified by the projected sales. I personally don't think a 32-20 Rossi would sell that well. Outside of our dedicated levergun folks and the CAS folks 32-20 isn't that well know. I do think a 32H&R mag or 327mag Rossi 92 would. But, it would take even more drastic changes in order for a 92 to handle the smaller rim of these two.

[Mike D.]

I have a couple of those little dandies. One is my jeep beater and the other looks like the one in the auction. The beater cost me 80 bucks and the sweet one 5Cs. His is nice, but the price seems a tad high for the gun. I'm in the middle of a deal on another 1886 LWTD in.45-90WCF. At 2 times the price of that .25-20 it is a good buy.

[AJMD429]

Thanks for the info, NKJ. I assumed the innards of the receiver, lifter, and the bolt would all have to be different than for the .357 Mag-sized guns, but what I meant was that it's "all been worked out" already as far as design and testing, and I assume no patents exist which would prohibit them 'simply' measuring and reproducing the .25-20 parts. If they have the facility already to produce pretty similar parts for the other '92s they are making, at least they have the tools and skills needed. What I'll admit I don't know is the cost of 'simply' making those similar parts to the new dimensions, and you're right about the demand maybe not being as high as I'd think among 'the masses'.

Still, I wish they'd just try it...! If it would make them feel more secure in their investment of time and money, I'd promise to buy TWO of them in .25-20 and .32-20, just to 'help them out' a bit...

[Kid Cossack]

At the risk of unorthodox thinking, what about a '92 in .256 Winchester? Since the .256 is based off the .357, at least some of the regular parts could be used . . . right?