Why the 1892?

[Niederlander]

I love the '92!  After all, it's basically a downsized '86 for pistol cartridges.  I think it's easily the best pistol caliber lever action rifle ever designed.  The original Winchesters are so good you just assume they're going to work every time if they've received any care at all.  Great little rifles!

[Blackpowder Burn]

While not as slick as a '73, they are undeniably more compact, lighter and stronger.  I have two originals.  One was my great grandfathers saddle ring carbine in 44-40.  The other is somewhat unique.  The action serial number dates to 1898, but it was never built into a rifle until 1996.  It is now a 28" rifle chambered in 32-20, and is the slickest '92 I've ever handled.  It's now my go-to CAS rifle.

[King Medallion]

Mine is a Rossi pre safety SRC without the ring, my go-to CAS rifle. Been shooting it for almost 20 years, not a single problem.

[44 centerfire]

Had a 1917 1892 44WCF saddle ring carbine that I purchased from an importer in N.Jersey that bought the well used 92s from So. Amer.  I got the 92 late 70s. The US importer buffed and blued them and they were listed in some gun magazine for sale. I wanted one real bad and didn't care of the condition. Well, the barrel had pits and shallow lands and a large chamber. I still have a few swelled up 44-40 cases....pain in the a** to reload.

The story was South America bought the new 92s from Winchester without the wood back in the day. Mine had mesquite wood, looked decent....but, early 80s Rossi came out with first 92 copy. So I traded the Winchester for a Interarms 65 in 44 Mag.....Rossi 1892....only caliber that was available at the time. I was thrilled of the trade. Action was very stiff, so I got Steve's Gunz modifacation kit for the 92 Rossi, of which it is now easier to cycle.

Yes, as someone said that it is much lighter than my Navy arms 1873 early copy. Also a sweet carbine. OPPS....my 1873 is made by Euroarms Brescio, Italy......

44 centerfire

[Coffinmaker]

The '92 get a lot of shady press.  I don't really understand why.  Anything you want to use in CAS requires a certain amount of tuning to work well for what we do with them (any rifle). 

Before the Short Stroke '73s, the Go-To CAS rifle was the '92.  Cleaned up, adjusted, good springs and the '92 can be very fast indeed.  Only after the advent of the Short Stroke rifle and the insane race for SPEED got into full swing, did the '92 fall into disfavor.  If a shooter is not after the Brass Ring and just desires a reliable and smooth rifle, the '92 is pretty hard to beat.

Coffinmaker

[treebeard]

I have been in love with 1892's since I was a kid and now that I am an old man I've been able to acquire several. They are light and handy and I find them very smooth.  I am not a speed demon so I have not had the jamming problems I heard about. My two favorite ones are a 24 inch rifle 1st year production  now in 44-40 and a late production 25-20 SRC.  Neither are what collectors look for . The SRC has zero finish but an excellent bore and smooth action and costs pennies to reload. The rifle was a rust bucket that when received would not even open for all the crud in the action. I did a total strip and clean and it now functions as designed but lots of patina. The 38-40 bore was hopeless so I had Bobby Hoyt rebore to 44-40 and it is now shoots excellent groups when I do my part.
I have prettier 92's but none more fun than these two.

[PJ Hardtack]

If the '92 was good enough for John Wayne, It's good enough for me. He's the guy that made it famous even if it wasn't the right rifle for the era of the movie.

Then there was Chuck Connors in the "Rifleman", Steve McQueen and how many others .... ?

[Isom]

I'm not that much in love with the 92 ,,,,,,,,,, I just like a "good" deal. I've 3, 32-20,, 38-40 ,,, 44-40, originals. One Rossi SRC in 44-40. They are great rifles, but to me, they're a pain to take apart and put together. I can do a cursory strip to clean but I'm not going much past that. All are rifles, 24'', the 44-40 is round barrel, the other two have octagon barrels. The 38-40 I got from a guy that was carrying it around in a gun show. Asked what caliber, we talked price ,,,,,,, great price. I was so happy with it, I forgot I was on my motorcycle. I'm thinking if I can find a cheap scabbard and some rope, I'll be good to go. Luckily my friend came by and he took it home for me. They're all good shooters, and the barrels are good. Foul a little, but no big deal. I only shoot smokeless in them. They're all good for smokeless. Well, that's my 92 story.
Shoot safe,
Isom

[Blair]

I don't care much for the '92's.
This is not to say they are not good firearms, it is to say they were over used in most movies and films. I grew to dislike them for this reason.
They came about very late within the Cowboy time period considering the other options of the historically firearms correct for the day.
Remove the forearm, and a little yellow paint on the receiver and you could call it a Henry, even if the time period was set in 1843!
My best,
Blair

[Isom]

Blair,
I call it a 1892 Henry 
Isom

[Buck Stinson]

I have been a model 92 fan for many years.  I bought my first .25-20 carbine when I  was thirteen years old.  In the 54 years since, I've  owned around 30 other '92 rifles and carbines.  I still have 8 carbines in all four calibers and 1 rifle in .38-40.  In my opinion, they are as smooth as any lever action Winchester ever made and I find them to be extremely accurate.

[Niederlander]

Buck, you bring up an interesting point.  When I first started reading about lever actions, all the writers talked about how inaccurate they were.  I can't speak for carbines, because I haven't tested more than one or two, but I've found the rifles, regardless of model, to be VERY accurate.  I'm not saying they'll keep up with target rifles, but all of mine will shoot clover leafs at fifty yards.  It would be interesting if there was a way to mount a scope on them to see just how accurate they really are.  I think they're limited by the sights much more than by any supposed intrinsic lack of accuracy.

[Scattered Thumbs]

Lighter and stronger than the 1873. Designed by JMB. For those who would carry it back in the day it's hard to beat.

Now for Cowboy action shooting, thats a different thing.

My answer. Why not.

PS. Have a Rossi 24" in .44 Mag. Use it for hunting.

[Buck Stinson]

Like most other Winchester lever actions, a tang peep sight makes a big difference  as far as accuracy is concerned.  I have several original 73's and 76's, some of which are mounted with original Vernier  mid-range tang sights or long range graduated peep sights.  From my experience, they definitely improve accuracy on these rifles.  A standard Lyman adjustable tang peep would work great on a '92 carbine or rifle.

[Niederlander]

I've used them and I would agree they help a lot.  I've found, though, when I'm using a rifle at relatively close range the barrel sights are a lot faster when I don't have to be real precise.  For hunting, when the first shot is the only one that usually matters, the tang sights are great.

[PJ Hardtack]

True, but growing up watching all the great 'B' western and TV duster shows, I fell in love with the '92.

But I feel the way you describe about '73s with short stroke kits. They just ain't Cowboy and neither are the people that use them with powder puff loads.

This is not to say they are not good firearms, it is to say they were over used in most movies and films. I grew to dislike them for this reason.
They came about very late within the Cowboy time period considering the other options of the historically firearms correct for the day.

[Niederlander]

Wow!  You opened a can of worms there!  (Personally, I agree with your point on the short stroked '73's, etc.)  Back when I was a member of SASS (#934), people would get all bent out of shape at someone using a '92, or mouse fart loads, etc., because people didn't do it that way back in the "cowboy days".  Those same people would get at least as upset with me if I pointed out no one at that time shot using the modified Weaver stance and cocking with the off hand, either.  We tend to get awfully selective sometimes in what we consider "authentic".  (Not sure what my point is in all this.  I just really like '92's!)

[PJ Hardtack]

Yes, it is odd that even back in the day when .44s and .45s were King and we shot REAL loads, most of us shot with two hands ala IPSC. I did as I came into CAS as an IPSC burn out. Then things changed and CAS became IPSC in Cowboy boots, minus the power factor.

Wasn't long that I began to shoot Duelist style when it dawned on me that was the "Cowboy Way".

Happily, our club still favours the .44s and .45s and most of us are shooting Duelist.

[Baltimore Ed]

I've never shot cas any way but duelist. Is there another way?

[PJ Hardtack]

Nope.

Back in the day when the rule book fit into a shirt pocket, under "Equipment Eligibility", it stated - "If John Wayne would use it - it's OK".
That was in the book long after only lip service was paid to the statement. I presume that applied to shooting style as well.

I recall being accused of "gaming" when I declared (yes, we had to declare our loads) that I was shooting 25 grs BP in .44 Spl. cases from my .44 Magnum Ruger Vaquero in the era of one gun.
I got sideways looks for shooting my Marlin 94 carbine in .357, so I bought a B-92 in .44 mag and that was barely acceptable, but more so than the .357 chambering.

Now if someone wants to pay for it, he can shoot several short, non-authentic cartridges in both rifle and pistol. The times and the guns have changed.