'92 .25-20

[kevin.303]

well i've been sitting here doing some serious thinking, and i've decided to take a break from milsurps. because of my mothers hatred of guns i'm limited to a maximum of 4. after giving my M44 and worn out .22 to my gunsmith for parts i've got 2 open spots and i'm contemplating my next purchase. it will be a lever gun. more specficly a Winchester 1892 in .25-20 (of course the title of this thread probably gave that away). one of grandfather's had one that was left on the farm by a U.S Army deserter that was hired hand for a few years. my dad mentions it from time to time and says that well it was never suitable as a deer gun, it took many a jackrabbit.i think that one is still in the family somewhere so i'll see if i can't try and get that one first. if that proves to be a deadend i'll just save some cash and hit the spring gunshows. prices up here seem to range from $400-$700. how long was the '92 in production? if it was anything like the '73 it was long time. whats it's capacity? i notice both Winchester and Remington offer factory loads, are these all thats available? i'll proably start reloading with this and give cast bullets a try as well. there something about the '92 that i prefer over the '94. funny because they're pretty much identical.

Kevin

[jd45]

Kevin, I can only comment on one aspect of what your post was. You said that the 92 & the 94 were pretty much identical. They may look like it from the outside, but the 92 is stronger. The evidence is the fact that the 92's can take stronger handloads in, for example, .45 Colt caliber, than the 94 action rifles. Not that it makes a difference here, cause you're wanting a gun in .25-20..........I just wanted to go on the record, jd45.

[jhm]

Kevin :  The 92 was in production from 1892-1941  1,004,067 were built, cap. will depend on caliber also came in a 20 in. carbine, the info stated is from the Blue book of val.    JIM

[John Y Cannuck]

My '92 in 44-40 holds 12 cartridges. They are a fine handing little gun, and yes, they are a long ways different from a '94

[kevin.303]

well i picked up a copy of Rifle today, and was pleasently surprised to find almost the whole issue about Winchesters. there was an article comparing the 73 and the 92 and it said on a full size rifle the capacity was 15. i'm just scared of what will happen when i get one. because after that i'll get a 94/22 and then i'll want a .30-30 94. i'd like 95's in .30-40, .303 and 7.62X54. and a 1886 in .45-90 or .50-110 is also on the list. and i thought milsurps could be addicting!!

[WD45]

It appears you have just been bitten by the lever bug :shock:
It is now in your blood and you will have it for life :-D

[John Y Cannuck]

yup, my closet is about half and half, levers, and milsurps. Can't get enough.

[1860]

Just wondering, What makes a 92 stronger than a 94?

It seems just the opposite to me, the 94 was chambered for rifle cardridges like the 38-55, 32spl and 30-30, the 92 was chambered for pistol cartridges for the most part.

60

[kevin.303]

well WD45, i was bitten by the lever bug many years ago. the first gun i ever saw was my other grandfather's 94 hanging on the wall. his guns where on a rack that hung in beside the stairs leading to the basement in the old farmhouse. from the age of five until my grandmother moved to town when i was 16 i would linger and gaze up at it if i was sent to the basement for anything. he died when i was 5, and i never met my other grandfather( the one that owned the '92). at first i thought it was a BB gun because until then i had only seen Red Ryder air rifles. long before i knew what a Lee-Enfield or a .22 was i knew i wanted a Winchester 94 in " thutty thutty ". my uncle has it now and won't give it to me. does he use it? no. is it even legally owned (registered)? no. i asked him one last time at thanksgiving if i could have it and when he said no i asked why. he never knew my grandfather so it would have no sentimental value, and it's not a rare gun by any means. his reasoning was his son might want it someday because it was also his grandfathers. fair enough, except he was born 10 years after my grandfather died. kinda hard to feel attached to someone you never knew. i just hope that he doesn't develop an interest in guns, or at least is willing to sell it to me when he's older. i know it sounds selfish, but thats how i feel. damn,  all this remembering has made me cry on the keyboard!!

[John Y Cannuck]

Just wondering, What makes a 92 stronger than a 94?

It seems just the opposite to me, the 94 was chambered for rifle cardridges like the 38-55, 32spl and 30-30, the 92 was chambered for pistol cartridges for the most part.

60

The '92 has two vertical locking lugs, set sideways, like an 1886. They are also much closer to the chamber because of the short action length, so there is less spring in the action. Thus, the little gun can handle higher pressures. For example the 454 Cassul.

[1860]

John,

No argument that the 92 has one strong action, actually a scaled down 86.  I was commenting on orginal guns and what they were chambered for back then.  From what I understand, the 94 reciever is a little thicker and beefier(is that a word?) to handle the higher preasures of the then new smokeless loadings and their longer cases.  The 92 on the other hand, was plenty strong to handle the black powder pistol caliber rounds it was designed for and newer ones handle the modern stuff as well.  I'm not sure if the steel is different in the modern guns but I wouldn't rechamber an original 92 for the .454 and feel safe.  I guess the only way to tell for sure would be to find out what preasures the original rounds generated.  Since my christmass shopping is not quite done, I'm not going to the trouble :wink: .  Both fine guns, the 92 carbine is just a joy to carry..

60