NEED HELP DECIDING WHICH MODEL 92 AS MY 1ST ONE!!!

[Dr. A]

Looking at a list from my source, there were several models available, but none with the drilled and tapped. That appeared the same from Davidsons as well.

[Ranch Dog]

Looking at a list from my source, there were several models available, but none with the drilled and tapped. That appeared the same from Davidsons as well.

No one from the distributors down seem to know as the rear sight must be pulled to see them. They are immediately aft of the dovetail. Here is their position.

[Turkey Huntsman]

Thanks, Michael. I'll have my rifle on the 26th of September. First thing I'll do is look for the tapped holes. Crossed fingers!

[deaddoc4444]

Just my thoughts on Barrel length . IF your using the scout cope method of sighting then barrel length is no concern . Your loss in those cartridges is so minimal that it is not wroth agonizing over .
I have three rifles set up for a scout scope. A Marlin 1894CL in 25-20 , a Marlin 1895 45-70 (which I have the secondary mount system used, that is installed in the dove tail for the original real sight still in place but no longer have the scope mounted and use the WIlliam's rear peep ) and a Savage Scout rifle in 308 Win. ALL are pretty much specialty guns and are used for specific purposes NOT used for General walking/stalking/ roving guns. I DO NOT like the scopes on levers in most situations . I just recently purchased a new M92 Rossi in 357 . I had handled the 16 in barrel model several times but at my age I just CANT see that front sight . Its not "far enough away " LOL . BUT the 20 inch is way better . The 24 inch models are way too long and cumbersome so the 20 is just right for me . I had a Winchester M94 Trapper ( 16 in) in 45 colt a number of years ago but sold it when my eyes started to get older and needed the news papaer further away . The handling of the "trapper " models is great I just cant see that sight !!!!!!

[dpe.ahoy]

I bought my 44 used a few years ago and it came with a Williams peep sight mounted on the receiver. Might ease ones mind having the receiver drilled and tapped rather than the barrel. Should be cheaper just drilling and tapping 2 holes instead of 4. Another alturnative would be the Marbles Bullseye sight that replaces the rear sight assemblely. Probably have to do some creative engineering to get it to fit the dovetail cut unless Rossi has gone to the standard size. DP

[grady]

Take a look at Ballistics by the inch. I googled it and looked at different velocities for various loads in 357 mag with different barrel lengths. I was surprised ,but velocity increased up to 16" and dropped at anything longer. I guess all the powder is burned early with the small case.
The difference in velocity for the 44 mag was between 6 and 30 fps depending on the load.

[Turkey Huntsman]

I greatly appreciate all of the thoughtful responses that have been posted. I've gone ahead and purchased a 16" barrel, 44. mag M92. My caliber rationale was this: .44 over the .357 as I wanted to be SURE the round had enough reserve power to take down a heavy wild boar, with its tough shoulder armor. The .357 would probably do just fine, but why wonder? It is fact that the .44 can deliver more energy. I can always load the .44s down if I find that they are too powerful for target range (fun) shooting. As many have pointed out, the difference in MV between the 16" and 20" barrels is insignificant anyway.

The choice of 16" barrel vs. the 20" was a harder decision for me, but I went with the shorter one. My eyesight suffers from both astigmatism and presbyopia (farsightedness due to age), so I WILL need an optical device to assist me in aiming, regardless of barrel length. Since I can't focus sharply on either the 16" OR the 20" front sight, the short one made more sense. I will benefit from the lighter weight and increased bushwacking portability of the carbine. Plus, the 16" shorty just looks cool. Yeah..."cool factor" is a plus too.

I've purchased a scout scope, but also have a Mueller red dot that I use for turkey hunting. I'm going to try both on the M92 and see which one I like better. I'll be reporting my experiences wth the M92 soon as I get it mounted up and out in the field.

I'm pretty excited about this gun...my very first lever action rifle! Next up after the M92 is sorted: Ruger Super Blackhawk, .44 mag hunter model. One identical caliber for two carry guns = perfect!

Regards,
-TH

[pricedo]

As many have pointed out, the difference in MV between the 16" and 20" barrels is insignificant anyway.



Regards,
-TH

That's why I could never understand why some shooters insist on carrying these great big 8.5 pound monstrosities in pistol calibers with 24" octagonal barrels around claiming they "shoot harder" because of the longer barrel & as if the octagonal barrel made any difference to the external ballistics of the projectile .

I'm not knocking them.....they can drag 105mm Howitzers around in the bush for all I care but even at 60+ years of age I continue to be amazed at the old wives tales some people have convinced themselves are true.

[44-40 Willy]

It depends. If you reload, use slower burning powders to take advantage of that longer barrel. With a moderate load of H110, I averaged 1980fps from a 158gr Hornady XTP in my 24" barrel over a chronograph. 2050fps with a 145gr Winchester Silvertip using the same powder charge. I'm thinking most factory 357 ammo is designed for use in a handgun and uses faster burning powders because of the shorter barrel length.

[pricedo]

It depends. If you reload, use slower burning powders to take advantage of that longer barrel. With a moderate load of H110, I averaged 1980fps from a 158gr Hornady XTP in my 24" barrel over a chronograph. 2050fps with a 145gr Winchester Silvertip using the same powder charge. I'm thinking most factory 357 ammo is designed for use in a handgun and uses faster burning powders because of the shorter barrel length.

But there is a limit to the "more of a slower burning powder" theory and that limit in handgun cartridges like the .357 Mag or.44 Mag is imposed by case capacity........that's why they invented the .444 Marlin which has the space to put more slower burning powder.
For that reason it is advantageous to have a 22 or 24 inch barrel on a .444 marlin but not a .44 Mag.
In the pistol calibers the "law of diminishing returns" usually manifests itself at the 16" barrel mark........sure more of a slower burning powder would make the bullet go faster but where do you put it (the extra powder) when you case has a powder holding capacity less than a common sewing thimble?
I'm into legacy guns and I think the 24 inch octagonal barreled rifles look fantastic but not enough so that I want to carry a 8.5 pound monstrosity through the bush all day for no real ballistic advantage.