Quality of 2016-2017 Rossi 92's
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: 03 Jul 2016 09:07
- Location: England
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: Quality of 2016-2017 Rossi 92's
My new 44 Mag 16" blued rifle is about to sent back as the receiver isn't square to the barrel! Shoots really well but I'd like them to take a look and correct the issue. The loading gate etc is as above.
The 357 Octagonal barrel, which I've had a year, is superb and again very accurate.
Both have put 5 rounds into just over an inch at 25 yards offhand regularly and off a rest, 3 shots will be touching then I get all excited and the last two tend to go a bit wide I can't hit anything at 100 yards but that is me not the gun.......
I love em!
The 357 Octagonal barrel, which I've had a year, is superb and again very accurate.
Both have put 5 rounds into just over an inch at 25 yards offhand regularly and off a rest, 3 shots will be touching then I get all excited and the last two tend to go a bit wide I can't hit anything at 100 yards but that is me not the gun.......
I love em!
-
- 250 Shots
- Posts: 293
- Joined: 23 Mar 2014 22:56
- Location: US
- Has thanked: 118 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Quality of 2016-2017 Rossi 92's
Sorry to hear that dek. That's a hard one to fix on your own.
I swapped into a new Rossi R92 today, 20” barrel in 45 Colt. The lever cycled smoothly, the sights were on good & square and there were no other outward signs of shoddy workmanship or assembly. This 92 has a little more grain showing than my earlier 92's and there is an actual finish on it, as opposed to the stain-painted 92 stocks I've had in the past. The wood to metal fit is improved too; little to no proud wood is present.
And I swear, this rifle has a notably longer stock than either of my previous 92's. It actually shoulders properly and the sights fall right under the eye when the stock hits your shoulder. The trigger is better than any new 92 I've handled.
Quick as chores were done, the Missus and I took it down and ran a few rounds through it. The sights were on from the factory and it fed the Lee 255 RF, the Missouri Bullet 255 SWCs and Sierra 240 JHPs all just fine. It shot well too. We started at 25 yards, moved to 50 yards and ended firing a few shots at 100. I never missed the 14” plate and was pleased to discover this menagerie of ammo landed in an egg shaped group maybe 4x6 inches, from the center of the plate to its lower edge. I gotta say, this 20” gun is easier to hit with than my 16” 45 Colt was.
I seem to have finally gotten an excellent example of the Rossi 92.
I swapped into a new Rossi R92 today, 20” barrel in 45 Colt. The lever cycled smoothly, the sights were on good & square and there were no other outward signs of shoddy workmanship or assembly. This 92 has a little more grain showing than my earlier 92's and there is an actual finish on it, as opposed to the stain-painted 92 stocks I've had in the past. The wood to metal fit is improved too; little to no proud wood is present.
And I swear, this rifle has a notably longer stock than either of my previous 92's. It actually shoulders properly and the sights fall right under the eye when the stock hits your shoulder. The trigger is better than any new 92 I've handled.
Quick as chores were done, the Missus and I took it down and ran a few rounds through it. The sights were on from the factory and it fed the Lee 255 RF, the Missouri Bullet 255 SWCs and Sierra 240 JHPs all just fine. It shot well too. We started at 25 yards, moved to 50 yards and ended firing a few shots at 100. I never missed the 14” plate and was pleased to discover this menagerie of ammo landed in an egg shaped group maybe 4x6 inches, from the center of the plate to its lower edge. I gotta say, this 20” gun is easier to hit with than my 16” 45 Colt was.
I seem to have finally gotten an excellent example of the Rossi 92.
Last edited by Sarge on 13 Oct 2017 05:47, edited 1 time in total.
- HarryAlonzo
- 500 Shots
- Posts: 990
- Joined: 31 Dec 2015 00:20
- Location: Sedona
- Has thanked: 248 times
- Been thanked: 282 times
- Ranch Dog
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9399
- Joined: 23 Jan 2012 07:44
- Location: Inez, TX
- Has thanked: 1838 times
- Been thanked: 2281 times
Re: Quality of 2016-2017 Rossi 92's
Would never laugh about that Sarge, you get a bad arm from any manufacturer and it will make you crazy.Sarge wrote:RD is probably laughing because I'd about sworn off Rossi's awhile back.
That is exactly how it goes, never know until you pull the trigger! I'm glad you got a good one!Sarge wrote:I seem to have finally gotten an excellent example of the Rossi 92.
Sorry to hear about the issue as well. Please keep us posted on the return.dek1165 wrote:My new 44 Mag 16" blued rifle is about to sent back as the receiver isn't square to the barrel! Shoots really well but I'd like them to take a look and correct the issue.
Michael
Re: Quality of 2016-2017 Rossi 92's
I had a 2014 .357 that functioned well with .38 and .357s. Only issue I had was it needed a taller front sight.
-
- 250 Shots
- Posts: 293
- Joined: 23 Mar 2014 22:56
- Location: US
- Has thanked: 118 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Quality of 2016-2017 Rossi 92's
Just for reference, I called Rossi and was told this R92, Serial 5JN2299XX, was produced in March of 2016. Taurus/Rossi seems to have done a good job with this one.
-
- 250 Shots
- Posts: 293
- Joined: 23 Mar 2014 22:56
- Location: US
- Has thanked: 118 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Quality of 2016-2017 Rossi 92's
I've been meaning to check this 92's accuracy but buckhorn sights and I don't get along. I shoot much better with a flat top rear sight and I happened to have a spare in the parts bin. I also replaced the front bead with a 0.400 tall take-off from a previous 16” Rossi 357, because I figured it'd work better with the lower replacement rear sight. I eyeballed both sights into what looked to be the center of the barrel and headed down in the field to check zero.
My standard 45 Colt load is a 8.5 grains of Universal and Maplewood's Lee 452-255-RF sized 0.454”. It pretty much duplicates the ballistics of the original 40 grain black-powder government load and it's been exceptionally accurate in every 45 Colt I've tried it it. My guesswork sight placement was perfect this time so I moved back to 100 yards, took a rest and fired three careful shots at the rifle plate. I heard it ring steel every time and I didn't see any hits out in the white, so I knew they all had to be in the 6” black dot. What I didn't expect was that they overlapped each other. It might not be a long range rig, but I can't complain about the way it shoots.
My standard 45 Colt load is a 8.5 grains of Universal and Maplewood's Lee 452-255-RF sized 0.454”. It pretty much duplicates the ballistics of the original 40 grain black-powder government load and it's been exceptionally accurate in every 45 Colt I've tried it it. My guesswork sight placement was perfect this time so I moved back to 100 yards, took a rest and fired three careful shots at the rifle plate. I heard it ring steel every time and I didn't see any hits out in the white, so I knew they all had to be in the 6” black dot. What I didn't expect was that they overlapped each other. It might not be a long range rig, but I can't complain about the way it shoots.
-
- 250 Shots
- Posts: 293
- Joined: 23 Mar 2014 22:56
- Location: US
- Has thanked: 118 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Quality of 2016-2017 Rossi 92's
For clarifications sake- I'm not pretending for a minute I can reproduce that group on demand, but it's sure nice when the stars line up. It also tells me the rifle has plenty of accuracy for anything I'll need to do with a pistol-caliber lever action.
-
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 01 Oct 2017 07:51
- Location: Gloucestershire UK
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: Quality of 2016-2017 Rossi 92's
I recently bought a new 20" stainless .38/.357 and am delighted with the fit of the woodwork and the finish. Like a previous correspondent I was disappointed that the loading gate wasn't in polished stainless like the rest of the action, but it feeds everything without any problems and the trigger is absolutely fine and crisp.
I have since fitted a stainless Skinner rear sight to replace the original semi-buckhorn thing.
Although bought new in the UK, I have no idea whether it is old stock or a recent import. The serial is 51P1906XX and I should be grateful if anyone on here could give me a clue as to year of manufacture.
Shoots fine, although there is what appears to be some damage to the end of the muzzle.
It's not soft, so I guess it's not lead fouling...... I suppose a trim and re-crown might be in order, but I'll continue shooting it and see how things go.
I have since fitted a stainless Skinner rear sight to replace the original semi-buckhorn thing.
Although bought new in the UK, I have no idea whether it is old stock or a recent import. The serial is 51P1906XX and I should be grateful if anyone on here could give me a clue as to year of manufacture.
Shoots fine, although there is what appears to be some damage to the end of the muzzle.
It's not soft, so I guess it's not lead fouling...... I suppose a trim and re-crown might be in order, but I'll continue shooting it and see how things go.
Last edited by Ranch Dog on 18 Oct 2017 06:21, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Corrected image link
Reason: Corrected image link
-
- 1000 Shots
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: 31 Jul 2014 15:18
- Location: Dayton Oh
- Has thanked: 227 times
- Been thanked: 328 times
Re: Quality of 2016-2017 Rossi 92's
Your can input your serial number at the Rossi Web site and it will return the year.
Maybe just a re-crown but if accuracy is up to snuff I wouldn't mess with what ain't broke.
Make smoke,
Maybe just a re-crown but if accuracy is up to snuff I wouldn't mess with what ain't broke.
Make smoke,
Curt... makin' smoke and raising my carbon foot print one cartridge at a time