1892 rossi 24" barrel 44mag vs 357 weight

[golfish]

No, but since I still have it out so I can do a little preventative cleaning I was able to slap the calipers on it and got .810" flat to flat.

I have .815 on my 24" 357 and .800 on my 20" .357

[Deleted User 327]

Deleted

[Archer]

COSteve,

I will grant each and every one of your points. I do however tend to have comments...

1) While I have found BBI's data to be interesting I have not generally found it compelling. I have never bought the idea that a 16" barrel is optimum even with commercial magnum ammo. I will say that I consider 33 FPS or even 55 fps vs. 4 inches of barrel to be a modest gain although it is still a gain. I ran the numbers a few years back for a friend who maintained what I consider to be the 16" myth and as I recall the gains from 16" to 20" were somewhat larger. (I have not at this point found a compelling reason, or spare cash, to buy a 9mm 16" barreled carbine as I think the gains there are less impressive overall and one of the things I like least about the recent Ruger entry into that market niche is the tiny sight radius for the factory iron sights.)

2) I like tang sights but I have only one gun presently with one. I very much like the added sight radius. The smaller bead would not be amiss. I have noticed the factory bead on the 92 obscures the bull on a target at even short ranges.

3) I have not tried pushing either the .44 or the .357 to 300 yards. I don't think either would be my first choice for that kind of range but there are times when you may have to take the shot with what is in your hands. Pushing the range a bit is on my list of things to do but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

On the downside...
A) you are adding 2 lbs to the platform mostly toward the muzzle. While this may improve the period while aiming at long range it makes the gun heavier to carry, slower to swing on target, and more wearing to hold on target offhand. When I was younger I did not consider those very valid factors but the first time I picked up one of the 24" octagonals I started to reconsider the effect. I will note that currently I have two heavy barreled .308s bolt guns and I don't think either would be my first choice for a gun to carry through the woods on a moving hunt.

B) Increased cost of the system. While I do not generally regard the cost of a weapon or modification to it as a major driver vs. performance it remains a factor. The 24" octagonal typically costs more than the carbine. The tang sight is perhaps the most costly iron sight change you can make to the gun. While the rifle comes drilled and tapped for it which is a clear advantage there is still the additional cost of the base gun and the sighting system.

C) It is easier to scope the round barrel with a NOE scope mount than to find an optical mount system for the octagonal barrel. I have not scoped most of my levers and I'm more likely to add the tang sight at present but I do have the NOE mounts and it would be rather simple to bolt on a scout scope compared to putting an optic on the octagonal.

IF you are trying to push the range with an iron sighted rig and you aren't carrying the gun extensively or you are willing to pay the ~25% weight penalty to carry the 24" octagonal it is clearly the way to go.

IF however you are not pushing for the limit range with a .357 Magnum and you are planning to carry the gun over hill and dale through the woods then that's where I made the statement that the 20" round barrel would be superior for that purpose.

That doesn't mean I won't be getting a 24" .357 to go with my 20". On the other hand I might get another 20" so that I can scope one and leave on with iron sights. It may depend on what I find and at what cost. The 24" .357 I handled was I though priced a bit high at the time for a used one. My 20" .44 Mag cost me about half what the 24" did. For what I paid on the 20" .44 I'd be likely to buy another ten of them.

[trekker]

fellas on a side tangent do you notice much difference in noise/blast in the 357 between the 20" barrel and the 24"?

[golfish]

fellas on a side tangent do you notice much difference in noise/blast in the 357 between the 20" barrel and the 24"?

There's probably a difference but I never notice it. I usually have a hug smile on my face and just do think about it.

[trekker]

I'll have to dig mine out of the home defense locker. It might take a day or three to get around to it.

I have the 24" .44 Mag Octagonal, the 20" .44 Mag RB and the .357 20" RB.
I have looked the .357 24" Oct over but haven't picked one up mostly because I haven't found one at what I consider to be the right price AND I consider the 20" to be a superior handling gun given the caliber.

Hi Archer, old thread of mine, but did you ever get the chance to weigh your 24" Rossui 92 44 mag octagonal?

I was interested in getting one but curious as to the weight and handling. The same barrel gun in 357 was a no-go for me, its nice but just too muzzle heavy for carrying about.

i figured the .429 bore with more material removed 'might' be better balanced. As to whether its a noticeable difference is the question.

[Tom Myers]

For what it's worth.
For the difference in barrel weight only and assuming that the 24" outside barrel contours are identical and that barrel steel weighs 0.283 lbs. per cubic inch.

A 0.429" bore will contain approximately 1.2169 cubic inches less steel that a 0.358" bore.

0.439" x 0.439" / 2 / 2 x 3.1416 x 24" = 3.6327 cu in.
0.358" x 0.358" / 2 / 1 x 3.1416 x 24" = 2.4158 cu in.
3.6327 - 2.4158 = 1.2169 cu in
1.2169 x 0.283 = 0.3444 lbs

0.344 x 16 = 5.51 ounces of barrel steel.

Please remember that I said "For what it's worth"

Respectfully,
Tom Myers

[mr surveyor]

For what it's worth.
For the difference in barrel weight only and assuming that the 24" outside barrel contours are identical and that barrel steel weighs 0.283 lbs. per cubic inch.

A 0.429" bore will contain approximately 1.2169 cubic inches less steel that a 0.358" bore.

0.439" x 0.439" / 2 / 2 x 3.1416 x 24" = 3.6327 cu in.
0.358" x 0.358" / 2 / 1 x 3.1416 x 24" = 2.4158 cu in.
3.6327 - 2.4158 = 1.2169 cu in
1.2169 x 0.283 = 0.3444 lbs

0.344 x 16 = 5.51 ounces of barrel steel.

Please remember that I said "For what it's worth"

Respectfully,
Tom Myers

numbers

jd

[GasGuzzler]

Sweet. When I have nothing to do I do figures like that too.

[Archer]

I'm afraid I haven't gotten any better numbers on it than the factory specs at present.