A 92 to go with the 94

[gc70]

I finally got a Rossi 92 in .357 to go with my Marlin 94 in .38 Special. Wow, the Rossi is light compared to the Marlin.

After reading so many accounts of the 92 being a DIY gun out of the box, I was very pleased with the workmanship of the new carbine. Yes, the action was stiff out of the box, but I could see that caked-on grease was a big contributing factor. I disassembled and cleaned the Rossi last night and removing the factory grease made a world of difference.

The overall fit and finish on the 92 is quite acceptable. The stock is a bit proud of the metal in a couple of places, but the real surprise was inside the receiver. While I found two 1/4" shavings, everything else seemed to be finished very nicely. Surprisingly, the Rossi's feed gate is not as stiff as the Marlin's. The factory ejector spring is too strong, but that was expected. Otherwise, the action works well and most of the lever movement is smoother and lighter than my Marlin's.

I tested feeding, extraction and ejection with a variety of dummy rounds. The Rossi cycled everything from minimum OAL .38s to near maximum OAL .357s perfectly. A maximum OAL .357 with a 158 gr. RNFP would sometimes catch on the chamber mouth, but a jiggle of the lever would usually get it to feed. A .38 that was below minimum OAL would work sometimes, but would often allow a double feed from the magazine tube. Given the broad range of ammo that it handles effectively, I am very pleased with the Rossi.

Now I just need to get to the range this weekend.

Obligatory picture below.

[akuser47]

very purty keep us posted to your results

[Ranch Dog]

Very nice and I agree with your assessment of the rifles. I have a 1894C and have not shot it since I purchased the R92 chambered in 357 Mag. The Marlin just seems like a tank in comparison and doesn't feed as well as the R92.

[Johnz]

I have both firearms also, only my Marlin is in .45 Colt caliber, & I'm not seeing the weight difference you all are talking about. To me they both feel the same and the scale bears that out. Both are around 5 lbs ea.

[pricedo]

My 3 Rossi 92s are as slick as both my pre-64 1894 original Winchesters and that is definitely saying something. Don't have a Marlin 94 but both my Marlin Guide Guns (1895Gs) are as slick as snails snot.

[gc70]

I have both firearms also, only my Marlin is in .45 Colt caliber, & I'm not seeing the weight difference you all are talking about. To me they both feel the same and the scale bears that out. Both are around 5 lbs ea.

My Rossi is a round-barreled carbine that weighs 5 pounds.

My Marlin is an octagon-barreled short rifle that weighs 6.5 pounds.

The 30% weight difference between the two guns is very noticeable to me.

[akuser47]

When comparing the two you one needs to compare price towards the needs. Try finding a marlin no matter who made it in a price range comparable to rossi. I love marlins don't get me wrong but a rossi can be so purty for so little cost and effort.

[Ranch Dog]

I have both firearms also, only my Marlin is in .45 Colt caliber, & I'm not seeing the weight difference you all are talking about. To me they both feel the same and the scale bears that out. Both are around 5 lbs ea.

Your Marlin 1894, chambered in 45 Colt, would weigh less than a Marlin 1894 chambered in 357 Mag. There is less metal left in the same barrel blank. It is only an apples to apples comparison with firearms of the same cartridge. Let me offer my examples as weighed on a certified USPS scale:

• 357 Mag
  • Marlin 1894C₁ - 7.44#
  • Rossi R92₁ - 6.94#
• 45 Colt
  • Marlin 1894S₂ - 7.02#
  • Rossi R92₁ - 6.52#

₁ 20" barrel
₂ 16 1/4 barrel

Notice that my Marlin 1894S, the 45 Colt, weighs the same or near what the Rossi R92 chambered in 357 Mag does but when compared against a R92 in the same cartridge, the half pound difference remains. That's what is lost in the additional barrel boring.

My rifles are heavier than your example in that they are all scoped rifles, Marlin and Rossi, so the comparison of weights is still valid across my rifles of the same cartridge. The Rossi R92 chambered in 357 Mag that I just sold Steelbanger was not a scoped rifle, just the basic "-001" rifle, and it weighed 6# even.

When I compare the 1894 against the R92 in this respect, weight, it is more about the "heft" of the rifle. I think if you dunked the two into a calibrated tank of water the R92 would displace fewer cc's, it is a tighter package all around.

I really like my Marlins just as much as the R92s but my 1894C, the 357 Mag, I like the least. My 1894S, the 45 Colt, is right up there with the 1894FG in 41 Mag. That last rifle would trump all of them if I had to make a single choice to keep, Marlin 1894 or R92, I would not have any Rossi's left. Thank goodness I haven't had to make that choice.

[pricedo]

Very interesting discussion.

RD brought to light a very interesting point which explains why my Rio Grande in 30-30 is considerably heavier than the sibling 45-70 version. Obviously if they use the same diameter barrel blank to bore both barrels and the bigger caliber barrel would be lighter because less residual steel remains.

The posts have been silent on one criterion, namely barrel length.
I assume from the pics that we're comparing guns that have 20" barrels.

There is a naming convention in regards to Winchester leverguns & their clones that is loosely followed:
rifle - 24" or longer barrel
carbine - 20" barrel
trapper - 16" barrel

Congrats gc70 on 2 rifles that look like they have been very well cared for.

[Ranch Dog]

The posts have been silent on one criterion, namely barrel length.
I assume from the pics that we're comparing guns that have 20" barrels.

Good point, added the barrel lengths of my rifles. Note the are 20" except the 1894S 45 Colt which is 16 1/4". That considered, yes, the Marlin is a slug.