Home Forums Lever Action Central Lever Actions - General my Browning M92 .44 magnum just arrived

It's a "new to me" rifle built in 1980. What should I expect? I have a bunch of Winchester factory loaded with 240 gr. jacketed bullets, and for hand loading I bought some Hornady 240gr. XTP bullets and some W296 and H4227.

I am primary interested in full power hunting loads, will use my Rossi 92 .38/357 for low power cast bullet plinking. Your experiences and tips please.

Also, has anyone mounted the Lyman tang peep sight on one of these? looks like it would be an improvement over the buckhorn rear for my eyes.

I use the Hornady XTP 240 over H110 and couldn't be happier with the load. Both the 240 and 300 ( if your rifle will handle the 300's well ) have performed great on deer for me and a few friends.

The 44 mag in a light carbine with full power loads will kick a little more than most people realize but it's a deer killing machine.

The Hornady 240 XTP and H110 as mentioned previously has worked well for me in the Browning B92. Fine little lever gun.

I've had very good accuracy and terminal performance out of my rifle (a Ruger 77/44) with L'il gun and a Beartooth Bullets 300 grain WFN.

Thanks for the info! I was a little concerned about the 240 HP XTP bullets performance on game, because Hornady's hand loading book lists them as suitable for hunting game smaller than deer. Didn't make sense to me. I plan to load some up with some W296(H110) and see how it goes. Should be fun!

Great rifle. Much better choice than any Marlins in this caliber. Looking forward to hearing how good she shoots.

My first few shots with S&B 240 SP's were not very noteworthy for accuracy. With my no longer young eyes, I definitely need to use something other than the factory supplied buckhorn rear sight. So dropped it off at my local gunsmith to have a Lyman tang sight installed. Hope to have it back in a couple weeks and will report then.

That should help quite a bit. I much prefer a receiver sight over the factory buckhorns, and your tang sight will have a slightly longer sight radius than the receiver sight.

Uncovering the other half of the target helps, too.

If you don't get the accuracy with H110/296 that you want, give VV N110 a look-see. You might have to slightly compress the load to get the speed back up, and still give up 30 to 40 fps, but it always grouped better. L'il gun is another powder that has given me excellent accuracy in a rifle.

I agree that the 92 is more stylish and lighter than the Marlin 1894. (The early attempt by Marlin to use the 336 platform is just too much of a good thing and some fed poorly.) in my experience the Brownings were less than stellar in the accuracy department usually 2-3", but that is minute of deer, pig, or coyote at normal woods ranges. That is with a receiver sight. Never used a tang sight on one of those.

Jack

You will find that they have shallow multi groove rifling and generous barrel dimensions making shooting cast bullets a frustrating exercise till you work out how to deal with it. Generally factory jacketed and jacketed handloads work OK but accuracy is still not sparkling.

For cast I use wide diameter bullets, a reasonably hard alloy and a gas check. Despite the slow twist (1in 38") I have loads with heavy cast (300gr) that's as good as the jacketed bullet loads. I use 432/433 diameter cast bullets and RNFP designs have worked best for me.

It is a nice rifle and either a tang or side mounted peep will improve accuracy compared to factory irons.

W296 is a good powder for full power loads.

I replace the buckhorn rear with Skinner peeps on mine, huge improvement. That does not improve the sight radius though...

Sight radius ought to increase from about 16" to 22".

I would call that an improvement.

That would be an improvement indeed.

When my eyes first started getting old, I tried receiver sights on my M94 Winchester. The results were better groups at 100 yards than I had ever fired with that rifle, and paper plates at 200 yards became routine.

I love to use lever rifles, and when I acquire a new one, the first thing changed is receiver sights. The rest of my body appreciates the accommodation I give my eyes...I have 20/20 vision, but that's at 20 feet...

A '94, not a '92. But, same idea.

DF

JFE, how do you make a bullet of 432/433 diameter? the moulds I see for sale are .429-430" I'd like to try cast bullet but don't want to buy a useless mould. Can I just cast a bullet from a standard mould and not put it through a size die? Advice appreciated!

Roger that, same principle.

My M94, literally a childhood friend, bought new when I was 13.

Pretty close.

Those type guns with good receiver sights are really handy and quite percise.

DF

Most factory moulds are undersized but may cast as large as 0.431. You can enlarge the diameter a few different ways. Google up "Beagling a mould". Another method is to hone out the cavities. However it's far easier to buy a mould from small operators that cast large diameter bullets. I have a couple now, both were Group Buy Moulds on the Cast Boolits site. One was made by Mihec and the other by NOE. I don't have any of his moulds, but I have heard good things about Tom at Accurate Molds and apparently he can make up larger diameter moulds and in blocks from a variety of materials. Finally, if you know what you want you can have one custom made by Mountain Molds. Its a user driven mould design program that offers a lot of flexibility.

Just be aware that a lot of factory 44 moulds are designed for revolvers and these designs, particularly those with sharp shoulders and long noses, may not cycle and feed well in a levergun. Look for a RNFP design and a nose to crimp groove length that works in your rifle.

Large diameter sizers - these can be bought from places like Tracks of the Wolf, Buffalo Arms etc or you can have one of several guys on the Cast Boolit Forum make you one. I have had several made by "Buckshot" and they have been perfect. You could also hone out the largest one you can find (generally 431).

HTH

Thank you! very useful and informative.