Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Action strength of Model 92?

Gents,

Let me preface this post: I am not asking anyone to take responsibility for whatever ammo ends up chambered in my Model 1892! (Whatever gets racked in will be on me.)

That said, I noticed recently that Buffalo Bore sells +P hard cast and +p copper ammo in .32-20 and now I'm doing some homework. (I've got a 92 produced in 1911 that I would love to use for short range doe culling.)

So, I'm wondering how strong the action is? I've always heard that the 92 is "stronger" than the 94, but that could mean different things. 1911 is well past the era of black powder, though the folks at BB understandably were not interested in giving an opinion.

Thanks y'all.

The model of 1892 is a scaled down model of 1886. I read someplace, somewhen that the 92 held its bolt closed at a pressure level that made the the 94 bolt give way. Something to do with the angle of the 94 lock up I am not a gunwriter but what I said was written by one.

If the rifle is in good condition and still locks up tight I wouldn't worry. I'd shoot that ammo in the Remington 25 and Savage 23B that were in good condition and still locked up tight too.

Thanks, y'all. It locks up tight. Honestly, it's probably only had a couple hundred rounds through it in the last 113 years and almost all of them were mine. Back in the 60s, someone needed a bunch of chicken from the little grocery store my grandparents ran and offered up the Winchester in lieu of cash.

Just take it easy on it; don’t make it a “habit”.

BTW, lucky you to own such a treasure.

It’s a “strong” action. I would personally feel comfortable using that ammo in a 1911 .32-20. Whether I would really feel comfortable using a .32-20 on deer is another matter. I’m sure it can kill deer. I’m sure it has devoted followers who have killed more deer with a .32-20 than I have seen in my life. I just don’t think very much of it as a cartridge that will quickly kill deer and bring home meat. I think of it more as a trapper’s rifle. But at close range, it would undoubtedly do the job.

I’d be happy if anyone commercially loaded ammunition for my m92 .25-20. It is a fun little rifle to shoot, but at what has been my dilemma. Those two locking lugs coming up through the top of the action on a 92 and not on a 94 that I remember would give me some confidence of a strong action. That 16,000 CUP .32-20 isn’t a high pressure round verses a more modern chambering.

I had an 1892 .25-20 for several years, which by coincidence left the factory in 1911. Fired all sorts of ammo through it, including handloads that sometimes exceeded published data. It worked fine....

Your limiting factor may well be the brass. It's not particularly heavy duty brass and may not have a long life with hot loads. A couple guys I know stretch the limits with .32-20 brass by using it to push heavier than normal cast bullets (150-165grain) at 1200-1400fps for 200 yard schuetzen matches, out of hell for stout CPA actions. (The idea is to provide a more efficient environment for the powder to burn in than a .32-40 case which was designed for black powder.) It works well, for as long as the brass lasts which isn't as long as one would hope for.

I remember gun magazine articles back in the 60's which described taking 92's and converting them to such stuff as .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum. Seems to have been kind of a thing to do back then as there wasn't much to be had in the way of light strong handy carbines for those cartridges.

Remington was showing it available on their website recently, a box of 50 for around $150. That’s not a typo. I just form them out of more readily available.32-20 brass.

The 92 design by JMB is about the strongest in class, stronger than the Marlin.

For cowboy action shooting it’s not as fast as the ‘73 design, is more COAL sensitive than the ‘73.

So, strongest but not the fastest. More finicky with fast shooting and can hang up if COAL is not optimal.

The Marlin seems in between regarding fast and strong.

DF

FWIW the 92 action was used in the Model 65, chambered in .218 Bee. The .218 Bee is rated by SAAMI at 40,000 CUP maximum.

Winchester just put out a batch. I picked up a box through Midway, $119 for 50 rounds.

I can't speak for the model 92 myself, but Parker Ackley chambered high pressure rounds in the 92 and commented very positively about the strength of the action. I own a rossi model 92 (copy) and it is chambered in 357 magnum. They also offer it in 454 casull, so it is a very strong action, if it can fire a casull, it can fire any comercial cartridge.

Strong: '92, then Marlin, then '73.

Fast: '73, then Marlin, then '92.

Something for everyone.

DF

Yep, 454’s in the ‘92, no 454 Marlins that I’ve ever seen.

Goes to show the strength heirarchy between those actions.

DF

I was going to reply to this thread earlier, but lost where it was... There's a point that I think is important here, that hasn't been yet brought up.

OP- I once had a similar 19- teens model 92, which had been rebarreled to 218 Bee (with a Winchester barrel). It had headspce issues. I can't provide a reason for what caused these issues, but I suspect that the type of steel Winchester used in these actions (at that time of production) had something to do with it. I think the reason the pressures of 218 Bee were possible was because of Winchester Proof Steel used in the Model 65.

My point is that, unless I'm mistaken, Winchester transitioned through several different types of steel throught production, from the turn of the last century to WWII. While the 92 action design is strong, I think the steel alloy has to be appropriate to the cartridge pressue also, or there could be bolt setback.

This situation comes up with other caliber conversions in the 92 (ie 357 & 44 mags) as well as the 1895 rifle chambered in 30-'06.

Be safe!

There used to be a gunshop in West Allis Wi that converted them to 357 and 44 mag . I actually fired one in 44 Mag .