Model 92 25-20 rechambered to 256 Winchester Mag.

[hondo44]

I shoot a 1929 vintage '92 SRC in 25-20 and what a shooter it is. I've heard of these re-chambered for the 256 Win Mag (of the old Ruger Hawkeye single action single shot fame). Has anyone had any experience with this cartridge in a Winch '92? Is it a practical conversion and a sufficient improvement over the 25-20 WCF to be worth the effort? I wouldn't screw with my '92 but there's a rough one available cheap that would need restoration anyway that I'm thinking about.

I'm currenty planning a companion Colt SAA in the same caliber if I can get a barrel and cylinder from USFA. The 44 Special Colts I've built with their barrels and cylinders (Colt size) are top notch shooters.

Thanks for looking,
Jim

[jlchucker]

How's the availability of 256 Win Mag ammo? Glad to hear you are thinking of attempting this with something besides a good 92, but if it were me (and I'm not you) I'd probably just go for the restoration in one of the original calibers.

[mescalero1]

Search the net.
Paco did a Rossi 92 in .256 and wrote about it.
I remember the article.

[Sixgun]

Personally, I think its a waste of time and effort. The 25-20 can do amazing things with the 60 grain Hornady and a good dose of 4227.

.256 brass can be made from 357's but with about $300 in forming dies and loading dies, well, a lot of easily available 25-20 brass can be bought with that.

If the need for a .256 really bites you, there are original Marlins out there that will probably be better shooters than a converted '92 at about a quarter of the cost of a beater '92, conversion cost, dies etc. But............thats my way of thinkin'---------------------Sixgun

[mescalero1]

I agree with sixgun, to a degree.
A modern Malin would be the ideal platform.

[firefuzz]

there are original Marlins out there that will probably be better shooters than a converted '92
Sixgun

Blasphemy!!! I'ver never had any experience with a .256 but had a little .25-20 years ago and loved it. Bringing back a rough ole '92 sounds like a great project, ever think about a .357 conversion? (sorry, couldn't help myself )

Rob

[Leverluver]

Also think the radical bottleneck on the case will cause problems in a single action. Ruger even knew better than to try it in a revolver. Too much chance for setback and tying up the cylinder.

[Grizzly Adams]

Weren't there problems with barrel erosion with the 256?

[Buck Elliott]

Also think the radical bottleneck on the case will cause problems in a single action. Ruger even knew better than to try it in a revolver. Too much chance for setback and tying up the cylinder.

Ruger's biggest problem with the .256 (in a REAL revolver) was that the cartridge requires absolutely concise dimensions, tolerances and geometry of the frame and cylinder, combined with FLAT and SMOOTH surfaces on the recoil shield/standing breech, neither of which the company was willing to spend the requisite money on at the time.

[Buck Elliott]

Weren't there problems with barrel erosion with the 256?

The throat ersion problem stemmed from the ill-fated .357 Maximum experiment...

[Wind]

Hey there hondo44 -- If you want to go down the .357 road for a '92, I have an original 24" hex... octagonal barrel already re-bored. It would be a straight barrel swap, and you could always back the truck up if you didn't like it. Let me know. Best regards. Wind

[Buck Elliott]

Back to the original question...

YES, the .256 is a really fun and exciting way to go in a '92 Winchester, whether you have a matching handgun or not. Anything the .25-20 can do can be done better with the .256, and .256 brass is a LOT tougher than the foil-thin .25-20 stuff on the market.

.256 Winchester brass is still available, from time to time.

[Grizzly Adams]

Weren't there problems with barrel erosion with the 256?

The throat ersion problem stemmed from the ill-fated .357 Maximum experiment...

Thanks, Buck. Heck, I guess I heard that, but I have slept since then!

[Buck Elliott]

Weren't there problems with barrel erosion with the 256?

The throat ersion problem stemmed from the ill-fated .357 Maximum experiment...

Thanks, Buck. Heck, I guess I heard that, but I have slept since then!

Actually, it was forcing cone and topstrap erosion that quelled the .357 Maximum outing. Elgin Gates warned Ruger about the potential problem, but their design was already in the beginning production phase, and the powers that were, decided it should work out... Dan Wesson revolvers chambered to .357 Maximum do NOT have that particular problem, because the cylinder is just a smidge (about 1/8") longer, as per Gates' advice...

Too bad, too... The .357 Max is a great cartridge -- just like the .256 Winchester -- looking for a suitable launch platform...

[Booger Bill]

This is a favorite subject and dream of mine too! I had a ruger hawkeye and loved it. I sold it to help pay a divorice lawyer! I then had a martini built up, and it was nice! I now have a barrel for my old T/C in it. I have dies and probley 300 cases.
I have seen a sweet 92 converted in one, and would like one myself. I wouldnt mind haveing a marlin 62 in one. There is the factor of a pointed bullet in the mag tube. However there is next to no recoil. Also, in 25-20 there has been a zillion 92s chambered and I never heard of chain fireing.
Just how much differance is there between the 25-20 and .256? I am too lazy to look it up. Anyone here know?
Many years ago I had a shot out 92 rechambered and converted to .357. Also I had a shot out 73 in 32-20 rechambered to .38 special. But that was around 1970 and it seemed cheap, probley would cost a fortune with todays guru`s!
One of todays replica makers is missing a big bet in not makeing 92 copys in 218 bee, 25-20, 256 mag, .327 mag etc!

[Hobie]

I asked Steve Young about re-barreling a .357 92 clone to .256 and whatever the price was it exceeded my ability to pay at that time. It would right now, too! Perhaps I'll look into it next fall.

[hondo44]

All,

Thanks for the great thoughts and ideas.
First I should clarify since what I said was confusing: the Colt SAA I plan would be in 25-20 as a companion to my existing '92 SRC in 25-20. I had a Hawkeye in 256 and shot metallic silhouette with it. Liked it but let it go. Although it never gave me any problems whatsoever.
As I recall Ruger dropped it due to lack of interest, not issues, but dropped the 357 Max due to problems as some of you pointed out.

Marlins are fine guns and a good value. I bought a used one (not made any longer) in 32-20. It shot very well and it would be simpler/cheaper to buy one in 256 Win Mag. I just couldn't warm up to the Marlin and sold it to a friend who appreciated it more than me. It certainly had the advantage of ease of removing the bolt so it could be cleaned from the breach end.

I still have original 256 brass and dies so that's not a factor. It's dangerous having ammo in a caliber one does not have a gun for. I had two boxes of 356 Winch and no gun for about 2 years and somehoow I now have a pre-safety button 356 Big bore '94! And the 92 (actually a Model 53) in 25-20 that needs restoration still has a good enough bore to use the original barrel. AS you all know it came with rifle length barrel but had been cut so it's already been molested and I wouldn't feel sacraligious to cut it back further to carbine length and re-chamber it to 256. I'll still be searching for an original length Mod 53 barrel to retain in 25-20.

I'm hoping I can get some Hornady leverevolution soft pointy tipped bullets to realize the maximum potential of the 256. But then again, If I can get those bullets, I could spif up the performance of the 25-20 !

And Wind, thanks for the offer of the 357 barrel.

If this materializes I'll be posting pics.

Thanks all!
Jim

[blackhawk44]

At one time, I had the yearning to convert a '92 and never had the chance even though I already had a Ruger Hawkeye. The Hawkeye remains a mediocre grouper with factory ammo. Muzzleblast can be a bit tiresome. I passed over a couple of Marlin 62's and their sloppy chambers. A good many seem to have developed headspace problems over the years.

Years later, I picked up a Marlin CL in .25-20 and came to have some real fun with it. For some time I tried to locate an old Christy cylinder for a Colt SAA in .25-20 to go with it, but never found one. In the search, I came across a limited run of 10" TC Contender barrels in .25-20 and promptly ordered one. That barrel has been fun from the start. Open sights have proven to be the handiest and most fun. Factory W-W 86gr loads are within 20fps of the Marlin without the earsplitting blast of the .256 and will group in one hole at 25yds it you hold it right. True, in factory loads, the .25-20 is about 700fps behind the .256, but that's still a solid 1400fps and that's flat shooting enough for the small game that I chase. In general, I find the .25-20 a handier round than the .256 and believe that the next step up in power should be to a .250 Savage.

P.S.-if anyone spots a good Colt cylinder in .25-20, I might still be had.

[Booger Bill]

Blackhawk, I have never heard of a 25-20 colt! You sure one was ever made?

[hfcable]

Blackhawk, I have never heard of a 25-20 colt! You sure one was ever made?

not factory but i have seen conversions, including a Chrities SAA with two cylinders one in 25/20 and one in 256 and with christies adjustable siights and wished it had bought it, but then i have this one:





shown with my 53 also in 25/20

[Booger Bill]

Nice! How did they do the barrel? A sleeve, or just start from scratch? Like your 53!

[hondo44]

Blackhawk, I have never heard of a 25-20 colt! You sure one was ever made?

Not factory but i have seen conversions, including a Chrities SAA with two cylinders one in 25/20 and one in 256 and with christies adjustable siights and wished it had bought it, but then i have this one:

shown with my 53 also in 25/20

That's a great pair! You're right, Colt never made a 25-20 SAA. USFA never has either but I'm hoping they'll cut me a cylinder and barrel. It looks like your Ruger probably started life as a 357 magnum. Who did the work? Was the barrel relined with a 25-20 barrel liner and the cylinder inserted and re-chambered?

Jim

[hfcable]

Nice! How did they do the barrel? A sleeve, or just start from scratch? Like your 53!

sleeved, a local smith whose day job is something else, did it and then did some different ones, sold me this one complete for $325.00 some years ago, that includes the pistol!

[hfcable]

Blackhawk, I have never heard of a 25-20 colt! You sure one was ever made?

Not factory but i have seen conversions, including a Chrities SAA with two cylinders one in 25/20 and one in 256 and with christies adjustable siights and wished it had bought it, but then i have this one:

shown with my 53 also in 25/20

That's a great pair! You're right, Colt never made a 25-20 SAA. USFA never has either but I'm hoping they'll cut me a cylinder and barrel. It looks like your Ruger probably started life as a 357 magnum. Who did the work? Was the barrel relined with a 25-20 barrel liner and the cylinder inserted and re-chambered?

Jim

local guy here in anchorage, last name is hamilton, sleeved the barrel and cylinder starting with a 357. this pistol is amazingly accurate, one of the most accurate of any caliber or type that i have ever owned. this pair is great together.