Browning B-92

[rwt]

A B-92 in 44 Magnum just sold on GB for $550. Another sold for $600 recently.

Thats less in some cases than a Marlin 1894. No dig on the 1894, but had thought in general that the B-92 had a pricing premium over the 1894.

I just purchased a B-92 in .357. It shoots great, but have only been to an indoor range so far. I have to figure out how to adjust buckhorn sights and how to use them.

[rjohns94]

The one I had for a short time.
Just gotta love those purple loading gates. NOT
Traded even up for my model 73 in .38 WCF.
No regrets.

Haha, I don't even remember that. What the heck was I thinking? I don't even remember what happened to that one. I must have passed it on to another forum member

[cshold]

Mike,
I remember you telling me the day we made the trade you weren't going to keep it.
I paid $600.00 for it.
You made $150.00 on it.
I basically got an original model 73 for $750.00.

"I sold one recently for about $750 on gunbroker. I think its too high. Have seen them go for $900 but I think the market is getting soft.

_________________
Mike Johnson,"

http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewt ... &hilit=B92

[rjohns94]

Thanks. My brain is getting foggy. I could have looked at my records but was at work. Still love what you did making a new forearm on that rifle.

[cshold]

Thanks Mike.
That old 73 is the most fun rifle I've ever owned.
Hand casting and loading BP rounds with the antique loading tools is so nostalgic.
Love that smell and cloud of white smoke.
I'm going to try real hard to get a deer with it this year.

[gak]

I have both the .44 and .357. I found the latter in an obscure online local (but out of state) "Pennysaver" type ad. Sometimes pays to check those out - a lot less seller expectation, and often don't know what they have (or care as much). Bought both "as new" condition some ten years ago, with the .357 being even more accurate to that description. I don't recall what I paid for the .357, but it was a "must-buy" price (sorry!) similar to the one the OP describes. I've had a flotilla of Rossis since '79 or so and really enjoy them for what they are, but viscerally the B92s are in another league. As many have said, as close to an original W92 as you can get. Although I have two later but still (barely, 2006 - EMF was the last holdout) pre safety Rossis, I really don't care for how they--that is, all post 2000 "retool" R92s--genericized (cheapened) the receiver lines. All my 80s-90s Interarms-era 92s retain those lines better, and the Brownings are even better yet in replicating the Winchester sharper/more distinct lines (as they should, being a Browning design to begin with!). All the Rossis are good and smooth shooters, so I prefer the older ones overall for those receiver lines as well as longer, radiused forend noses also truer to the originals. Again, the Browning too is faithful to the old Winchesters in this area as well.

Minor gripe, I do wish the regular (non Centennial) B92s had the saddle ring to complete the picture--as 90+% of the Winchesters were so adorned--and odd they didn't given that the Browning 86 carbine stayed true to the original there. While many CASers don't care for the saddle ring, when Browning came out with the 92s, with their elevated pricing (even then) I can't imagine CAS was their target audience anyway...even if Browning's timing did (intentionally or not) catch the growing wave of CAS interest in levers. I've thought of having gen-u-wine Winchester rings added, but concerned about impact on value. I think if properly/precisely done it should enhance--or at least not detract--but I'm not the value book-keeper on these! But, like the poster who had his converted to .45, sometimes you just gotta do what you want, especially if not planning on resale, later beneficiaries be darned!

Many people (in earlier threads) have noted their dislike--or at least lack of preference for--the Browning's high gloss, "hard shell" polyurethane finish, and I get that (and I would consider a redo especially if I did the saddle ring), but it is still a far sight better than the totally lifeless Rossi finishes (and mystery no-name wood) of the past twenty or so years.

[Malamute]

^^^ I'm with you in all regards other than the sling/saddle ring. I'm glad Browning didn't use them. They don't have any practical use if you aren't going to carry the gun cavalry sling style, and tend to scratch the blue up on the side of the receiver, as so many originals had happen. I can remember how many older Winchesters Ive seen the rings cut off or otherwise removed. I like regular slings, and don't mind drilling the gun for them, nor a receiver sight.

Would love to have a 357 B92. Sounds like a great smaller caliber, down to extra-quiet loads, and would be cheap to shoot with light or round ball loads.

[gak]

Malamute, i hear you there just have always liked the rings for their "original, old westy-ness," and a further disctinction from the rifles. On horseback, we used to use them with a quick scabbard release we concocted that worked quite well. Retained the gun well especially scaling steep hummocks, wash and hill sides in the desert which got quite vertical, then released when we wanted with no hang ups. That wearing pattern on the left side of the receiver just a signature common to almost all Win 92 carbines!. That said, if either the idea of wear or noise (as in hunting) bothers, I just tie a leather latigo on the ring (which is how EMF shipped them as well). Not that they probably even gave it this much thought, but I can see better for them to not include the ring--easier to add if you want, versus leave holes or a scar if you want to remove.

[Malamute]

Yeah, they do have a certain old style about them. I got a little grumpy about them seeing all the old guns with finish worn off though. I also tend towards receiver sights, the rings are usually in the way. One old 94 carbine that had a lyman 56 on it had the sling ring stud hole filled with what seemed like pine pitch.

I do like some of the other old style holdouts though, like the screwdriver slot in the end of the magazine tube cap, even though they changed to a cross screw instead of the screw-in cap to hold the cap in place in the early-ish 1873's. Unfortunately, some goober seems to think they HAVE to try to get that screw out and bugger up the slot. It doesn't seem to occur that the little cross screw is holding it in place. Winchester was sort of weird about some of the things they kept doing long after there was any purpose for them. I think the sling rings never really had much practical purpose (even though a few have come up with creative uses, like you mentioned), I believe they were an attempt by Winchester to try to attract military interest in their guns.