Model 1892 44 Mag?

[Old Time Hunter]

Local gun shop has a 1892 short barrel serial # 563xxxthe receiver is in the "white" along with the 2/3 magazine tube, along with all the other hardware...except the barrel, it is blued and stamped 44 Mag. They are asking $695 for it...but, skeptical about a re-barreled '92 of that vintage, especially in 44 Mag.

Also has a ser# 813XXX 1892 in 32-20 with octagon barrel 24". Wants $700 for that.

[AJMD429]

I'd be tempted for the 32-20 if it is in good shape, but as for the Frankenchester, you could spend a good bit less and get a NEW Non-franken Rossi in 44 Magnum, that would probably be stronger and a plenty nice, if not 'historic', gun.

[BenT]

The 44 is a little pricey for not being all original. I would try talking him down on that. The 32-20 seems to be in the correct price range.

[Centennial]

I take it both are WINCHESTER?

The octagon 44 magnum; Is that a Winchester barrel address marked barrel?
Numrich Arms was selling both their label and Winchester barrels in 44 magnum for the 1892 Winchester, but I never got any of them to shoot accurately, it was terrible. But those were round saddle ring carbine barrels.
They should let you shoot it, buy some midrange ammo from them and see if it functions, feeds, ejects, and shoots accurately.

[Old Time Hunter]

Definitely not a Winchester barrel on the '92 w/44Mag...too bad, the rest of the gun is very nice, original furniture and all. Dates 1905

Have an original .44-40 SRC barrel, still new (tag on it says 1921), wonder if that would spin right on???

[Centennial]

I could use the old 44-40 barrel if you want to sell it?

[Pete44ru]

.

The .44-40 barrel should fit OK, but the gun may need new guides if the originals were fiddled with during the conversion to .44 mag.

Besides poor accuracy, those rebarreled 1892/92 gennies would start to stretch pretty soon, under the pounding of the .44 Mag factory loads most convertors shot through them.

Those barrels were available in the 1970's as a $29.95 "kit", IIRC, for converting .38-40 or .44-40 Model 92's to .44 Mag - which was quite exciting at the time, prior to the wide availability of new .44 Mag leverguns.


.

[BenT]

If you have a 44-40 barrel and this 92 is in good shape. It be worth going back and doing some dickering.

[gundownunder]

Just my opinion and it's only worth what you paid for it, but, the early 92 actions were never designed to handle 44 magnum pressures.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

.

The .44-40 barrel should fit OK, but the gun may need new guides if the originals were fiddled with during the conversion to .44 mag.

Besides poor accuracy, those rebarreled 1892/92 gennies would start to stretch pretty soon, under the pounding of the .44 Mag factory loads most convertors shot through them.

Those barrels were available in the 1970's as a $29.95 "kit", IIRC, for converting .38-40 or .44-40 Model 92's to .44 Mag - which was quite exciting at the time, prior to the wide availability of new .44 Mag leverguns.


.

Just my opinion and it's only worth what you paid for it, but, the early 92 actions were never designed to handle 44 magnum pressures.

Not so much the design but more to do with the quality of the metal and heat treating process's of the era.
Most everybody knows not to trust the 30-06 cal pre WWI "03" Springfield's for this very reason. But few people make the connection to other guns. Probably because the pressure differences. From WWI the makers learned so much more about heat treating, so the post 03's were much safer. for the same reason the post WWI Winchester 92's were their best and strongest.
BTW, I've seen the same problems with the 25 and 32 cals converted to 357mag but just not as sever seems like. Less pressure and bolt thrust I suppose.