Rossi 92 in 16, 20 or 24 inch?

I'm already there. It's still wrong.
Click to expand...
Scopes did exist back in the day when the levers came out--I can't seem to find much reference to them being "wrong" back then--I've always thought this a modern prejudice thing. If that's the case--then arguably anything other than original issue Winchesters are "wrong" IMO. 44 mag would be "wrong"...357 mag would be "wrong" etc.:rolleyes:
 
It is a function of bullet speed, not so much barrel length (within the ranges discussed here).
If/when it exits supersonic, then you will get that characteristic "Crack!"
Click to expand...
It's a function of pressure in the barrel when the bullet exits, the supersonic crack is talked about a lot because of suppressors, but the reality is most people can't even distinguish it from the report of even 22s.
With these longer barreled pistol caliber carbines and rifles when you use powders that reach peak pressure quickly the pressure starts dropping leaving little pressure when the bullet exits.
 
OP here. I decided to go with the 24 inch octagon in 44 mag. With regard to velocity, since they are mainly handgun rounds they will reach max speeds out of a 16 barrel. But if I reload with a slow burning rifle powder I may be able to keep the pressure building up and get more velocity past 16 inches. I don't plan on doing any rifle powder reloads atm though
 
I went with the longer barrel even though it will be heavier, hopefully with playing with loads the rifle will be more versitile and the weight will reduce recoil further. The extended length between iron sights will hopefully be beneficial. Most shooting will be done at rest at the moment and I'm anticipating that my powerlifting will help and carry over to holding heavier rifles [emoji14]
 
Good choice OP, I have a Rossi .44 mag with a 16"barrel and although it is alot of fun to shoot, after about a 1/2 box of 240 grain magnums, I have had just about enough punishment and quickly turn to .44 special to let the beating subside a bit...:D.
 
But if I reload with a slow burning rifle powder I may be able to keep the pressure building up and get more velocity past 16 inches. I don't plan on doing any rifle powder reloads atm though
Click to expand...
You won't need to go any slower than the good magnum pistol powders, H110/296 will make good screamers, I've got a 300gr lead that'll go 1500 from a 16" tube.
 
With these longer barreled pistol caliber carbines and rifles when you use powders that reach
peak pressure quickly the pressure starts dropping leaving little pressure when the bullet exits.
Click to expand...
Hence the " CRACK ! " sound -- which is quite distinctive -- when the round leaves
the muzzle supersonic as opposed to slower.

Demonstrated again & again w/ the super/sub 357 loads I've run out of the `92,
and with the same powder (231) which has long finished burning in both cases.
 
You won't need to go any slower than the good magnum pistol powders, H110/296 will make good screamers, I've got a 300gr lead that'll go 1500 from a 16" tube.
Click to expand...
+1 on that--my 44 carbine is especially fond of 240 gr xtp's backed by 24.3 grs of H110 scootin along at somewhere at 1700+ fps. Love that Boom--Thwack! :D
 
I have a really good iron set up on both of my 92's.

I've got a Skinner rear peep that I leave the aperture out of. For the front I use a Marble fiber optic.

689011.jpg




With the .357 I'm getting a group under an inch at 50 yards with a cheap plastic rest.

I can't do any better with a scope.
 
Dope Bag test

The test, as I recall, was done with the 16" barrel and iron sights. That fact is why I bought the model that I have.
Pete
 
If you are going with the octagon barrel then definitely blue.

I've shot my 357 20 inch without ear protection a couple times and it was surprisingly quiet. About the same as a 22.

I don't find recoil on any of these guns unmanageable. The 454 has recoil similar to a 12 gauge shotgun shooting 3 inch high brass. Not light by any means but not unbearable. And yes the 454 will shoot 45 LC but can have a little trouble cycling. Also the 454 is such a high pressure round that I don't recommend shooting LRN 45 LC through it as you can get a residue ring that can lead to a dangerous spike in pressure. Also clean it regularly if you are shooting 45 LC.

You continue to get increased velocity with the longer barrel clear out to 24 inches. It's just that the increase in velocity is comparatively less from 20 to 24 as it is from 16 to 20. But you still get an increase. I can get some factory rounds to clock at 2400 fps out of my 20 inch 357. That is approaching 30-30 velocities though admittedly with a bullet that has a much poorer ballistic coefficient.

I'm not sure if the octagon barrels are drilled and tapped for a rail mounted scope like the round barrels are. Anyone know?
 
Super Sneaky: Leaving the aperture out of the receiver sight was a trick of old timers! First let in on that in the late seventies, by my long deceased great uncle (in his eighties at the time!). I had (still have) a Model 94 Winchester, that I put Lyman receiver sights on. Fine in good weather, while sighting in, but was a bit problematic getting on target in the brush woods, early first light and/or snow.

Unc said remove the aperture (first ghost ring!) and worked wonders. Said he new guys doing that since he was my age (at that time).

Glad to see you post that you do it too!
 
I've decided to try to see (literally) just how well I can shoot my 44 mag 16" carbine without a scope. Granted, I am using a red-dot; but at 1x and a relatively low quality dot with flare on the edges, I consider it no more of an advantage than regular irons--other than the fact that I can actually see it. Took a lunch break and where I shoot unfortunately I'm shooting into the sun most of the time. Winds were pretty strong and gusty; 25 to 35 from about 11:00 position. I shot Federal's budget 240 gr jhp--OK stuff but not as good as my xtp reloads (which unfortunately I had run out of). Target was 100 yds--at which distance I cannot see every commercial target I have as anything but a blurry blob. So I decided to try some basic high-contrast targets I made which I could hopefully resolve with the unaided eye. They worked OK--but the contrasting colors really didn't help much--at 100 the whole target appears as just a vague grey rectangle. I think probably a better design would be simply a black box with white interior--which is what I'll try next.

First group is about 4" which isn't bad--and the next one was about 2.5" I think I can improve on that. With my old eyes I'm pretty pleased.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top