They are both awesome lever guns. Aesthetically the Rossi's and Winchester's are more my style but that's a personal opinion. The only issue I have with my Rossi is taking it apart is a nightmare doing the lever/ejector pin. Or rather putting it together again is. I did that once when replacing the springs with a cowboy action kit. Marlin is much easier.
Rossi 92 vs Marlin 1894
- Thread starter Mattj4867
- Start date
Pathfinder45
New member
The Marlin is a very strong gun, much, much stronger than an 1873 Winchester. However, the 1892 Winchester is stronger yet, but with hot loads, it has a reputation of killing on both ends.
By that he means that because the leverguns are usually light with a small, hard buttstock, if you shoot real heavy loads (like a 454 Casull) in the Rossi, the recoil can be punishing.
I have 2 Rossi 357mag leverguns; a 24"oct bbl rifle and a 20" rd bbl carbine and I only shoot full power 158grn 357mag loads in them producing close to 2,000fps MV. Even though the rifles a compact and light weight, the recoil with my heavy 357mag loads is considered by many to be fairly light. Notably lighter than a Winchester '94 shooting a standard commercial 150grn rd.
Heck, my 110lb, 5' 0" wife loves shooting my carbine.
Pathfinder45
New member
Since the gun under consideration would be a 44 Magnum, it will kick harder than a 357 Magnum. Nothing than a slip-on recoil-pad can't remedy, though.
This has probably been stated already many times but if any of you who enjoy shooting + P loads in your lever guns but the recoil is a little stout just purchase a cheap 6mm thick mouse-pad in your favorite color (mine is black), cut to fit the the butt plate and glue/tape the cloth side to the butt plate. Really cheap and easy recoil pad.
Up above I said that a Marlin is stronger than a Rossi. I based that on my experience a few years ago when I was planning to get a lever action in 45 Colt, and I wanted to be able to shoot high pressure loads, sometimes called +P or Marlin. I phoned Rossi and spoke to a technical advisor there, who told me that 45 Colt +P loads should not be used in a Rossi. Maybe Rossi rifles have changed since then, in which case I might take back what I said.
Yes, I know there is no official SAAMI listing for 45 Colt +P. Let's not get sidetracked by that.
Yes, I know there is no official SAAMI listing for 45 Colt +P. Let's not get sidetracked by that.
Last edited:
That's the strangest thing I've ever heard a Rossi tech say. Rossi uses their '92 to chamber the 50,000psi 454 Casull load which is far stouter than a Ruger only 45 Colt (or 45 Colt+P) at 25,000psi load.
Ask Marlin if their gun will even stay together with one full power 454 Casull load through it. Go on, ask them!!
Further, I only shoot 35,000psi (current SAAMI Spec) or 40,000psi (Elmer Keith original level) 357mag loads in both my Rossis. With close to 5,000 rds through each, they run like they were new.
Pathfinder45
New member
I use a Marlin Cowboy in 45 Colt. It will easily handle any of the so-called, "Ruger Only", +P loads. But all things do have limitations, so in the case of both these rifles, there comes a point where the prudent user should draw the line and admit that if they need more power, they ought to look into a 444 Marlin or 45-70 in a rifle of greater weight. When we get into discussions of whether the 1892 Winchester or 1894 Marlin is stronger, on a practical level, we have already crossed that threshold. If you have loads that would blow up a Marlin and you are shooting them in a '92, you are not doing your rifle any favors. It's a credit to both of these fine rifles that they can easily handle the 44 Remington magnum and that they are stronger than the revolvers that the cartridge was originally intended for. In choosing between these two rifles, it is a mistake to base your choice on ultimate strength. They are enough alike in strength that it matters much less than other considerations.
I wonder if it was a customer service rep or an actual technical advisor from Rossi because I've never heard of that. Big difference between a cs rep vs. someone that is actually qualified to answer that question. But you can only go by what they tell you since you took the effort to call as one should.
Hi, Hawg,
I don't think your statement "The 92 is a stronger action than the 94 Winchester" is true, at least in regard to the original guns. The problem is that we are talking about not only the locking system but about the receiver material itself. The original 92 was limited to pistol cartridges not just because of its lockup but because the actions were iron (as was the '73), and I believe that continued right up to the end of the original production in the 1930's. The 94 was steel and it was that that made it stronger, not just the rear bolt lock. (That was the reason Winchester dropped the case hardening on the 94, since the steel receiver could be heat treated, not just surface hardened. Others kept color case hardening for show, not necessity.)
More to the point, any repro rifle (or handgun) made of modern steel will be much stronger than the originals made of brass or wrought iron. Anyone wanting to do a real repro of the old actions would have a hard time today finding action material as bad as that used in the originals.
Jim
I don't think your statement "The 92 is a stronger action than the 94 Winchester" is true, at least in regard to the original guns. The problem is that we are talking about not only the locking system but about the receiver material itself. The original 92 was limited to pistol cartridges not just because of its lockup but because the actions were iron (as was the '73), and I believe that continued right up to the end of the original production in the 1930's. The 94 was steel and it was that that made it stronger, not just the rear bolt lock. (That was the reason Winchester dropped the case hardening on the 94, since the steel receiver could be heat treated, not just surface hardened. Others kept color case hardening for show, not necessity.)
More to the point, any repro rifle (or handgun) made of modern steel will be much stronger than the originals made of brass or wrought iron. Anyone wanting to do a real repro of the old actions would have a hard time today finding action material as bad as that used in the originals.
Jim
stagpanther
New member
There's such a thing as a rossi tech? I don't know such a person existed.
Crunchy Frog
New member
I'd read that Rossi '92s were not being imported. I asked a local dealer about it; he had notbheard it but when he checked with his distributors, none were available.
stagpanther
New member
Like zip--I tried and had less than stellar success mounting a scope on my rossi92. However--I ended up putting on ghost ring rear and Williamson fire front sites--best irons set-up for these old eyes I've ever used.