Rossi M92 .357 lever action 16 vs. 20 inch?

D

DavidB2

New member
I am debating the advantages of 16 vs. 20 inch barrel on the Rossi M92. The 20 inch looks more like the original Winchester model 92's; and I should better accuracy. However, I am wondering if the 16 inch barrel will be more handy to transport. Your suggestions.
 
I don't think a .357Mag pistol round gets much more momentum out of a 20" vs 16". If the 20's tube holds more rounds, maybe that might be a factor in your decision.
 
The 20" feels more balanced in the hand to me as well. Believe me, it is still a very short and handy rifle. I got mine two weeks ago and have about 200 rounds through it so far and I love it.
 
I have Marlin's in .357 with a 16" and a .44 with a 20" barrel.
The 16" is better to carry and for me both feel good in my hands. I like the fact that the 20" holds more rounds but the 16" is "handy" and portable.
I like both....:D

Lateck,
 
The 20 inch version is very handy and portable and having 12 rounds of 357 or 13 rounds of 38 special is great!
 
I've got both. The 16's fun and handy as others have said, but, IMO, the 20" if you can only have one. Btw, the 16" was also "original" as a Winchester too--Pre War--as a "trapper" (an informal term, aka baby carbine, which was available back then also as special order 14" and 15"),...though they are the rarest and among the most precious of all regular (catalog) 92s with collectors--and 94s for that matter. The 16" does make a great "truck gun,".but the 20" is no slouch in that department either.

Btw, my 24" long (octagonal) rifle is the one with the 12/13 capacity, versus 10/11 for the 20" carbine (ditto 20" "short rifle") and 8/9 16"...same goes whether .357/.38 or .44 Mag/.44 Sp--or .44-40 and .45 Colt which are "magnum" length and so are 10 rd in the 20", 12 in 24".
 
Last edited:
Wow, I'm glad I looked before I posted a thread... I was about to ask the same thing. Anyway, back to your programming
 
As someone pointed out in another ongoing Rossi 92 thread, they'd wished they'd gotten the 16" "trapper" as they found the 20" to be a bit weightier than expected. That's one reason to get the shorty especially in the .357, as the small-ish .357 bore (versus the .44s and 45s) means a lot of metal up front. .a particularly hefty barrel. 4" isn't a lot but in small bore rifles it adds up. It's all what you get used to however. Another 92 owner I know loves his 24" octagonal 92 .357. I've got the .44 Mag version and it's enough for me...and can't imagine the smaller bore. (For some reason a regular (round barrel) Pre War .30-30 1894 long rifle with smaller bore yet doesn't bother me--maybe psychologically 'cause you know overall its a larger, more powerful rifle cartridge and not a pistol round. Back to the 16" comparison, I'm still primarily a 20" sort--especially if I can have only one.
 
Can't speak for the Rossi, But my Winchester 16" trapper .30-30 is very easy to carry and probably my favorite of the ones I own.
 
I had the 20" .357 and wished I'd gotten the 16". That .357 hole in a .44 barrel is like a carrying around a bull-barrel. I had a Winchester trapper in .45 LC back in the day, and still kick myself for selling it. I simply couldn't find a 16" Rossi in .357, so got the 20". Long story. It got returned for being a lemon and I personally don't care to own another Rossi or a 92. My mistake, possibly, but just don't feel comfortable trying it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top