The new Winchester 92
- Thread starter Stukaman
- Start date
The original Model 92 had a flat leaf spring as a mainspring, as did the original Model 94. Sometime during the late '60s early '70s there was a design change and they went with a coil spring as the mainspring. Also, at some point they went to a rebounding hammer, where the hammer, while at rest, was not resting directly against the rear of the firing pin. The hammer rebounded slightly after firing so that it was not touching the firing pin at rest.
They also have a tang mounted hammer block safety. To op, they have no half-cock notch like the original 1892s as the rebounding hammer drops the hammer back off the firing pin after rack trigger pull. If you have ever shot a SIG Sauer pistol with a decocker, then you've seen a rebounding hammer in action.
The 1892 is inherently quicker and slicker than a 1894. The 1892 was originally designed for pistol calibers while the 94 was designed for the longer .30-30. The 94 mechanism is not optimized for the shorter straight walled pistol cartridges. Not that it does not work with them, just that the 92 was designed specifically for them (well, not .357mag per we but pistol rounds of the day, popular chamberings in the Colt SAA).
BTW I had my LGS order one of mine from Sport South and you can check their inventory at their web site. My other I bought online from www.rrarms.com - they were great to deal with and I would readily buy from them again.
BTW I had my LGS order one of mine from Sport South and you can check their inventory at their web site. My other I bought online from www.rrarms.com - they were great to deal with and I would readily buy from them again.
Quote:
"Is there any appreciable difference between a 92 and a 94 when chambered in the two cartridges I mentioned"
With the 94, between the two cartridges, the rifle historically chambered the .44 better. Between the two rifles, the pistol-caliber or "length" cartridges (the .44-40 etc technically were originally rifle rounds) were/are handled much better by the 92, whose action was designed from the get-go for those shorter cartridge lengths, the 94 being designed/debuted in 1894 for the .38-55 then in 1895 the smokeless .30-30. The rest is history. All other cartridges the 94 has (most) successfully chambered were--more or less--offshoots of these in the sense of similar OAL cartridge lengths, etc. I've known 94 owners who were very happy with their .44 Mags. Not so much so for the .357s, but there are those out there who've not experienced problems too. Unless you stumble on a "real deal" on a 94 .44 Mag, it's 92 all the way, IMO, for the pistol-length cartridges.
"Is there any appreciable difference between a 92 and a 94 when chambered in the two cartridges I mentioned"
With the 94, between the two cartridges, the rifle historically chambered the .44 better. Between the two rifles, the pistol-caliber or "length" cartridges (the .44-40 etc technically were originally rifle rounds) were/are handled much better by the 92, whose action was designed from the get-go for those shorter cartridge lengths, the 94 being designed/debuted in 1894 for the .38-55 then in 1895 the smokeless .30-30. The rest is history. All other cartridges the 94 has (most) successfully chambered were--more or less--offshoots of these in the sense of similar OAL cartridge lengths, etc. I've known 94 owners who were very happy with their .44 Mags. Not so much so for the .357s, but there are those out there who've not experienced problems too. Unless you stumble on a "real deal" on a 94 .44 Mag, it's 92 all the way, IMO, for the pistol-length cartridges.
Last edited:
