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.