View Full Version : My Rossi 92 .357 Review
June 19, 2012, 06:32 PM
Having worn these forums out over the years in search of intel on this rifle, I thought I'd share about the stainless Rossi 92 20" 357 I just purchased. I have been curious for so long as these guns looked really fun.
Well, I am returning it for a refund.
I was really excited to un-box it yesterday, and even more excited when I saw just how pretty the darned thing was. The stainless was polished, but not TOO bright, and it had some kind of rosewood-looking stocks. There was a big dent in the side of the buttstock from some machine, but no matter as I would probably just bang it up myself with hard use, I thought.
Fit and finish was good. If you looked too close, you might find a little bit of a sharp edge here or there. Honestly, it looked much better than the Marlin I looked at back at Christmas, which was so poorly put together that I told the salesman it was broken and not to sell it. Trigger was pretty decent and the action wasn't as crunchy as I was led to believe. I spent hours cleaning their grease out of it, inspecting it, cleaning, and re-lubing. The barrel wasn't the prettiest rifling I'd seen, but no obvious flaws. The inside of the action, however, looked a little rough.
I did not disassemble the rifle.
I do not know how, and am not interested in trying as the '92 doesn't seem to play well with others when it comes to re-assembly, or so I've heard. I did not realize that any prospective Rossi 92 owner needs this type of skill and in-depth understanding of the inner workings. I am not this guy. There are Cowboy Action Shooters out there who tear these things down in their sleep, so expert are they in slicking up the Rossi action. But I am not a home gunsmith, I am a shooter.
I thought I'd be smart before going to the range and try cycling some rounds to see whether it discriminated against .38 Specials, or would feed both as some rifles will. Hefting the rifle was surprising, as the 20" had more weight to it than I expected. I put some .38 cartridges in the magazine... or at least tried to. Half of them hung up at the loading gate, having to be taken back out and shoved in again to enter the mag. tube. I can fix that, I thought, a minor problem.
Breathless with anticipation, I slowly but forcefully opened and closed the lever, looking down into the action.
A jam. Cartridge stuck halfway into the barrel. Rinse. Repeat. Switch brands of .38, no difference. Some go in fine, others randomly jam about 50% of the time. The carrier doesn't seem to be coming up enough.
Ok, fine. I'll try .357's. Even worse jams. Crap. I've got an expensive paperweight.
I didn't even fire it, I was so dis-heartened. I did everything I could think of, but an evening of internet research led me to believe it was gunsmith time. Or I could send it back to Taurus and let them keep if for months only to return it un-repaired like they did my PT100. Damn.
I spent all morning trying to find a lube hearty enough to overcome the rough carrier (I assume that was the problem). White lithium grease helped, but I only got the jam rate down to 20% on some runs of 10 cycled cartridges. And then the loading gate froze in the open position, locking the action altogether.
Enough was enough. I am not ashamed to say this gun beat me. A better man would have kept it, puzzled over it, maybe ordered the DVD from Steve's Gunz and replaced some parts at his expense. Not me. It might never work even after all that.
I don't care to get intimate with the innards of the '92, a design that seems kind of complicated and finicky from what I've read. I'm sure when they work they work... but everything has to be timed just right, and if it isn't, epic jam-fest ensues. This 19th century design might not be the best match for 21st-century production methods that don't involve careful attention and hand-fitting. This seems a bit high of an aspiration for the likes of Taurus (I've owned a bunch, I can say that).
I could have become an expert on the 1892 in the process of fixing this rifle. Instead, the 6 or so hours I wasted on it will simply be time I'll never get back because of my decision to cut my losses. I won't be trying any more '92's as I'd rather wait for a more modern design to come along without all its foibles and idiosyncracies. It would be nice to be able to field strip a .357 rifle as easily as my Mini 14. I might check out the 77/357 some time for this very reason.
Hope this helps somebody.
June 19, 2012, 06:43 PM
June 19, 2012, 06:50 PM
... I did a little bit of research on the scope mounting potential for the Rossi 92.
As a top-eject, it is ill-suited for that.
The new ones supposedly are drilled and tapped for a rail mount UNDERNEATH the rear sight. I couldn't see any sign of it. You must need to remove the rear sight to reveal them. At any rate, this forward rail would allow for a "scout scope" - joy, joy. Here they are not to be found. Can be mail-ordered, but seem expensive when compared to normal, plentiful scopes that can even be purchased at Wal-Mart. It seemed like a real pain, though a sturdy way of mounting.
Option 2 is the "side mount" made by B-Square. The internet is littered with complaints about this mount, which attaches with a knurled screw into the left side of the rifle. It doesn't twist though, because there are fore and aft set screws that tighten into the top of the gun's frame enough to steady it. Almost every complaint about this fragile aluminum mount comes from somebody who put on on a .454 Casull 92 and expected the casual contact between mount and rifle to not destroy both. Knuckleheads. It'd probably be okay for my .357, and that's what I would've gotten, as scout scopes are a worthless concept and expensive for what you get IMHO.
I guess my point is that it was stupid to ever buy this rifle in the first place. I will probably give up on the .357 rifle concept altogether as it is not worth the trouble, being about as heavy as any other rifle but also way more expensive.
June 19, 2012, 06:54 PM
And oh yeah...
Last. Taurus. Ever.
Just don't do it. Just don't.
June 19, 2012, 09:00 PM
I guess my point is that it was stupid to ever buy this rifle in the first place. I will probably
give up on the .357 rifle concept altogether as it is not worth the trouble, being about as heavy
as any other rifle but also way more expensive Oooooh... don't do that. Please take a look at the Chiappa 92's. Mine continues to eaten everything I've thrown at it (`cept SWCs in 357 length cases), has never jammed (that I didn't deliberately cause), is smooth as silk and the lightest thing I own.
Put a marble tang sight on it (no drilling req'd) and you're good to go to 120 yards.
June 20, 2012, 12:47 AM
They must be slipping. Over the years the Rossi 92 rep has been very good. Of my 8 or 9 since 1980, I've never had any of your (OP) issues. Sorry you had yours. About the weight, it was probably the .357 aspect (any brnd actually). That relatively little hole (compared to the .44s and .45s) amounts to a lot of remaining metal hanging out there; the longer the barrel, the more of it. Try a 24" octagonal in .357 sometime for heft! Still, apples to apples they seem to be lighter 'n handier than the competition. In sum, sorry to see you give up on, to me, John Browning's finest creation, certainly the best Win lever and one of the best designs to date. No it is not as easy take down as the Marlin or the 73 with its side plate and more open top/dust cover apparatus, but then again, I've never really needed to get into mine except for superficial cleaning. I would encourage you to send it off to Steve (NKJ) as he'd make it the charmer (plus) you expected, but understand that's something hard to think of on a new gun with supposed warranty. Better luck next round.
June 20, 2012, 04:17 AM
Give Henry rifles a look. Awesome rifles built 100% in the USA!
June 20, 2012, 07:08 AM
I have the same Rossi 92 as you except in 44mag, and it has been absolutely flawless. It was purchased July last year. I also had one in 357 a blue pre safety ,it was a good rifle too. Thought it wasn't nearly as slick as my SS 44.
My lil 92 will feed it all XTPs and even SWCs & makes for a handy power house afield. Sorry your experience was bad. There are mount holes under the rear sight. I can't seem to locate the mount though, I have a lupy M8 just begging to sit on it!
June 20, 2012, 07:20 AM
You may have gotten a bad one, but I see this in your review:
Breathless with anticipation, I slowly but forcefully opened and closed the lever
That might have been the problem. Lever action rifles are supposed to be operated robustly. Push the lever fully forward, then bring it back. It's my experience that most Winchester levers can be made to jam by operating them slowly.
Or, you might have gotten a bad rifle. Who knows?
June 20, 2012, 07:42 AM
I'm sorry... gotta say it. If you bought a Rossi 92 that doesn't function properly, then you simply happened to have bad luck. Anyone who says that 92s are weak or prone to jamming simply doesn't know 92s. It a marvelous design. My Rossi (Navy Arms) has been nothing short of awesome.
It's easy to beat the Rossi (Taurus) drum, but I don't believe it's the model or the maker. If it wasn't you, then you just got a bad one. Same thing happened to me with a Marlin 1894 in .44 magnum. However, I refuse to jump on any sort of Marlin, Remington, Edsel are terrible bandwagon. Wow.
June 20, 2012, 08:19 AM
Interesting, mine has fed all my .38's flawlessly (Gold Dots, Golden sabers, SWC homebrews, and Buffalo Bore Keith style). My only complaint is intermittent weak ejection of fired cartridges, and it seems to chew up the cartridge mouths a little.
June 20, 2012, 08:47 AM
You are all right, of course.
I was a little harsh and now that I've had a good night's sleep, I see that. These guns have an excellent reputation, and I did just get a lemon.
1. I experimented on my dining room floor for hours with the speed of lever throw, eventually settling on a brisk, forceful throw. You really can slow-stroke it. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
2. You know, I didn't really get far enough to worry about ejection, but it did send cartridges straight up into orbit. I found it annoying because I like to save my brass, but again, operating the lever slowly so as to catch your brass seemed to completely screw up feeding, so that would not be possible.
3. It did occasionally sheer off a little of the bullet nose. I don't think semi-wadcutters would ever be a go in this particular rifle.
4. This gun's problems were eminently fixable. I got the sense that something just needed polished or a burr removed. Most of you would probably be capable of taking care of it. The rifle, on the whole, was 99%, being as nice a firearm as I've ever bought. But the 1% they got sloppy on was the only thing I really cared about - the functioning. Jeez, charge me $20 more and make sure the little beauty actually works. This was heartbreaking for me after lusting over the "stainless .357 rifle" concept for many moons. They probably would've fixed it, but I think I'd rather invest a little more money in another kind than take this chance since I apparently was pretty unlucky right off the bat.
5. The heavy barrel was unexpected, but yes it's a .44 drilled with a .357 hole and would probably be accurate as heck. I love this usually, but thought it made the little rifle less handy than it could have been. It was a little closer to lugging around a 30-06 than I thought it'd be. The Trapper 16" is what I should have gotten.
6. I actually wanted the Henry, but couldn't find one. As a person who doesn't like to mess with my guns, that'd probably be a better option. They say it has a smooth lever throw. I would even put up with its weight problem since I believe you can scope them now. And frankly, the lack of mag loading gate on the side is a plus to me, since I've still got a sore thumb from the many Marlin 1894's and 336's I've owned. Plus, I actually like the shiny brass receiver. I believe the loading gate on my Rossi was getting caught on - you guessed it - the carrier, whose right sight probably needed a little work if the Internet is to be believed. But I am the kind of guy who tears things up when he tries this kind of thing and voids warrantees.
Thanks for not beating me up, guys. I really enjoyed your comments although I probably will not do the 92 again.
June 20, 2012, 08:55 AM
Oh yeah, for anyone who's handy, there's a plethora of gunsmithin' advice on the 'Net, as well as Nate Kiowa Jones. I have had guns that had no information available online whatsoever, so this was refreshing and the cowboy action shooters are awesome to deal with if you need a little help with your gun. The Marbles Bullseye sight is what I would've ended up installing. I think it's about $15, but Steve's Gunz has more sighting options than you could ever shake a stick at.
As the for the safety, I actually LIKED it. It was a metal lever that was convenient and intuitive for me. I have no Idea why all the hate exists for it, since I liked chambering and ejecting live rounds with the extra little assurance that the thing wouldn't go off and hurt a bystander. It seemed to be a firing pin block.
June 20, 2012, 10:02 AM
Mr. Whimsy said:
"Jeez, charge me $20 more and make sure the little beauty actually works."
I hear you there...Not saying it's the case here 'cause as I said my 30+ year Rossi 92 experience has been almost without fault, but for any number of firearms--name 'em--actually it's a good comment. I get as (sometimes irrationally) hung up on price as much as anyone, but actually...just charge me $10-$30 more and give us the trigger or the stock or sights the (whatever) thing deserves. But marketers are in their position for reason and build guns to a price, to a perceived market--sorry to say, often correct--with that price/return ratio being driven my a lowest common demoninator mindset. Sadly, it's what keeps them (or they think) in business. That said, I agree with a previous poster that you unfortunately got a bad one.
Btw, not missing anything with the Henry IMO.
June 20, 2012, 04:15 PM
My miroku Winchester 1892s will not feed .38spl either - not at all. However they feed .357mag with 100% reliability - slow stroke the lever or work it as briskly as you'd like, makes no difference. They have been that way from right out of the box too.
No reason for a '92 not to be completely reliable and predictable with its designed caliber cartridge. Regardless of whether your rifle could have been fixed or not, I agree with you that any well made rifle should not have those kinds of problems straight from the factory.
June 20, 2012, 05:13 PM
I would have been ok with it not feeding .38's. I can use magnum cases to reload specials. I am still thinking real hard about the Henry, and wonder whose design they use for it. Don't like all that weight, but do like being able to scope it.
June 20, 2012, 08:34 PM
When I started shooting cowboy I thought I would buy a '92. Apart from the occasional Marlin it was about the only pistol caliber lever rifle I had seen for sale in the local gun shops.
At my first match (I was cowboy gun-less) people were nice and let me try lots of different rifles and shotguns (one fellow loaned me a set of revolvers for the day). I had my eye on a stainless '92 in .357. It locked up so hard the owner had to get the tools out to clear it. We tried again with the same result. I decided at that point to change my plans (ended up saving for a '73 which is a super nice rifle).
Some of the .357 rifles don't like the shorter .38 cartridges. Some are finicky about the overall length of the cartridge and bullet shape can be very important. Most of the folks in my area load with truncated cone flat point bullets. They seem to feed the best. One of our new guys had a brand new 1866 (chambered in .38 Special); he bought some round nose lead factory loads and the rifle absolutely choked on them. We tried some handloads with a different shaped round nose bullet and they ran through like water.
People expect autoloaders to be picky eaters but the lever action rifles can also be terribly ammo sensitive.
June 20, 2012, 11:17 PM
This. A thousand times this.
This is what I have been reading all over the Internet. I like to keep in mind that some of these 19th-century designs can't cope at all with a semi-wadcutter and maybe not a hollow point either. And of course, there's heavier bullet weights they don't like because of C.O.L.
I'm sure these guns work great if you figure out what they like. It's just... inconvenient on a variety of levels for me. I like to shoot whatever I have on hand for the pistol, and wanted a gun that would eat anything. That was unrealistic. I think a more modern design is what I'm really after.
June 21, 2012, 06:42 AM
I'm sure these guns work great if you figure out what they like. It's just... inconvenient on a variety of levels for me. I like to shoot whatever I have on hand for the pistol, and wanted a gun that would eat anything. That was unrealistic. I think a more modern design is what I'm really after.
Well, there you go. It's okay to not like something simply from personal preference. It is also okay to have preferences change over time. What is truly frustrating is to yearn for something, acquire it, and find that it isn't what you thought it might be. Buyer's remorse is an absolute buzz-kill.
I hope you find the rifle you're looking for.
June 21, 2012, 08:24 AM
Thank you. Good day to you sir.
It's unfortunate there are no rental ranges in my area. There is no substitute for hands-on experience, so I have to take a gamble based on what people say. The problem is, it's often what they don't say about a gun that becomes a deal-breaker for me. I tend to look for criticism in reviews, honestly.
June 22, 2012, 05:53 PM
Well I see that over on THR a guy is having amazingly similar problems with another Rossi 357. He ended up suspecting the cartridge carrier just like I did.
That discussion also raised an interesting point: that the 92 was designed for bottle-neck cartridges like 44-40 and this is an issue with straight-walled cases. I don't know.
My conclusion? Rossi build quality is the culprit, but even at its best you will be limited in your choice of ammo rather drastically. I should have known when a cottage industry grew to fix the things that they were trouble.
June 22, 2012, 06:03 PM
Mine has fed .38 S&W and .357 just fine but I only use flat point bullets.
June 22, 2012, 06:51 PM
I don't think the cartridge case (bottleneck vs. straight walled) has anything to do with it. OAL does, but that is true of model 1873's and others as well or even more so. 1892's have been around in straight walled pistol calibers for an awful lot of decades now.
Build quality may well be at fault though, as the internals need to be fitted and sized properly to reliably feed. The cost of doing that is one of the reasons (or so I have read) for the demise of Winchester manufacturing in the USA - the 1892 and 1894 designs just required too much labor cost to compete with alternatives. It's also given as one of the reasons why the current Winchesters, Uberti's and such are so pricey these days as well - takes some money to pay skilled hands to properly assemble these rifles even today. I saw a post about a tour of the miroku plant from a few years ago, and they author wrote that he was surprised how much hand assembly was still being used on both the Winchester rifle line and the Citori shotgun line.
If things are misaligned or tolerances way off, it would tend to bind up. Certainly when it is done right it seems to work very reliably, but I don;t know that the SA guns are made with the same kind of QC as the Japanese or Italian ones (the price difference would say they cannot be).
June 22, 2012, 07:55 PM
I have had my stainless 92 .357 for almost a month now and it has been flawless. I bought mine purely for a fun range gun and it has definitely filled that role. Fit & finish are great, internal parts as well as exterior. Much better than I anticipated for the price. I have fed it many different reloads from SWC to JHP and it has fed everything without a single problem. The accuracy has also been very impressive. As you can tell, I love mine. And believe me I am no Taurus fan, my dads snubby .357 is pure junk. I really hope you get the problems worked out in your rifle though.
June 23, 2012, 06:14 AM
I wouldn't give up on a 92 just yet. My Rossi 92 will feed ANYTHING. I was pretty suprised when I discovered that the action would feed, empty cases, 38's, 357's, roundnose, semiwadcutters, hollowpoints, reloads, factory, you name it. That rifle is a hungry beast. It even fed a few shells where the bullet wasn't even close to being properly seated. (not to shoot, just for an experiment).
I am extremely satisfied with my rifle. Give it another try.
June 23, 2012, 12:31 PM
Maybe I will.
I have been looking at the 77/357, the Henry, and the Taurus Thunderbolt alternatives. And all of them are flawed.
I was reading on another forum about the outlandish re-engineering people are having to do to Ruger 77/357 magazines just to get them to function. These guns are really pricey to have such issues. And it's a bolt action.
The Henry seems great, it's just really expensive. And heavy. And out of stock. Seems to have a Marlin 336-inspired design, and nobody complains of reliability woes.
The Thunderbolt is really an awesome idea, but I don't know that any of them are even capable of functioning after reading so many negative reports on the .45 LC version of them. I keep telling myself that the .357 is a little more reliable, but I can't find any info on it. I don't get the impression the original design they're copying was even all that good.
So it's back to the 92. I wish I had the funds for a Miroku-produced one. There is always the Marlin (although I've never, ever seen an 1894c "in the wild" in my part of WV). I don't think they're being produced now.
It's really time for a modern design. There seems to be awesome demand for .357 Mag. long guns.
June 23, 2012, 04:16 PM
I think it's unfortunate that you ended up getting such a bad gun. Especially when myself and many others have had really good experiences with the same weapon. I guess it's like getting served something gross at a nice restaurant. You really hate to give it a second try.
I'd like to see a semiauto 357 magnum carbine. Something like the Ruger Deerfield only in 357 magnum with 10+ round factory mags available would be sweet.
June 23, 2012, 08:17 PM
This is creepy, I was having the same thought today.
Along the lines of "M1 Carbine" though, but I'd certainly buy the Deerfield if it were in .357. I can't believe nobody's ever done this.
Also, my luck with the Rossi doesn't surprise me at all. I'm a lemon magnet, having returned quite a few Smith and Wesson / Ruger revolvers in my day for N.I.B. problems.
June 25, 2012, 05:15 PM
June 27, 2012, 03:00 PM
so is your 92 up for grabs? I got an SKS I'd send your way :)
June 27, 2012, 05:06 PM
To bad your is not working, my Interarms M92 357 is a blue pre safety model and works like a champ. If you want your gun running good then check out Nate, everything I've heard is positive.
June 27, 2012, 05:39 PM
Sorry to hear that. I love mine. It is an older one.
A M1 Carbine type in .357 would be great. Even just .38 Special would be sweet. :)
June 29, 2012, 07:24 AM
So have we concluded in this thread that the Rossi 357 Lever is "better" than the Marlin 357?
February 19, 2014, 08:33 PM
I just bought a Rossi 92 stainless 16" in .357. The gun seems to cycle .357 magnum with no problems. I have not tried .38 special and see no point in it, since the magnum has so little recoil, and the price for both rounds is approx. the same. I decided to replace the semi-longhorn rear and skinny front sights with Marble Arms sights from Midway (#63 short flat top rear and 45MR 3/32 gold front). These sights fit the dovetail perfectly, seem a perfect match with the gun as well as each other, and look very nice on the gun. Midway's price was 2/3 the price of Steve's and $4 shipping vs $10. Also decided to get the stainless steel follower from TheSmithShop.com for $14 + $3 shipping vs. $20 + shipping. This saved a few bucks and seems to be the way to go.
The action on my rifle seems smooth enough, even without being broken in. The biggest complaint I have is something I've seen other people mention. The dovetails for both front and rear sights are not milled perpendicular to the barrel. So much so that it's easily discernible with the naked eye. So much so that it motivated me to write this review. So much so that I may even get motivated enough to post pictures. So much so that I may even sell this gun. It doesn't matter whether you're sighting down the barrel (the way you'd ordinarily hold a rifle when firing) or holding the gun in your lap with your head directly above the sights and looking straight down - either way it sticks out like a sore thumb. The casual observer picking up the gun might not notice, but if you were looking for it, you'd spot it right off the bat. This has caused me to lose a considerable amount of respect for the Rossi. With an action this smooth, you'd think it would be a simple thing to set up the machinery on the dovetails to be at a right angle, or at least close enough to not be discernible with the naked eye.
Eventually I will replace the lawyer button. However, again, I'm having a hard time bringing myself to pay $20 + $10 shipping for a tiny steel button the size of a pea from you-know-who, and will probably fabricate my own. Since this is not a precision sniper rifle, I have no intentions of dumping several hundred/thousand dollars into it. These guns are overrated, and not worth adding $150 + right out-of-the-box to make them prettier or shoot smoother. In fact I'd rather pay the extra for a real Winchester or Henry, and at this point am wondering if I should have.
February 20, 2014, 06:54 AM
my 357 runs great.... purchased last fall... it is sensitive to the lever stroke...
depending on the type of round...
my 45 colt not sensitive.
February 20, 2014, 07:15 AM
i just shelled out 550$ for the 20inch stainless, i have heard there are problems with some, but most are flawless, so i was happy to shell out a few extra bucks to buy at the LGS rather than buds in case i had to return
i must say that you have me a little nervous, guess ill know in a couple days
i researched a little before i bought and already know that rossi isnt the way to go if you want optics, but i get tired of all my time at the range spent dialing in optics, so ill be happy to have another option that doesnt have any, i have heard marlin is the way to go if you want a scope
February 20, 2014, 09:53 AM
I had an LSI/Rossi Puma 92 in .45 colt that worked great, and another one in .454 casull that did, too. Selling them were two of the dumbest gun sales ever. So I also think you may have just gotten a lemon.
Only thing I didn't like was the flimsy top safety.
And if you get a 16", I don't think it would be heavier than other rifles, would it?
Comment and question on Chiappa firearms....
Comment - wow, they have a ton of new and interesting items I had no idea they had.... I've been under a rock.
Question: Chiappa has apparently invented a new rifle caliber called the ".44 WRM". I've never heard of it, and neither has the internet nor my reloading books... Surely this isn't the old rimfire .44 henry type round is it?
I guess they must mean .44 mag (.44 RM), and accidentally threw in a W in there.
February 20, 2014, 10:28 AM
My old marlin was made in 1981. It does not like wadcutters in 38 special cases but is just fine with them in 357 magnum cases. It is a real shooter. I was given this gun after my first hunt with a soft loaded 30-06 left me on the ground (I blame the ice) Any way my father bought this gun from a close family friend and had my grandfather (a retired gun smith) shorten the barrel to 16.5 inches and shorten the length of pull on the stock. I ended up with a light shooting youth rifle that I have treasured every since. I have taken more deer with this rifle than all my other guns combined.
Last year I let my father use it as he is getting up there in age and his go to 30-06 is starting to be too much for his slight frame. He loves it. The gun will eventually go to my oldest son. He has wanted it for many years. His first deer was shot with this rifle. I know he will keep it in the family. Since my Grandfather passed I have treasured it even more knowing that part of him is with this gun.
The gun has gone through a few scopes but now only carries a pair of peep sights. The concern I have is when my son inherits the gun what I will shoot. I want to replace it with another trapper length 357 magnum but I have not read many good reviews on the newer 357 magnum rifles.
February 20, 2014, 11:05 AM
Rossi is the Yugo sedan of Brazil. If Rossi (now Taurus) would machine the interior surfaces and parts they would actually work, John Browning did it with a hand file and designed an iconic rifle. Rossi managed to reduce craftsmanship to it's lowest level. I had a Navy arms .357, once I stoned everything inside it worked as expected, it did not ever feed 38's and the barrel was marked .357 so it was not expected.
Steve's is not booked months in advance because these are flawless products, the design is right but the craftsmanship (I remember when that word was used proudly in American manufacturing) at Rossi is totally lacking.
February 20, 2014, 11:08 AM
Tangentially, let me mention that my IMI timberwolf in .357 (pump) is one for the ages - would be one of the last rifles I gave up. High quality, if ugly. Cheap to shoot, too. Yes, it feeds .38 specials. It's my fastest centerfire rifle right now, and thus by default, it's my official or unofficial WROL rifle. I have a Burris "MTAC" 1.5-6x40 on it - what a fantastic scope. The large dot reticle works with or without batteries, and is great for CQB on 1.5x. But there's also a fine center aiming point for precise shots (also works even when batts are dead). :)
February 20, 2014, 05:38 PM
I know it's been said but....
I sure hate to hear that happened to you. I bought a 24" barreled rossi 92 in .44 magnum and it has just literally been a real gem. The more I shoot it, the better I like it. It feeds anything I through in it. cast boolets, Flat points Jacketed, SP, HP, LRN...Specials or full mags. I even shot a box of FTP polymer tipped PD loads, which it FLEW through.
February 20, 2014, 07:07 PM
Old thread I'm jumping in to but I bought a Rossi 92 in .357 with a 16" barrel last month. So far it has been flawless with .38 and .357 ammo.would certainly buy it again.
February 20, 2014, 09:09 PM
"Rossi is the Yugo sedan of Brazil."
+1 on that every firearm forum on the web has threads on how to fix modify improve this fine piece of crapmanship.
Wonder what the retained value of a 100 yr old Rossi 92 will Be??
February 21, 2014, 12:25 AM
came across this site looking for smoothing the action, although rifle isnt in hand yet, i am already excited to get into it, my plan is to put about 500 through it before doing any alterations, but the lighter spring, stoning the internals, shimming trigger and replacing the plastic follower are all on the definite list
seems like alot of work to get a new rifle running right, but still cheaper than a true winchester, hopefully i dont end up with a total dog that has to be sent backk to factory like some others
i got the call from LGS today that my 92 is ready for p/u, will have it tomorrow, and will put in my first experiences with it on sunday weather permitting
February 21, 2014, 05:15 PM
i am happy to say that this rossi 357 doesnt seem to have any probs with anything i have tried to feed it, i dont have a huge variety, but it fed the 357 hornaday critical defense, the handload 38 flatpoint, and the 38 hydrashock w/o any trouble
havent shot it yet, but overall it looks like a very handsome rifle, other than it having more grease on it than a nagant right outta the crate, the only complaint i have is the edges where you load the round into the mag are very sharp and slicing the sides of my thumb a little, but the finish and stockk look great, i do see some chatter marks on the interiors, but i am not going to overthink it if it works correctly
February 22, 2014, 10:07 PM
That's a beauty - can you get a stainless 16" .45 Colt with round bbl and recoil pad? That's the one I'd jump on like a duck on a june bug.
February 23, 2014, 09:58 AM
Love mine(.45 Colt) and am tempted to try the .357 out as well.
February 23, 2014, 10:27 AM
As the for the safety, I actually LIKED it.
Well there you go. You went and jinxed yourself by liking that damned safety ;)
Seriously... we had a 92 Trapper in 45 Colt here, that was just a splendid rifle. We are going 38/357 here however and we sold it in anticipation of getting another in that caliber. Rossi's old 92's were excellent carbines, perhaps a little 'sight-finicky' but mechanically very sound and strong as an ox. Your experience with this new one has me thinking perhaps I should hunt on an older one.
Sorry for your troubles, Compadre.
February 23, 2014, 01:15 PM
Honestly, it looked much better than the Marlin I looked at back at Christmas, which was so poorly put together that I told the salesman it was broken and not to sell it.
People love to dog the new Marlins even though they're much better rifles than the Rossi. If you would of bought a Marlin instead of the Rossi you'd probably be shooting it right now instead of writing about how much trouble you're having with your new rifle on a forum. My Remlins have been absolutely flawless in fit and finish and performance. Any issues they may have had have probably been dealt with long ago.
February 23, 2014, 10:21 PM
My Rossi experience
February 23, 2014, 11:06 PM
Marlin and Rossi have had quality control problems in recent years and both companies are more recently reported to be improving product quality.
I have both a 2002 (JM) Marlin 1984 and a 2013 Rossi 92. Both rifles function smoothly and reliably. The only meaningful product quality difference between the two is that the finish on the Rossi's stock is not nearly as nice as the Marlin's. One caveat about the Rossi is that it needed to be thoroughly cleaned before use or it probably would not have functioned properly; the preservative Rossi uses to protect rifles during shipment from Brazil rivals cosmoline in its difficulty to remove.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.