The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Mr. Whimsy · 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, 06:32 PM	#1
Mr. Whimsy Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2010 Posts: 147	My Rossi 92 .357 Review 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.