PDA

View Full Version : Puma M92--More Fun Than Hot Biscuits


Cosmoline
June 4, 2007, 07:29 PM
I picked up a used Puma M92 a few weeks ago and finally had a chance to ring it out yesterday. Great rifle! Even stiff, the action is very fast and the rifle light in the hand. I wasn't able to force a jam even cylcing as fast as I could at the range. This may be a 115 year old design, but I would not want to get crosswise with one. It's fast, light, and with .44 Magnum HP's packs a truly massive punch. I could hear the big slugs smack into the backstop at 100 yards each time. Real purty. I see why John Wayne carried one back in time to the 1870's in all those Westerns.

A few observations:

--The safety device is weird and annoying, but takes about two minutes to remove. That leaves a hole in the bolt, but it would be easy to plug if you wanted to.

--The carbine is 20", but still extremely light and handy. Even with a fully loaded tube it balanced well.

--Feeding is 100% reliable except with big hardcast FN bullets set at or above max OAL. These get stuck and keep the carrier from elevating. It's probably possible to fix this by filing down the stop on the elevator, but given that it works so well with everything else I'm not going to leave it alone. I handload and it's an easy enough matter to just set the bullets down further and stay back from max OAL.

--Accuracy was acceptable to good. My tests were rough, but it appeared to shoot quite well with mid-range bullets and acceptable with heavier ones.

--Recoil was non-existent for cowboy level SWC's. Talk about rapid fire! I was able to cap them off faster than an SKS. Felt recoil was mild with the powerhouse 300 grain bear loads, though the tube took a pounding and eventually came loose and started shifting forward.

--The action is stiff to begin with, but loosens as you work with it. From what I've heard the Pumas get really nice after some use.

--The trigger is not so great. It works, but is real tight. I'm going to get an aftermarket one for it.

--The front sight is a nice sourdough and works just fine. It looks like it would take plenty of abuse.

--The rear sight from the factory is a very cheaply made sheet metal tangent, and wiggles back and forth in recoil. Totally useless. So I replaced it with an old front Mojo aperture after some work with the file. I set it to hit POA with stout loads at about 100 yards, but it could be set lower with more file work.

--I put a Wild West light mount on the tube. These require no gunsmithing and are pretty easy to remove.


http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/Gussick/Brutus.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/Gussick/sight2.jpg

Manedwolf
June 4, 2007, 08:38 PM
I have the 38/357 myself. An older one, so it has no safety and is an exact replica of the 92.

And DAMN is it ever accurate. First shot with it bullseyed the target. Action is as smooth as silk, and being its an older one, its stocked with some sort of deep, rich Brazilian hardwood.

Put Buffalo Bore loads in the thing, and it's a hell of a hitter. Want to carry something that won't scare people post-disaster but that can put down a two-legged predator quickly? There's your gun.

gak
June 4, 2007, 09:17 PM
Talk to Steve Young aka Nate Kiowa Jones - at www.stevesgunz.com - top Rossi 92 guy around...and he has a cure for your safety hole (and knows any other issues re removal). www.leverguns.com and www.sassnet.com if you don't know them already are good places to talk your 92 up with a lot of cowboys that have these.

FirstFreedom
June 4, 2007, 09:21 PM
tacticool-ize that levergun did you? For shame. :p :D

JK; Nice report. Note to self: take puma to range next trip. I drilled/tapped for a Williams side-mounted rear peep and removed the factory rear sight. Put a brass bead front from Marbles on there too. It makes me happy now.

jfruser
June 4, 2007, 10:11 PM
My wife's Rossi 92 in .44mag is slicker 'n owl scat through a tin horn.

It is an older Interarms import & no safety.

Crosshair
June 4, 2007, 11:17 PM
Is the Jury still out on the long term durability of the version chambered in 454?