The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

olyinaz · November 16, 2009, 11:09 PM

Well after an outting at the range today I gotta say that I find .454 recoil to be a very definite issue! Sheesh, felt more like a 12 ga. than a 20 ga. to me and by that I mean it feels like my 12 double barrel coach gun - BAM! No fun.

And unfortunately mine does not seem to like to feed .45 Colts. I had some .45s in Hornady Leverevolution with me and while they were a joy to shoot (dang accurate as well) they seem to come up to the breech at angle that ensures that they're hard to drive home. I actually had my hand slip out of the lever once or twice and had to bang 'em home with the flat of my hand to get it closed. So that's not good and obviously I've just bought a lever gun that I now pretty much have to reload for because: 1) Factory .454 ammo is so stupid expensive I'll pay for a reloading press in short order, and 2) as I learned today I don't have much appetite for plinking with full-on .454 loads.

Also, the action is a bit tight so if I grow to love the thing I could see sending it off to that Rossi specialist for an action job.

Lastly, the gun has two features that surprised me: 1) It's got a recoil pad that's ill fitting and unattractive. I'd much rather have preferred simply using a slip on unit for those times when I'm shooting .454s. And, 2) It's got a slide out magazine tube that allows you to load it from the tube-top via a cartridge shaped slot much like the current Henrys and many of the .22 rimfires we grew up with. Everyone at my shop raised their eyebrows at that one because we just hadn't seen it on a 92 - have you guys?? There is a knurled end that screws out and I must admit that I like it but I also feel as though it's made the magazine tube larger/thicker than it needed to be otherwise and it shows in the wood fore end - it's split from the front to the back up under the barrel because there simply wasn't enough room for the wood to fit in the gap with such a fat magazine tube. You can't see it, but I can when I take the fore end off and I think it's poor.

Neither feature is visible in the images of the gun at Rossi or Davidson's:

The bluing, I must say, is very nice on the entire gun but the wood is poor. Not as bad as past Rossis, but not good. The Italians, I must say, do a better job with wood.

So all in all I like it but I'm disappointed that mine doesn't seem to like .45s.

Best,
Oly

November 16, 2009, 11:09 PM	#17
olyinaz Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 877	Well after an outting at the range today I gotta say that I find .454 recoil to be a very definite issue! Sheesh, felt more like a 12 ga. than a 20 ga. to me and by that I mean it feels like my 12 double barrel coach gun - BAM! No fun. And unfortunately mine does not seem to like to feed .45 Colts. I had some .45s in Hornady Leverevolution with me and while they were a joy to shoot (dang accurate as well) they seem to come up to the breech at angle that ensures that they're hard to drive home. I actually had my hand slip out of the lever once or twice and had to bang 'em home with the flat of my hand to get it closed. So that's not good and obviously I've just bought a lever gun that I now pretty much have to reload for because: 1) Factory .454 ammo is so stupid expensive I'll pay for a reloading press in short order, and 2) as I learned today I don't have much appetite for plinking with full-on .454 loads. Also, the action is a bit tight so if I grow to love the thing I could see sending it off to that Rossi specialist for an action job. Lastly, the gun has two features that surprised me: 1) It's got a recoil pad that's ill fitting and unattractive. I'd much rather have preferred simply using a slip on unit for those times when I'm shooting .454s. And, 2) It's got a slide out magazine tube that allows you to load it from the tube-top via a cartridge shaped slot much like the current Henrys and many of the .22 rimfires we grew up with. Everyone at my shop raised their eyebrows at that one because we just hadn't seen it on a 92 - have you guys?? There is a knurled end that screws out and I must admit that I like it but I also feel as though it's made the magazine tube larger/thicker than it needed to be otherwise and it shows in the wood fore end - it's split from the front to the back up under the barrel because there simply wasn't enough room for the wood to fit in the gap with such a fat magazine tube. You can't see it, but I can when I take the fore end off and I think it's poor. Neither feature is visible in the images of the gun at Rossi or Davidson's: The bluing, I must say, is very nice on the entire gun but the wood is poor. Not as bad as past Rossis, but not good. The Italians, I must say, do a better job with wood. So all in all I like it but I'm disappointed that mine doesn't seem to like .45s. Best, Oly