Am I loco?

[Aguila Blanca]

Shooting Times just sent me a link to their review of the Rossi R92, a clone of the Winchester Model 92 carbine. The test rifle for the review was chambered in .45 Colt.

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editor...-review/461175

For factory-loaded ammunition, the reviewer got an average group size of 2.98 inches at 30 yards. His assessment was that, "Attention to these two details paid off, and while the R92 liked some loads better than others, overall the short rifle shot quite well with a variety of ammo."

3 inches at 30 yards is 10 inches at 100 yards, which my feeble brain thinks is a lot like 10 MOA. To me that's not my idea of "shoots quite well." I used to test a lot of 1911s; I shot at 25 yards for the simple reason that was the maximum distance at the indoor range where I shoot. I wasn't very happy with any 1911 that averaged 3 inches at 25 yards -- am I wrong in thinking that a rifle should do a lot better than 10 MOA?

[mehavey]

Uuuuuuuhh.... No.
You ain't loco.

The XTP/Lil'Gun Load looked interesting... but all the commercial stuff were absolute dogs.
Nearly 5" at 30Yds for the American Eagle 225s ?
For a rifle !!! ???


Editors should never have allowed passage w/o double-check... and then re-written bottom line accordingly.

[Spats McGee]

No. Heck, even I can shoot a decently accurate rifle better than that. And I'm not a great shot by any stretch of the imagination.

[ligonierbill]

I was just shooting a '92 yesterday - an actual Winchester made in 1892 (honest, got a letter from Cody). I was a little disappointed that my loads of my own cast bullets (I'm still learning) went 3" at 50 yards. With old eyes lining up a tiny set of sights. This one is a 38-40, but I'd be really disappointed in a new 45 Colt fired by a professional using commercial ammo did that bad.

[hammie]

Forgive me if I'm being snarky or unkind, but this is exactly why I quit reading most of the gun magazines. A firearm could fail to feed, fire or extract, and disintegrate in the reviewer's hands but it would still get some kind of good review plus a statement about how the manufacturer or importer's officers were kind to their mothers. I understand the current challenges to the print industry and how you need to be respectful of your advertisers, but still...

I do subscribe to "Gun Tests" magazine. They have no advertisers and give honest reviews. I also recommend "Handloader" from Wolfe publishing. A necessary journal if you reload.

[tangolima]

3" at 30yd is pretty lousy. I have an over 100-year old cut-fown long Lee carbine with worn out barrel, which I have given up on, is doing better than that.

The reviewer must have meant it was actually worse than that. There has been improvement.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Hawg]

Has to be a typo. I had a pre safety Rossi 92 in 44-40 with a full buckhorn sight and it did better than that at 50 yards.

[Onward Allusion]

Those numbers are ok groupings, IMO . . . for off hand pistol

The author stated he was shooting off bench w/sandbag support. The groups should have been much better than 2.98" @ 30 yards.

In the article's photo gallery, it appears the sample target showed an ok group but it doesn't say at what distance. I suspect either the author isn't used to shooting with iron sights or needed some type of vision correction.

[Rob228]

I'm not a fan of buckhorn sights but that's still really bad for 30 yards.

[44 AMP]

You are loco.
but not about this.

They either had a bad rifle, bad ammo, or were simply lousy shots, or possibly a combination of all three.

and I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure out which...

The little Winchester carbines are not noted for fine accuracy, but even a cheap repro should do better than those guys managed.

[JohnKSa]

I wouldn't be happy with a rifle that shot like that. Not even a levergun chambered for a pistol caliber.

I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but I'd probably be willing to accept 4MOA out of a levergun in a pistol caliber. More than that and I'd start trying to figure out what was wrong with the gun.

[Ed4032]

Two different questions. Yes to both. Yes you are loco. Welcome to the club. Your membership card is in the mail.
Any yes that’s a hard pass on the kind of accuracy.

[Pistoler0]

Loco like a fox!

or like an eagle?

[tlm225]

We always gripe about dishonest reviews in the gun magazines and how each gun is great. In this case maybe he made the mistake of being honest about the group size and distance but revealed just how low his standards of acceptability are.

[reynolds357]

They must have let their shotgun reviewer write that review. That is a good group, with Buck shot.
Hat is why I don't pay the rags any attention. Too much financial downside to bad reviews.

[101combatvet]

"I fired 10 different factory loads; six were loaded with lead bullets, and four had jacketed bullets."

The results would have been better had he used the same ammunition.

[gwpercle]

3 inches at 30 yards for a rifle isn't going to get me to buy one .
That's actually pretty bad and I bet he shot them at 30 yards because at 50 yards the groups were too large to admit too !
Granted pistol caliber carbines will normally be used at 50 yards ... I would expect at least 2" groups at 50 yards ... and if I'm going to be paying good money I'm looking for 1 1/2 inch groups .
If I were 25 years younger I would be looking at the Henry Lever Guns ... they get some much better accuracy.
I understand the way the world works ... you don't bite the hand that feeds you .
He wrote that the rifle shot 3" groups at 30 yards and that right there told me what I needed to know ... It wasn't that accurate ... at least he spoke the truth and let the reader know just what the group size was . I've seen one or two write ups where they just didn't mention how bad things were ... saying nothing about accuracy is also telling ...at least this writer told us what was happening .
Gary

[jmr40]

I can't imagine a "RIFLE" being that inaccurate. I'm wondering if the shooter could shoot irons.

[44 AMP]

He wrote that the rifle shot 3" groups at 30 yards and that right there told me what I needed to know ... It wasn't that accurate ...

Well, someone wasn't accurate.....

Winchester 92 reproduction. Coarse (semi buckhorn?) sights, and most likely not a light, crisp trigger, the gun was never intended for precision work, and then there is the shooter and all the other factors to consider.

3" groups at 30 yds.... why 30 yds? maybe that was all the range he had available when he did his testing. SO, Nobody knows what he would have been able to do at longer range. (Or, he did shoot at longer range and was so bad at it he didn't write about it )

What if he had gotten the same 3" groups at 50yds. What if the best that guy can do is 3" groups with anything???

Lots of things possible. Lots of things...

[4V50 Gary]

Pistol sized groups from a rifle? How's the crown?

[reynolds357]

I used to shoot a lot with a gun writer. Still do on occasion. He has written for most the big magazines at one time or other. A U.S. gun maker sent him their newest Safari rifle to review. It catastrophically failed and injured him.They compensated him and sent him another of the same rifle to review. This time, they didn't want it reviewed on a range. They wanted it reviewed on a Nyati hunt in Africa. After his expense paid month in Africa, he forgot all about the catastrophic failure and wrote a stellar review of what is IMO a mediocre rifle.
My point. I think there is often financial incentive to write positive reviews.

[Scorch]

Just remember that most gun magazines nowadays are reliant on marketing money from the manufacturers/distributors, so they will never say anything negative about a firearm they review. For you that was terrible, but for people who don't know any better, "if the expert from the gun magazine says that's good, well then yeehaw! Gotta git me one o' them Rossis!" IME, "Rossi" and "high quality" don't even belong in the same sentence.

I hardly ever read the gun rags anymore because of them selling people on the great qualities of cheap firearms, or the reliability of whatever piece of junk comes out of any one of the manufacturers, and how great the latest POS is. Sorry, I am tired of being treated like a mushroom.

[TX Nimrod]

One of the reasons I quit writing for the Wolfe publications and others was the demand to overlook flaws in products. I had several manuscripts very heavily edited because I was mildly critical of a product, and that was over 20 years ago. The above-referenced article is a typical junk puff piece which praises mediocrity. The “wood to metal fit” is “excellent”? The forend doesn’t even taper down to meet the receiver size! Others commented on the accuracy, but note the codewords - “a receiver sight…would make a great gun better”. To the discerning reader that means that in spite of the author’s praise, the buckhorn rear sight sucks. The use of uncommon words his readers probably don’t know - like “conspectus” - is there to make the author (or the editor) look smart. There are a few decent honest gun writers left, but most are just salesmen paid to fellate the advertizers.



.

[Paul B.]

I'd like to play with that rifle a bit. I have a Browning BLR in .358 Win. that went through at least three owners before it go to me. Previous owners said it was inaccurate and yes it was. Did a but of tinkering and now one inch groups are fairly common from the bench. The work left the forearm prone to rattle a little but it will shoot. I may slip a little piece rubber between the forearm and the barrel to see if it stops the rattle without affecting the accuracy.
Paul B.

[JohnMoses]

A guy brought a Rossi 30-30 to my range last weekend. I think he tried to put too many rounds in the magazine and it tied up the gun. After that, he put 4 rounds in the tube and it ran fine. It had a 3x9 scope on it, and once we got it zeroed, he hit the 6" gong 4 times in a row at 200 yards. Thats pretty good for any 30-30. I have several Rossi 92 clones and have no serious issues. The 38/357 is my favorite, and I can call head shots on the 1/4 IPCC silhouette all day with 38s