In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Win Mod 92 conversion

oughtsixoughtsix Member Posts: 1,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited December 2002 in Ask the Experts
Any thoughts from the knowledgeable on conv. an original Win Mod 92 from 44-40 to 45 Colt? Other than obvious barrel work, what might need be dine to internals such as the carrier and feeding surfaces, extractor, ejector etc? What level of loads would be safe (the action
is tight) specifically, modern "midlevel" loads as currently listed for the Ruger six shot Blackhawks and modern Marlin lever guns?
Thanks for any help.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Options
    The firearms consultantThe firearms consultant Member Posts: 716 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Winchester makes a model 94 called "The Trails End" for around 400.00. Even if you did the conversion yourself I don't think you can beat that. If the 92 is in good enough shape to convert, it may be better to keep it as is and buy the newer 94. Just MHO. John















    I might not always tell you the truth, but I will never lie to you!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    MIKE WISKEYMIKE WISKEY Member, Moderator Posts: 9,976 ******
    edited November -1
    MY THOUGHTS ALSO, THE M-92 WAS NEVER MADE IN .45 L.C. SO A 'SMITH' WOULD HAVE TO 'CUT AND TRY'. IF YOU LIKE THE 92 ACTION (I DO)BUY A ROSSI IN .45 (I HAVE THESE IN .44/40 AND .357 AND THEY BOTH WORK WELL).
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    oughtsixoughtsix Member Posts: 1,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    We know the 92 wasn't made in 45 Colt, that's why we're going to build one. The man already has one. Just wanting to hear from the experienced in this area whether the 92 will handle loads as stated above. We understand it's a strong action. Anyone know of smith's
    specializing in lever guns who might have knowledge?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The 92 in 44-40 is a great combination and is authentic. The high speed loadings for 38-40 and 44-40, that got people into trouble with revolvers, were specified for the 92 only. These hot loads approached 44 Mag power levels. When the 44Mag came out, many 92's were converted to it.
    Phil Sharp and Ackeley both show a 200 grain sp load at 2100fps for the 44-40 using H2400 powder. That's cookin pretty good.
    The NRA Gunsmithing guide describes the conversion to 44 Mag which involves welding up and recutting both cartridge guides. Conversion to 45LC would also involve altering the cartridge guides since the 45LC case is fatter than the 44-40.
    If your barrel is in good shape, I'd say stay with the 44-40. Before you chop up this gun, try some of the hot loads that were developed for it by serious pro's for serious hunting and forget the dinky-poo black powder equivalent, cowboy loads that writers like Venturino claim are right for the 92 unless you just want to punch paper.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    oughtsixoughtsix Member Posts: 1,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks V35, that's the sort of info I've been needing. I had no idea
    the old 44-40 was so capable. Also, sounds like the 92 is plenty stout. Can you supply a copy of the NRA article you refered to or direct me to a source? Grateful for any and all help.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The article mentioned is on p294 in "The NRA Gunsmithing Guide-Updated" put out by the NRA Library of Congress# 82-62012, ISBN D935998-47-0. The book is worth owning but if you just want the article, email me at flybob@optonline.net
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The article wouldn't scan legibly so I put a Xerox copy in the mail.
    Numrich Arms (Gunparts Corp) used to sell 44mag barrels for this gun.
    If you end up converting and changing the barrel save the old one. They're valuable.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    oughtsixoughtsix Member Posts: 1,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks, again , V35. Mighty nice of you. Here's a link, sent me by
    Fred Zeglin of Z-Hat Custom Rifles, with a great article on this subject
    from someonme who seems very knowledgeable and experienced: http://www.sixgunner.com/paco/45coltrifles.htm Includes lots of load data with honest discussions pro & con. I can't get over how generous and helpful so many people are willing to be. I agree that this old gun should be kept as is and am going to convince my friend of the same. Thanks to all for your contributions.
    God Save The Republic!



    Edited by - oughtsix on 12/02/2002 12:18:21

    Edited by - oughtsix on 12/02/2002 20:48:31
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Very interesting article. The author has picked up on Elmer Keiths' hot loads for big bore pistols and carried them a little further in determining what the '92 will take before it starts to give way. Interestingly, he didn't comment on the '92 bolt face which only supports half the cartridge base. The other half sits on a spring loaded ejector that doesn't necessarily bottom out flush with the bolt face. Those .45 Long Colt rifle loads would have made Keith smile. They're comparable to a number of 45-70 handloads in Phil Sharps' book. Heavy loads from the 44 Mag out of the '92 Browning are not that easy on the shoulder so I can imagine the 45-70 equivalent loads must really be unfun.
    Im afraid I'll have to strongly disagree on why the 45LC hasn't found its'way into rifles before now and it has to do with folded head brass and rim size. About 1960 ammo companies stopped making folded head 45LC brass that had smaller rims and no undercut at the bases. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that 41LC & 45LC folded head revolver brass has too small a rim for an extractor to grip onto. The original 45LC were even worse but they were designed to be pushed out by an ejector rod. In handloading folded head 41 & 45 brass, the rims will often rip out of a shellholder-and that has a 180 degree wrap around the case rim.
    One only has to visually examine a folded head, 45LC round from 1873 and compare it with todays' solid head, cases to see there was just enough rim to prevent these early cartridge from falling into the chamber under the blow of a hammer. If you have a feel for .0115", that was the overhang.
    This early ammo had exactly half the rim overhang of the 22LR and the rims were rounded like on the 22rf, not squared off like todays' brass.
    If you compare rim overhangs of the 41LC & 45LC revolver cartridges with the earliest lever gun rifle cartridges like the 32-20, 38-40 and 44-40 you will note the rifle cartridges have a significantly greater rim overhang. The original 44 Henry RF Flat had four times the overhang of the 45LC. Positive extraction was a big problem in the early days of black powder and soft cartridge cases and without any doubt, the insufficient 45LC rim dimensions kept it out of rifles.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    oughtsixoughtsix Member Posts: 1,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just to be perfectly clear, modern 45 Colt brass suffers from none of these shortcomings. And thanks to one and all, once again.



    Edited by - oughtsix on 12/05/2002 16:26:23
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.