I was given a Model 92 . I looked the serial # up on the internet & it was made in 1894 .

However , it has been rechambered or re-barreled to .357 Mag . Or , at least that is what is stamped on the barrel .

Any way to figure out what the origional caliber was ?

God bless
Wyr

If it has the original barrel it could have been a .25/20 or a .32/20 - both were chambered in the M1892 by 1894. The .38/40 & .44/40 would have been too big to rechamber as a .357 mag. If it is a new barrel it would have been one of the first two unless the bolt was changed out too - then it could have been any of the four. You could send a check to the Winchester museum in Cody WY and find out for sure.

If it has the original barrel it could have been a .25/20 or a .32/20 - both were chambered in the M1892 by 1894. The .38/40 & .44/40 would have been too big to rechamber as a .357 mag. If it is a new barrel it would have been one of the first two unless the bolt was changed out too - then it could have been any of the four. You could send a check to the Winchester museum in Cody WY and find out for sure.

It has a hexagonal barrel that has the Winchester markings ( on the top flat ) , but can not find the original caliber marking . Where would the caliber marking be located ?

Course , that info could have been remover ? It is possible this is not the origional barrel .

Is the 92 receiver / bolt strong enough tor full power .357 Mag ?

I can always reload .38 Special . I have a SWC mold , need to cast some more bullets , hope they will feed .

My Marlin .44 Mag does not really like SWC,s . :-(

I had to buy a RNL mold for it .

God bless
Wyr

Normally the caliber marking of early guns (to include your 1894 mfg M1892) would have been on the top flat of the octagon barrel. It is not unusual for a re-chambered rifle to have it's original chambering removed or stamped with an "X" and then be re-stamped with the newer cartridge. The M1892 was considered to be a very strong lever action rifle BUT the condition of the rifle and the fact that you have very old steel would cause me to want a knowledgeable gunsmith's opinion before I shot full pressure .357 Mag loads in the rifle. Modern copies of the M1892 are chambered in .357 MAG and .44 MAG, but they have the advantage of modern steel and modern pressure testing. If it was mine and it was in tight shape I would have my gunsmith check it out and then use the Cowboy Action type loads in .357 Mag cases. The longer case may feed better than a .38 SPL case, but the loads would be low pressure. Two good reading sources for you; The Winchester Book or the Winchester Handbook by George Madis and Shooting Lever Guns of the Old West by Mike Venturino. Great info in both books for owners of old lever guns. Odessa

Normally the caliber marking of early guns (to include your 1894 mfg M1892) would have been on the top flat of the octagon barrel. It is not unusual for a re-chambered rifle to have it's original chambering removed or stamped with an "X" and then be re-stamped with the newer cartridge. The M1892 was considered to be a very strong lever action rifle BUT the condition of the rifle and the fact that you have very old steel would cause me to want a knowledgeable gunsmith's opinion before I shot full pressure .357 Mag loads in the rifle. Modern copies of the M1892 are chambered in .357 MAG and .44 MAG, but they have the advantage of modern steel and modern pressure testing. If it was mine and it was in tight shape I would have my gunsmith check it out and then use the Cowboy Action type loads in .357 Mag cases. The longer case may feed better than a .38 SPL case, but the loads would be low pressure. Two good reading sources for you; The Winchester Book or the Winchester Handbook by George Madis and Shooting Lever Guns of the Old West by Mike Venturino. Great info in both books for owners of old lever guns. Odessa



So far , have not found a trace of the original caliber markings .

It looks like it is going to want round nose bullets I have a SWC mold I cast bullets for my wheel gun .

This does not surprise me . I had to buy a RNL mold for my .44 Mag lever gun . It did not like SWC's either .

I hear you about the pressure issue , I have been pondering that .

God bless
Wyr

My Winchester 92 was also rebored/rechambered to .357 Mag at some point in it's life.

It appears that they just stamped the new caliber marking over the original marking on mine, but it was stamped deep enough that it obliterated the old marking to where I can't read it. Good job, if that was their intent. A little bit in any direction, and I could make out enough to tell what it was.

I'm thinking that I somehow determined that mine was originally .32-20, but it's been a while, and I don't recall now how I decided that. The bolt face, feed parts, etc, are the same on the 25-20s and 32-20s (as far as I know), so I don't know what convinced me.

Anyway...
According to what I have, here are the max pressures of some of the chamberings in question-
357 Mag: 35,000 psi.
25-20: 28,000 psi.
32-20: 16,000 psi
38-40: 14,000 psi
I don't have 44-40 handy.

I find it interesting that in the original chamberings... as bore size increases, pressure decreases. I doubt that's a coincidence, and probably relates to having less steel in the barrel as the bore increases.

I shoot mine, but only with my handloads that are almsot all in the "middle range". They are more like 38 +P loads in a 357 case. (But mine is newer than yours- 1907!)
Mine won't feed the 38 special length, so I load in 357 cases.

My Winchester 92 was also rebored/rechambered to .357 Mag at some point in it's life.

It appears that they just stamped the new caliber marking over the original marking on mine, but it was stamped deep enough that it obliterated the old marking to where I can't read it. Good job, if that was their intent. A little bit in any direction, and I could make out enough to tell what it was.

I'm thinking that I somehow determined that mine was originally .32-20, but it's been a while, and I don't recall now how I decided that. The bolt face, feed parts, etc, are the same on the 25-20s and 32-20s (as far as I know), so I don't know what convinced me.

Anyway...
According to what I have, here are the max pressures of some of the chamberings in question-
357 Mag: 35,000 psi.
25-20: 28,000 psi.
32-20: 16,000 psi
38-40: 14,000 psi
I don't have 44-40 handy.

I find it interesting that in the original chamberings... as bore size increases, pressure decreases. I doubt that's a coincidence, and probably relates to having less steel in the barrel as the bore increases.

I shoot mine, but only with my handloads that are almsot all in the "middle range". They are more like 38 +P loads in a 357 case. (But mine is newer than yours- 1907!)
Mine won't feed the 38 special length, so I load in 357 cases.

Best I can tell , the original caliber markings were not over-struck . Maybe filed off ?

It has .357 Mag stamped on the top flat of the octagonal barrel , very close to the receiver .

I bought some of Brownells best cold blue & re-blued it Monday . Then put a coat of turp & BLO on the wood .

I have another question . The part that the spring ( in the ammo tube ) pushes against the ammo , is that called the follower ?

Any way , when the rifle is empty of ammo , is the follower suppose to stick into the action ? It blocks the part that lifts the round up so the bolt can chamber it ? Is this normal ?

It does not prevent the leaver / bolt from opening . Is not a factor when ammo is in the tube .

God bless
Wyr

A picture of the M 92 , after the cold blue and turp / BLO . Needs another application of turp & BLO .

God bless
Wyr

if your going to load cas type rounds you might try imr trail boss powder i like it in my ruger vaquero and it fills up the case much more than other powders almost double the volume to wieght of most pistol powders

... is that called the follower ?

Any way , when the rifle is empty of ammo , is the follower suppose to stick into the action ? It blocks the part that lifts the round up so the bolt can chamber it ? Is this normal ?


Yep, that's the follower.
Mine protrudes into the action about 1/8" when empty. The lifter just clears it, or maybe just barely brushes it, on it's way past.

That picture looks good.

Yep, that's the follower.
Mine protrudes into the action about 1/8" when empty. The lifter just clears it, or maybe just barely brushes it, on it's way past.

That picture looks good.

the lifter does not clear the follower on mine .

The picture is not too good , taken with my camera phone , if I recall ?

The follower may not be exactly the one that it should have , since the caliber has been changed ? Were they all the same , for the same diameter mag tube ?

God bless
Wyr

Went to the range last weekend with this rifle .

Shot some hot SWC loads in .38 Special cases ( ~ to about lite to medium .357 Mag velocity ) .

Would feed Ok if I operated the lever rapidly , but I had to go chasing the empty brass . Did not feed so well if I operated the lever slowly & picked the empty brass out of the action .

All of this was expected .

The front sight and groove in the rear sight are tiny ! :-(

While this would help accuract , I think , for someone with good eyesight , it did not help my old eyes .

Sighted it in at 25 yards , about 1" group . Then started shooting at weeds / dark shapes / shadows at the berm , maybe 150 -175 yards out .

Finally got the rear sight high enough to hit close . This was fun . The rifle has almost no recoil .

I have several boxes of the SWC reloads to shoot up . After that , I may play with the OAL of my reloads with that bullet . May eventually order a Lee 6 cavity RNL mold for it .

God bless
Wyr

I have a 1892 rechambered to 357mag made in 1902. I shoot standard 357mag ammo with no signs of problems. I believe this was the purpose of rechambering and doubt if mag pressure specs have changed much over the years. It seems most accurate with 158gr standard loads in 357mag than lighter bullets. The 92 action is a strong action and I think raised primers would show excess headspace if it was present. I have seen this in Savage 1899s but my Winchester 92 is tight and shows no signs of problems. A lot of these were rechambered to 44mag and I think 92s were considered strong enough for either caliber if in good condition mechanically. This is just my experience and opinion. Tom.

Win92

http://http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj175/TCOV/win92.jpg