Another New Rossi .357

[Jeff H]

Well, it arrived at the shop Thursday, got the call yesterday and picked it up.
Overall, I am very impressed. So, the stock is not walnut, but it is shaped nicely and finished well. Metal finish is superior to a lot of what I have seen in recent years. I will be doing the standard minor smoothing and spring work, but it is useable out of the box.

One thing that stuck me as odd is that the grooves slug .3545" to .355" using a RDO 359-190 cast from WW and air cooled. Unsized, it started at .358" I recovered the first projectile fired (same aloy/temper in a 170 grain Keith-type) and it mic'd the same in spite of going through two 12" nursery containers full of wet potting soil and through the soft topsoil a foot or so. They are soft and I wouild have expected it to bump up a little on impact.

The Keith-type in the second pic is a 170 grain SWC, I believe from a Lyman mold, and it is too long for my SP101 in mag cases - may be too long in the Rossi in mag cases but I haven't tried yet. Not my mold, my gunsmith gave me about a hundred of them a while back. The RDO's will not cycle in mag cases but I bet they will in 'special cases. The KT 170 was in a 'special case over a moderate charge of Herco (.38 Special pressures) and went to POA at about 20'. Just messing with boolit selection and lengths right now.

There is a small wavey spot in the shiny bore and, wouldn't ya know it, I get lead there and for a bit after. Hard to imagine my soft .358" slugs did not seal in a .355" grooved barrel, but I will have to work on that.

I would be interested to know what other's barrels slug out to. I neer would have expected .355" Bigger, I would not have been surprised, but this opens a few opportunities to use some boolit shapes from 9mm molds if nothing else.

Oh, and those 170 KTs cycle just fine if I snap the lever down, being mindful to make a full stroke to get the carrier to lift the next round. Too zealously closing the bolt and the cartridge wants to pop a wheelie and crash the nose into the top of the chamber, but from the shoulder I don't do that anyway.

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t284/mike-foxtrot/ROSSI9201.jpg

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t284/mike-foxtrot/ROSSI9203.jpg

[PacMan]

May i ask what are you measuring the slugs with? That sure seems small.My brothers is a solid .357.
what may be happeing is you are measuring the top of the lands. Take the slug and adjust your caliper or mic so as it barely touches the slug and then slowly rotate the slug finding the highest part or top of groves and let the measuring tool open as needed.. You have to hit the corner of one grove and the corner of another oposite one another.Very,very little area to measure and easy to miss , hard to find at times.

[Jeff H]

May i ask what are you measuring the slugs with? That sure seems small.My brothers is a solid .357.
what may be happeing is you are measuring the top of the lands. Take the slug and adjust your caliper or mic so as it barely touches the slug and then slowly rotate the slug finding the highest part or top of groves and let the measuring tool open as needed.. You have to hit the corner of one grove and the corner of another oposite one another.Very,very little area to measure and easy to miss , hard to find at times.

Thanks, Dwight, I understand exactly what you are saying.

I am measuring the grooves. I have checked all the way 'round on all three opposing pairs, rechecked the zero of two mics. I have also seen people make the mistake of not using a light touch - squishing the infinitesimally small spot at the tangent where the mic touches.

Since I don't use digitals or dials, I also recheck my math and alignment of the graduations, plus always go back later and look again. Measure twice....

Incidentally, mic'ing for the lands shows .3485" to .349"

Honestly, the rifling looks deeper than .0035", but I trust my mic' more than my eyeballs.

So, based on what your brother's grooves measure, undersized is not necessarily an across the board thing for Rossi.

[robertbank]

Jeff did yours come with a FPB? Neither of mine have one.

Take Care

Bob

[Jeff H]

Jeff did yours come with a FPB? Neither of mine have one.

Take Care

Bob

FPB?

Nothing in the box but the rifle and a manual.

[robertbank]

Sorry,FPB = Firing Pin Block

Take Care

Bob

[Jeff H]

FPB?

Nothing in the box but the rifle and a manual.

Ha, ha! Oh, that little thing!! Hard to notice.
Yeah, it has it. This is a brand new gun.

For what it's worth, I think Rossi done good with that safety.
It is certainly a lot less unsightly than something on the side and can be replaced with something that is not going to be accidentally left on or off.

[northmn]

Mine shot well but would shoot quite high with the rear sight at its lowest. One problem I think was that the stamped sight elevator would not let the rear sight down all the way. I polished it and it helped. I still ended up filing off some rear sight. Thsi was with full power jacketed 158 grain laods.

DP

[Jeff H]

Mine shot well but would shoot quite high with the rear sight at its lowest. One problem I think was that the stamped sight elevator would not let the rear sight down all the way. I polished it and it helped. I still ended up filing off some rear sight. Thsi was with full power jacketed 158 grain laods.

DP

Thanks, DP,
I have noticed that a few have commented similarly on this particular issue. Fortunately, this is an easy fix - as you described. While I like the look of the buckhorn sight, it would be just as well to to lose the horns. I do believe that I will be using a peep on this one - Steve's being very, very attractive for the sake of simplicity and ruggedness - plus, it kills two birds with one stone in plugging the hole left by the firing pin block.

Having the holes already DT'd for a forward-mounted scope is tempting, but this little carbine feels so nice as-is that I am having second thoughts about adding any weight or changing the balance and sleek figure. It really reminds me of the 1911 in a way - that it has dimensional or volumetric advantages to stowage and carry without being miniaturized.

While this is going to be a 50 to 75 yard gun for most of my "serious work," I still have some slight reservations about one of the sights being able to move. I know that both sights move on most semi-auto pistols and I have had some that would shoot sub-squirrel-head groups at 25 yards. One was a Kimber 1911 and the other a Ruger P90. The P90 did not appear to have a lot of extra time in fitting. The Rossi looks and "feels" good, but I have no idea what the critical dimensions are and what they shoudl be. It may well be "tight" enough that this is not an issue.

Anyone with Steve's peep that fits in the firing pin block hole have anuthing to share on that? Should I get a chance to hunt squirrel or rabbit with it, will this be an appropriate sight? Don't laugh, I have used a 2" .38 on a wood chuck and a 3" .44 Special on a coon.

[robertbank]

Jeff I lucked out in that both my guns don't have the FPB. The downside of course as I had to go with the Skinner Ghost ring sight that sits it the dovetail for the rear sight. Actually it isn't much of a downside as I really like the way it sits and the sight picture is excellent. I am going to get the same rear sight for my .44mag as well. My old eyes don't work to well with the buckhorn style of sight anymore.

The more I shoot and handle these rifles the more I like them.

I am going to order Steves DVD and spring/follower for my .357mag rifle. The .44 I bought had Steve's improvements already done and it is a very slick set-up.

If Steves peep sight works as well as the Skinner sight I think you will have no problems using it as a squirrel gun. I would think a .22LR might be a better choice but what ever fills your boots.

Take Care

Bob

[Jeff H]

Thanks, Bob.
Yeah, a .22 would be more practical. While this one has many practical aspects with regard to my small battery, I intend to have some fun with it too and have no intention of concealing that.:smile:

I think I have seen the skinner sight. I just wondered how the difference in sight radius between that and a reciever sight would work out. A reciever sight does not seem to obscure my target, but I have thought the forward ghost rings might. Do you find that so at all?

I am using bifocals with "blended" lines, which gives me THREE different spots to look out of (my optomitrist is a practical lady who is always thinking) and I have been very lucky that they work with all my scopes, shotgun bead, handgun sights (if I use the top part of my glasses) and the sights on the Rossi.

I will look at the Skinner sight now too. I have a while before I can afford to start buying "extras" for the Rossi, so I have some time to ruminate the options.

[robertbank]

Jeff I have Tri-focals so I feel your pain. I haven't found the Skinner sight to be difficult to acquire the target. My eyse seem to center the front post instinctively. I think I paid $28.00 and change for the sight and really am pleased. It certainly is a significant improvement over the original notch and post arrangement.

Take Care

Bob

[Jeff H]

Jeff I have Tri-focals so I feel your pain. I haven't found the Skinner sight to be difficult to acquire the target. My eyse seem to center the front post instinctively. I think I paid $28.00 and change for the sight and really am pleased. It certainly is a significant improvement over the original notch and post arrangement.

Take Care

Bob

Thanks, Bob.
Turns out I had NOT seen the Skinner sight.
I was confusing it with another,
I looked up the Skinner and I LIKE it.
Looks like it's $48 now, but I was shocked to see that a Lyman 57 is now $70 where I bought my last one for $45!! Not a bad upgrade part, so it's between that and Steve's right now.

[robertbank]

Sorry Jeff that is indeed what I paid for mine. Take a look at Steve Guns sight that he makes to replace your firing pin block. My gun doesn't have the FPB so it wasn't an option for me. Steves sight I think is cheaper and should work the same way. Skinner does offer different apertures you can buy for different applications. You might want to check to see if Steve does as well.

Either way the option is cheaper than installing a Lyman or Williams sight.

Take Care

Bob

[Jeff H]

...Either way the option is cheaper than installing a Lyman or Williams sight.

Take Care

Bob

I can't really complain about the price of either.
I coiuld D/T the reciever, no problem, but I do like the Skinner and Steve's for another reason - they look pretty stout. I have never had a problem with a Lyman or Williams, but the other two just look stouter. I seem to be getting clumsier these days - scratched the Rossi's stock with the pocket clip of my knife already!:oops:

Good Grief!:groner:

Maybe I should be thinking about something that would be harder for me to break. Steve's sight is looking better every minute.

[robertbank]

First scratch on a new car is a killer. So too, guns. Let us know how you make out with the new sight. Weather here is still cold and Winter tries it's best to hang on. Looking better for the end of the week. I want to sight in my new sight and just get out and make some holes in a few targets and shoot a few pop cans.

Take Care

Bob

[9.3X62AL]

I hear ya, Robert! Today is looking range-worthy, the winds have degraded below boxcar-tumbling level at last.

Jeff H, those fired boolits almost look capable of being re-seated and run down the bore again.

[colonelhogan44]

My barrel slugged out at .355 as well. All the better as far as I'm concerned.

If it shoots high, just get Rossi to send you the taller front sight -- free of charge.

[Jeff H]

I hear ya, Robert! Today is looking range-worthy, the winds have degraded below boxcar-tumbling level at last.

Jeff H, those fired boolits almost look capable of being re-seated and run down the bore again.

:grin:Yeah, that could save me some time at the casting bench:wink:
With the .355" groove dimension, I could collect the slugs from my SP101, run 'em through the sizer to iron the rifling marks out and use them in the Rossi!


My barrel slugged out at .355 as well. All the better as far as I'm concerned.

If it shoots high, just get Rossi to send you the taller front sight -- free of charge.

Yeah, I am used to having to cast things bigger than "normal" for a lot of things, so this one was unusual. Thanks for a report back that there's at least another one out there.

I have not shot it enough or far enough away to determine that yet, but thanks for the tip. I have a few ideas of what I would prefer for a front sight (http://www.skinnersights.com/front_sights_5.html) and the Skinner sourdough looks just like the one on my /95 Chilean Mauser Mutt and I like it. Until I get caught up form buying the Rossi, I will have to get by with what's on it (or the taller Rossi sight). If Michael (Ranch Dog) puts that 175 grain mold up before then, the sights will wait a bit longer yet!:wink:

[izzyjoe]

well, i've been looking at the rossi's for awhile, i was wanting a marlin 357, but i can't get with the price they go for. i know a fellow that runs a gunshop, and he said he'd sell me the 20'' barrel .357 for $435 otd. but i really like the 16'' barrel, they just look like a handy rifle. but he said he'd have to order one, and it would cost more. which one ya'll like the best? sorry for the hijack, just wanted to ask. :grin:

[colonelhogan44]

20 inch. It's perfect. Just short enough to carry at arms length without the barrel touching the ground, but just long enough to feel like a real rifle...not a glorified handgun.

[wellfedirishman]

I use one in 44 Mag for Cowboy Action Shooting, it is great.

The best change you can do to smooth it up is to put in a Gunslinger spring kit. I bought one for $15 at Brownells and it made a huge difference to the smoothness and slick operation of the action.

[northmn]

Mine has a 20 inch barrel and is still pretty handy. Depends on where you carry them but barrel length is not always that much of an issue. The rifle itself is more compact than a 94 or 336. For my carry on a tractor or a 4 wheeler the barrel length is not an issue. Maybe for use in a pickup?

DP

[Jeff H]

20 inch. It's perfect. Just short enough to carry at arms length without the barrel touching the ground, but just long enough to feel like a real rifle...not a glorified handgun.

Ahhh, y' see, there's the difference.....
I can carry the 16" that way but not the 20".
I KNEW I went for the 16" for a reasoin.
Still want a 20" now though.

[robertbank]

I hope to acquire a 16" in .45Colt later this summer. I have a lot of shooting to do with the ones I have and take time to allow the gun account to rebuild. The 16" might be a tad handier for back packing and I know I can load the .45Colt to .44Mag+. Besides I have the moulds...so why not.

Whichever you have or get the Rossi is a well made dependable shooter and there isn't much more you can ask for in a firearm, and the price is right even up here.

Take Care

Bob

[Jeff H]

I hope to acquire a 16" in .45Colt later this summer.......

Before I got this one, I had sort of wished it would have been 18". 16" seemed like a big chunk off the end of the 20", but any of the cartridges for which it is chambered is no slouch out of a 5 1/2" or 7 1/2" barrel - let alone, say a contender 10" or 14"..... The .44s and .45s are some serious business even with a tube we consider "short" in rifle barrels.

I am very happy with the 16" in how it handles and glad I got it. Seems to complement that small action nicely and eight rounds of any of the pistol cartridges is still a fair bit of "firepower." In a typical "rifle" cartridge, getting below 18" or 20" is starting to get into compromises that I don't think I will see in the pistol cartridges.

I realize that a lot (maybe most) of the folks on this forum have lived or heard this all before, but I am still just tickled I finally found one for myself.:smile:

[izzyjoe]

i think i will go with the 16'', cause it will be a rifle that i will keep in the S10 blazer, so the shorter barrel will help out. thanks guys. when i get mine i'll get some pic's up. untill then :Fire: