Rechambered '92 Winchester

[fatelk]

A friend recently showed me an old Winchester 1892, chambered for .256 Magnum. Looking closely at the overstamp, I can see it was originally 25-20. It belongs to an acquaintance of his, who says he has another one, also in .256 mag, that used to be a .218 Bee. He liked the .256 so much he had the other one rebored as well.

I was just curious if this is common, and if a rifle chambered for an old low pressure round will hold up OK in the long term for a high pressure round like the .256 mag.

[runfiverun]

the 25-20 was regularly re-chambered to 357 magnum.
the action was scaled up for the 71 action that and has seen some pressure.
the 92 action has been done in 480 ruger and 454 casull,357,44 mag,45 colt,218,32-20.25-20,38-40 and 44-40 [winchester used to put out special high-speed loads for these two] and i'm sure others.
it will shoot 35k pressure loads forever.

[Bambeno]

A friend recently showed me an old Winchester 1892, he has another one, also in .256 mag, that used to be a .218 Bee. He liked the .256 so much he had the other one rebored as well.

Am I the only one who died a little inside reading this? I saw a ANIB Walther P38 get polished and blued back when I went to school also. 1942 vintage IIRC.

But yes a 92 will hold up well to higher pressure rounds.

[Reg]

Back in the 60's it was very common to rebarrel- rebore the 92's to .218 Bee and .256 in the smaller frames and the bigger ones to .44 Mag. The conversions were ( if properly done) safe and worked well. The ethics involved is another problem. Yes many nice guns were so altered and today to see the end result is a crying shame. One in particular that I personalty know of however was what I considered the norm for conversion or at least as far as I am concerned should be. It started as a badly rusted relic that was drug backwards out of the southern Arizona desert. The barrel had been badly sawn off to about 15 inches, parts were missing and the action itself had somehow been sprung until the lever would not close. There was nothing left of the wood. Believe me, there are a lot of them out there even still like that. We felt no sadness in putting on a new Numrich barrel in 44 Mag and it took many hours of straightening and fitting to get that action to properly function again and yes, it was polished and hot tank blued. The wrong thing to do ? I think not. Had it not been converted, just what real value or use would that old gun have. It would not have stood for something of times gone by but rather a testament of someones stupidity and lack of care.
Many times the gunsmith will be vilified for preforming such a conversion but one needs to at first see what he started with. Many times the "Old Timer" used a gun as a tool and when he was done he used it as a pry bar. There should be nothing wrong with converting such a weapon to whatever the new owner wants. To do such work with a nicer gun is however something that should not be done.
Just my .02 worth and now let the fight begin !!!!!!!!!!!!!

:bigsmyl2:

[John Taylor]

the 25-20 was regularly re-chambered to 357 magnum.
the action was scaled up for the 71 action that and has seen some pressure.
the 92 action has been done in 480 ruger and 454 casull,357,44 mag,45 colt,218,32-20.25-20,38-40 and 44-40 [winchester used to put out special high-speed loads for these two] and i'm sure others.
it will shoot 35k pressure loads forever.

The 71 is an "improved" 1886 which was chambered in 348 Winchester only. The 348 was the old 50 EX bottle necked down. Then someone came up with the 50 Alaskan which is the 348 blown out to 50. Sort of reverse engineering. The 92 came out after the 86 and did have some similarities, mostly because they were both designed by John Browning.
I have had quite a few 92s come in that people want to make back to the original caliber. This can be done by replacing the barrel or relining the barrel.

[Bambeno]

I have a 1919 vintage redone in a 357 and am thinking of redoing another into a 357B&D. If the 218 was an original nice rifle it is just a shame as they were fairly rare. The one I have that I am planning on redoing has been previously cobbled on by someone else.

[northmn]

One of my sources on Winchesters and cartridges stated that there were high velocity loadings for the 92 before WWII. They were dropped due to pistol interchangeability. Its really too bad the change was made as the 25-20 is a fine little cartridge.

DP

[scrapcan]

I helped put a gazillion 38 and 357 rounds through a 92 that started life as a 32-20. That thing was and is a hoot. It was rebored in the garage by my friends dad and a friend with limited tooling. But it is a shooter.

To me if it makes it more useful to the owner by all means they should do what they want. You see when many of these conversions were done the ammunition was not readily available.

Now if you want a safe queen that will never see the range again, then that is something totally different. I have no safe queens and no sole wall hangers, and would value the opportunity to own one of the conversion discussed above. Or one in an original chambering, but most of those are out of my league going to those who have a room full of safes and safe queens.

[fatelk]

Thanks everyone. It's good to know it should hold up fine for .256 mag.

Personally I would rather have them in the original calibers and would load and shoot them plenty, but not everyone thinks like I do. I don't know the owner and have never seen the other rifle, but the one that used to be a 25-20 looked pretty good.

[runfiverun]

The 71 is an "improved" 1886 which was chambered in 348 Winchester only. The 348 was the old 50 EX bottle necked down. Then someone came up with the 50 Alaskan which is the 348 blown out to 50. Sort of reverse engineering. The 92 came out after the 86 and did have some similarities, mostly because they were both designed by John Browning.
I have had quite a few 92s come in that people want to make back to the original caliber. This can be done by replacing the barrel or relining the barrel.

i have both a 71 and an 86,and several original 92's and many re-makes, including newer win and browning copy's.
i wanted to point out the similarities between the designs.
and that the 92 would hold up to much higher pressures than the original chamberings
produced.

[shdwlkr]

I am working on a 92 action into a 256 win mag. No it was not a complete rifle only the action and I should have bought all three that where there that day.

[northmn]

I have a Marlin in 32-20 that I shoot a lot. Started out with a few hotter laods but am gravitating closer to the original loads. I do not imply that one should make an original a "safe queen" but many of the original calibers can be laoded to pretty interesting levels. The original HV laod from Winchester for the 25-20 was over 1700 fps in their 92's. Unless you shoot just factory ammo, most of these calibers are a bit more versatile than you realize. The 357 was a very common conversion for the 92 but the 256 is almost more rare than the 25-20.
One reason I am loading down closer to the original is that I shot a grouse with the rifle at a fair distance where a head shot was not practical. While still edible it was tore up a little more than I like. The rifle is a tractor/ 4wheeler gun I use for opportunity as in if I see a coyote or game during hunting season. That is what these little guns were designed for.
Our use dictates the caliber so each to his own. They all are fun.

DP

[shdwlkr]

My 256 will most likely never be hot loaded as I see no reason to as it will use lead bullets and will be more on the 25-20 speed range.
Why did I go to the 256 win mag instead of the 25-20 well I have a 32-20 and didn't want the hassle of keeping track of the brass.
As to messing with an original in good working order that is just plain silly in my way of looking at things but then I am older and realize some things should not be changed even if they can be.

I am thinking of making a 44 special model 92 but will buy a new one and change that cheaper and easier than messing with and original and losing one more piece of history.

[northmn]

These smaller leverguns are fun, which is a good reason to use them, but they do kind of have a hard place to fit in use. I know an individual from Alaska that ahs a long deer season that loves the 25-20. Likes it laoded to around 14-1500 fps. He has even taken deer with one up close. Loves it for furbearers like fox. I probably will not shoot a deer with my 32-20, but I do enjoy it. The 256 loaded like you mention will be a very handy little rifle. I just ordered a 100 gra mold for my 32-20 as it really gains little with hotter loads.

DP

[Four Fingers of Death]

I have a 25/20 92 Winchester made in 1908 from memory. It had been rebarrelled and reblued before I bought it and it is a nice rifle. This one would probably bear re chambering as it isn't original anymore, but I don't think I'll bother.

I would love a 1894 Marlin in 25/20 so that I could mount a low powered scope on it.

Nice little round. The 256 would be neat, but shootin glead boolits, probably not worth it. If I end up with a Marlin, I might re-chamber the 92 just for curiosity's sake.

[beagle]

The .256 Win Mag would make a fine lever gun except for the availability of brasss. I went through a Contender and it's afine cartridge and brass can be made from unplated .357s. I've considered one a couple of times on a M1894 Marlin but I have a .25-20 and that does well enough.

Paco Kelly always raved about a .30-357. Now, there would be a fine caliber on a M1894.

I'd just have to mod a nice M1892 if the barrel was good./beagle

[Four Fingers of Death]

The .256 Win Mag would make a fine lever gun except for the availability of brasss. I went through a Contender and it's afine cartridge and brass can be made from unplated .357s. I've considered one a couple of times on a M1894 Marlin but I have a .25-20 and that does well enough.

Paco Kelly always raved about a .30-357. Now, there would be a fine caliber on a M1894.

I'd just have to mod a nice M1892 if the barrel was good./beagle

I saw a 30/38Special on a Martini Cadet action once. Interesting cast boolit wildcat.

[wv109323]

I don't see the economics or the practicality of taking a good firearm and converting it. There are enough firearms available as regular production items that make conversions and large modifications impractical. In this case taking a Model 92 and converting it to .256 Winchester. Would not it make more sense to find another rifle in 25 caliber ? There would be tons of .257 Roberts and 25-06 Bolt actions. I love my lever actions but a Model 700 Remington in 25-06 in my book would be a far superior rifle in every aspect compared to a Model 92 in .256. A modern rifle would have a far superior trigger pull and the versatility of adding a scope.( I was at the range yesterday with my Marlin 1894 in .44 Magnum and could not see the sights well enough to test a new load at 50 yards. I don't know if it was the load or me)
I will agree that a "project" gun is another story.
I have an exceptional Remington Model 11 in 20 Gauge. It is in 98-99% condition but some one in the day installed a Poly-choke. What seemed like an improvement 50-60 years ago is an abomination today. I am just trying to stress think about it before you modify a firearm.

[Four Fingers of Death]

I wouldn't go out of my way to convert to 256, but like I said, if I ended up getting a marlin, the 92 would be a left over and as it has already been modified, it wouldn't hurt anything to convert it for curiosity's sake. The kevers are more of a plaything for me. If I'm going to hunt I will usually carry my 17AK Hornet for foxes, my 223 Tikka with the 1 in 8" twist for most things and my 270 for the rest (or possibly my 300 or 338WM.

If I am getting a lot of hunting in, I will carry a lever with cast boolits. If I can only get away occasionally, I will take a rifle that will handle anything up to 300yrds (the 17 is used to whistle foxes and 100yards is about all I need out of that one.

[runfiverun]

if rossi could pull thier head out for a minute, they could easily make the 25/32/218/38-40 and a bunch of other calibers.
the 357/44/45's are fine, but a bit mundane.
i'm still looking for a .480 they made a while back.
thier 30-30 might be allright but i have 3 30-30's allready a 25-35 or sumthin would be a bit more interesting.

[Ed in North Texas]

snip
To me if it makes it more useful to the owner by all means they should do what they want. Now if you want a safe queen that will never see the range again, then that is something totally different. I have no safe queens and no sole wall hangers, and would value the opportunity to own one of the conversion discussed above.

I would never tell someone what they must do with anything they own (though I might suggest if asked). But leaving an original firearm in original condition does not mean it is relegated to "safe queen", or "wall hanger", status. I enjoy shooting my Swede Rolling Block 12.7x44R "sporter conversion" from an 1874 military RF, my .50-70 NYSM Rolling Block (1871) and a Snider Cavalry Carbine Mark I* (Snider conversion of an 1861 .577 Enfield Carbine).

YMMV

Ed

[northmn]

Converting is a good idea if one has a junker that needs restoring or any gun with a barrel rusted out etc. Some of the ideas like a 30-357 fit into a category of a novelty for the sake of owning something different. Fun, but to me a PITA. I made a lot of 8X57 brass out of 30-06 brass and have decided it is really not worth all the hassle. One issue in a lever gun is that a 30-30 can also be loaded down to very pleasant shooting and still be accurate. It is fun to experiment I guess.

DP

[TXBRILL]

I just purchased a 20" Winchester 1892 that was converted to .30 carbine. While I would never advocate doing this, it looks to be a fairly old conversion and it was a bargain. One of the reasons I purchased it was because I have a 5 1/2"Black Hawk also in 30 carbine so now a have a unusual pair of "Western" firearms. In addition who ever did it did a beautiful job. I do enjoy shooting my M1 carbines, so I am looking forward to shooting it as soon as I have the time

[WyrTwister]

I have a Winny M1892 & 2 Rossi M92 clones .

The Winny belonged to my late father-in-law . My brother-in-law gave it to me after his Dad dies .

Some time in the past , some one had converted the Winny to .357 Mag . Very fun to shoot . Inexpensive with Lee home cast bullets and Unique .

One of the Rossie's is also in .357 , the other .45 LC .

I have a Taurus tang site on order , which I will probably mount on the Rossi .357 . Hope it is of good quality ?

God bless
Wyr

[Four Fingers of Death]

I just purchased a 20" Winchester 1892 that was converted to .30 carbine. While I would never advocate doing this, it looks to be a fairly old conversion and it was a bargain. One of the reasons I purchased it was because I have a 5 1/2"Black Hawk also in 30 carbine so now a have a unusual pair of "Western" firearms. In addition who ever did it did a beautiful job. I do enjoy shooting my M1 carbines, so I am looking forward to shooting it as soon as I have the time

No reason that wouldn't work well. My friend has (or had) a BRNO Fox (now CZ) which was converted to 30M1 carbine. He used cast boolits and it really punches above it's weight.

We had an old American guy at the range in Sydney when I was younger. His only daughter married an Aussie and he settled here with her as he didn't have any other family to speak of back home. He was a retired colonel in the US Army. Naturally being a retired soldier and gun nut, he had a good range of 1911s, Springfields, Garands and M1 Carbines. He also had several cases of ammo in his shed. He owned a lever action in M1 carbine apparently although I never saw it. He had so much 30M1, that he would occasionally bring a box out and let use let rip with it. Fun old guy. I never saw him when he wasn't dressed in fatigues and a NATO Jacket. In fact for about 20 years there, you didn't see me in cool weather without my NATO jacket. I finally grew out of it or it shrunk, lol.

[longhorn]

I'd think long and hard about converting a junker (the only appropriate one, IMHO) '92 to a .44 Mag. .256? Sure. .357? Sure. .44 Mag? I'd find a Browning B92 instead. One would hate to bulge the chamber on an expensive conversion with striving .44 handloads. I figure the design is plenty strong, but have doubts about some of the materials in those old ones.

[Four Fingers of Death]

I'd think long and hard about converting a junker (the only appropriate one, IMHO) '92 to a .44 Mag. .256? Sure. .357? Sure. .44 Mag? I'd find a Browning B92 instead. One would hate to bulge the chamber on an expensive conversion with striving .44 handloads. I figure the design is plenty strong, but have doubts about some of the materials in those old ones.

I tend to agree, although I wouldn't chop up a Browning as they are too nice (mind you, the two Rossis I have run rings around the couple of Brownings I had, apart from quality of finish, they were ornery sum beetches). A Rossi would be fair game though.

If I had any old Winchester 92s with a trashed original barrel, I'd be relining it to the same calibre as what is marked on the outside. If it didn't have the original barrel, it is pretty much fair game as well.

I'd want an action to be at least 1920 or later for a high pressure conversion, but I'd still rebarrel in a traditional calibre with an old 92.

I'd consider a 44Special, that way someone down the track is less likely to blow up the gun.