Rossi 92 357 to 38/40

[veeman]

I have this little carbine 38/357 I bought for my wife years ago, just sits in the safe. I got to thinking the other day about having this one converted to 38/40 or perhaps 32/20.
Which caliber would be the easiest and cheapest to convert, and where would I send it for the work to be done. Obviously the barrel would need boring, but the other things needing changing to accommodate the different caliber?

[Pereira]

Well the 32-20 is out unless you have lined as it is smaller in diameter.
The other would as you said need to be bored.
JES has done some 30-30 to 38-55 for a couple friends that were completely satisfied.
Don't know about the bolt face work.

RP

[rockrat]

Might have to get a new bolt and mag tube and maybe lifter, and have it chambered to the 357-44 Bain and Davis. You wouldn't need a re-bore then. That said, to go to 38-40 you would need a re-bore/mag tube/new bolt possibly and possibly a new lifter.

[Kosh75287]

The .357 B&D conversion makes the most sense, to me. Ream the chamber to the new round, replace the .357 bolt with a .44 Magnum bolt, and some fitting, then you're done.
The ONE trepidation I'd have is if you own and shoot .44 Special. I don't know if the .44 would fit in the new chamber, but it would likely be a disaster if one was fired therein.

[Texas by God]

Far be it from me to discourage gun projects, but by handloading you can pretty much equal the 32-20 or 38-40 performance with the .357mag.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

[stubshaft]

What he said!

[veeman]

Thanks for the responses.

[john.k]

I havent noted the old 38/40 WCF as having any excess of power,certainly not over 357 Mag.....and 32/20 is certainly a step in the opposite direction

[veeman]

Not a matter of power. Just a matter of I'm not a big fan of the 357, and was just thinking if it was and easy project, I'd make the change. Sounds like it's more trouble than it's worth.

[Mk42gunner]

If you really want a .38-40, in my opinion you will be money and probably time ahead to trade your current .357 for one.

Robert

[smkummer]

You can get 180 and 195 grain bullets for the 357. They would sort of run neck and neck with hotter loadings of 38/40. 32/20 is taking a step way backwards. Both 32/20 and 38/40 brass are hard to find and expensive today when you do. 357 ( and 38 spec.) is easy to load, brass available everywhere, bullets and molds of all kinds, ammo available and can be loaded on carbide dies. It’s so easy to get it right the first time that some say it’s boring.

[indian joe]

I have this little carbine 38/357 I bought for my wife years ago, just sits in the safe. I got to thinking the other day about having this one converted to 38/40 or perhaps 32/20.
Which caliber would be the easiest and cheapest to convert, and where would I send it for the work to be done. Obviously the barrel would need boring, but the other things needing changing to accommodate the different caliber?

When you alter the case body size on a '92 you are taking on major surgery - I have not done a rossi - only done one winchester up from 25/20 to 38/40 - new lifter, cartridge guides (side rails), magazine stopper, bolt, bore out the magazine tube access in the action, gotta relieve the inside of the action ahead of the loading gate, new magazine tube, barrel band. It was a lot of work! which I enjoyed doing and am proud of completing properly . Going down to 32/20 would eliminate the most difficult stuff - but still gotta do the internals - the rebarrel is the easiest part of this.
If you could buy the key internals for 32/20 (feed rails, magazine stopper, lifter ..................things would get a lot simpler) the left side feed rail comes with the magazine stopper attached. 32/20 on a unaltered 357 bolt ? proly get away with that?

I reckon I would spend the energy making the 38/357 work nice ...357 mag makes a real neat blackpowder round with a LEE 158 gr flatpoint. I had a Rossi 357 - sold it to a mate (had too many lever guns and used the cash to relieve the wallet pain of my 1876) My Rossi was old - winchester parts fitted it.

Yeah the tapered Winchester rounds feed better for sure. I have had a few in 32/20 and they all fed sweet, as the 38/40 does. But with the right combo a 357 will run good.

[veeman]

Yep, I got the message, not worth the trouble. Thanks for everyone's opinion.

[indian joe]

Yep, I got the message, not worth the trouble. Thanks for everyone's opinion.

All depends.....I thought it was worth it (the one on the bottom of the pic) proly wouldnt do another one or I might ? would it pay ? heck no ! labour at Maccas rates I'd likely bought a new one - but I have something a bit unique

305768

[muskeg13]

I rebarreled a .44Mag Rossi M92 Puma to .38-40 back when I was doing a lot of cowboy action shooting with no major problems. It's not much of a jump in case sizes between .44 Mag and the .38WCF, so the internals worked with very little tweaking. I've since gone back and forth swapping barrels several times and it feeds either cartridge fine. FYI: In the mid-1990s it was hard to find .38-40 brass initially (Starline solved that eventually), so I used .44 Mag brass to form .38WCF for low pressure cowboy loads and got acceptable accuracy. .44 Mag bases are too small, but with stronger cases than .38WCF they worked ok, and there was no problem with extraction.

[John Taylor]

There are two different frames for the 92, the small caliber frame has a small mag tube opening and the inside is different size than the large caliber. Carrier is also different. Getting feed rails to work is a bit of fun. Best to trade for the caliber that you want. Best place to get info one the Rossi 92 is from Steves guns https://store.stevesgunz.com/index.php?main_page=products_all

[indian joe]

There are two different frames for the 92, the small caliber frame has a small mag tube opening and the inside is different size than the large caliber. Carrier is also different. Getting feed rails to work is a bit of fun. Best to trade for the caliber that you want. Best place to get info one the Rossi 92 is from Steves guns https://store.stevesgunz.com/index.php?main_page=products_all

John
which way did Rossi go with the 357 (dont have mine anymore) did they use the 44 frame or make a frame specific to the 357 cartridge.

The 44 frame (winchester anyway) has the larger magazine tube hole plus an internal relief groove ahead of the loading gate to allow passage of the fatter rim - that was the most difficult part of the conversion for me - ended up with dremel tool sanding drums on a long extension in a normal electric drill in through the magazine tube hole .
I had an original 44/40 to copy off - one thing I learned - every little nick and notch and bump in the innards of these things is there for a specific purpose and cutting corners does not work.

[John Taylor]

John
which way did Rossi go with the 357 (dont have mine anymore) did they use the 44 frame or make a frame specific to the 357 cartridge.

The 44 frame (winchester anyway) has the larger magazine tube hole plus an internal relief groove ahead of the loading gate to allow passage of the fatter rim - that was the most difficult part of the conversion for me - ended up with dremel tool sanding drums on a long extension in a normal electric drill in through the magazine tube hole .
I had an original 44/40 to copy off - one thing I learned - every little nick and notch and bump in the innards of these things is there for a specific purpose and cutting corners does not work.

The only 92 that I converted to 357 was the smaller action. This was well over 45 years ago and I said I would never do another one. A fellow came into the shop with just the action so I had to get the barrel, mag tube and wood. There was no internet so finding parts was almost impossible. The mag tube was made from a piece of oil tube. I don't know where I got the barrel blank but it may have been from Douglas. The wood came from Numrich and had some kind of medallion on the side. When I got done I told the customer $200 and he told me he could buy a new rifle for less so I ended up owning it. I ended up trading it for a chainsaw. The biggest problem was getting the feed rails to work .
The carrier on the two sizes is different.

[FergusonTO35]

Yep, I got the message, not worth the trouble. Thanks for everyone's opinion.

I admire your dedication to obsolete cartridges, there just comes a point where it's easier to buy a gun already chambered in the cartridge. Doesn't Rossi make a 92 in .44-40? All that would require is a barrel change or liner.

[wwmartin]

If you have to have a 38-40 start with a 45 colt and most of the headaches are gone. That was the advice given me about converting something to 38-40. (Colt Lightning copy). I still have the barrel and the rifle (still in 45colt) and moved on. I didn't give up on the 38-40. I have 3 Marlin 1894s, an Italian low wall, and a Remington 14 1/2 pump along with 2 Uberti Cattelman and the Ruger convertible so I'm not missing out.
I'd look for a 92 in 45colt or 44-40 and hope they were looking for a 357.
Come to think about it I have the GM barrel and a 45colt and 44-40 Rossi 92 that would make an easy winter project only problem my lathe doesn't cut metric.
Add another to the to-do list!
Bill

[Ajohns]

From above -
If you have to have a 38-40 start with a 45 colt and most of the headaches are gone.


I have tried this route. It may work. Though a spacer may have to be made for sizing, or to turn a little ring of brass in the head area off near the rim. It almost leaves a tiny belt, that from my experience made it so the brass would not chamber.
The thickness of brass (I suppose depending on brand) in the neck is what I was looking for as I had a chamber (38 WCF) a bit big in the neck area. Being a few thousandths thicker I wanted to try as I was experiencing terrible gas cutting. PSB added to the load cured it with stock Starline 38 WCF brass.

[veeman]

I have one in 44-40, it's my 3rd favorite rifle, right after my Uberti 1876 and 73. I'll just sell the 357 and get a 73. Actually I'll probably get a Colt SAA in 38-40. I'll never get one in 45 Colt, that just ain't right. ;)

[wwmartin]

I guess I should have said 45colt rifle and rebarrel it to 38-40WCF.

Bill

[Ajohns]

I guess I should have said 45colt rifle and rebarrel it to 38-40WCF.

Bill

That would work dandy. Same rim diameter

[ulav8r]

I guess I should have said 45colt rifle and rebarrel it to 38-40WCF.

Bill

You should not have had to spell it out as that was clear from the previous posts. This thread is about converting a rifle to 38-40, not about converting brass.*

[indian joe]

The only 92 that I converted to 357 was the smaller action. This was well over 45 years ago and I said I would never do another one. A fellow came into the shop with just the action so I had to get the barrel, mag tube and wood. There was no internet so finding parts was almost impossible. The mag tube was made from a piece of oil tube. I don't know where I got the barrel blank but it may have been from Douglas. The wood came from Numrich and had some kind of medallion on the side. When I got done I told the customer $200 and he told me he could buy a new rifle for less so I ended up owning it. I ended up trading it for a chainsaw. The biggest problem was getting the feed rails to work .
The carrier on the two sizes is different.

yep - as paid work for a client this conversion (small calibre 92 to large) is just a non starter ! -- I need to challenge myself occasionally and this was one of those times but its my gun.

[Jeff Michel]

Uberti 1873, I have one in 38-40. Great shooter right out of the box.

[FergusonTO35]

This is gonna sound nuts, but I think the .40 S&W would be a sweet lever action round. It would probably exceed .44-40 ballistics out of a rifle barrel and ammo would be way cheaper and easier to find.

[indian joe]

This is gonna sound nuts, but I think the .40 S&W would be a sweet lever action round. It would probably exceed .44-40 ballistics out of a rifle barrel and ammo would be way cheaper and easier to find.

Have a mate did a couple in 41 magnum -- that worked really nice

40 s&w ? would that work ? the 92 action relies on the case rim engaging grooves in the feed rails to elevate the rear end - at the same time stopping the case from popping up vertical in the action (some call stovepiping) . I think I see problems in a 92 action.

as far as exceeding 44/40 ballistics - its been deliberately weakened years ago to protect old dodgy guns - you can take a 44/40 to full house 44magnum anytime you want in an action that will take it.

[Texas by God]

In the back of the Lyman 45th there are 200gr jacketed 44-40 loads that approach .35 REMINGTON LEVELS.....ONCE in a Rossi was plenty for me.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

[John Taylor]

This is gonna sound nuts, but I think the .40 S&W would be a sweet lever action round. It would probably exceed .44-40 ballistics out of a rifle barrel and ammo would be way cheaper and easier to find.

Cartridge length might be a problem. The 92 has the loading gate to far back for shorter cartridges. Much easier to convert a Marlin to a shorter cartridge. I have done several to 45 ACP and one to 9MM.

[robg]

why not just load up some 357s up .125gn to 180gn and shoot it

[FergusonTO35]

Cartridge length might be a problem. The 92 has the loading gate to far back for shorter cartridges. Much easier to convert a Marlin to a shorter cartridge. I have done several to 45 ACP and one to 9MM.

I just meant lever actions in general, not necessarily the 92. A Marlin 1894 would be pretty sweet as would a Henry.