Personally I’d like to have a Rossi 92 in 454 with a 16.5 inch barrel

I stumbled across and picked one up from an estate firearms auction a couple of years ago.

 

Oh now that would get my attention! 454 and 45 Colt for range day.

Why oh why did S&W not release their 1854 in 460S&W mag? The versatility is outrageous

 

Now this is an interesting development. Common wisdom, backed up by some real world testing, has been that the Marlin 336/1895 action simply could not handle the pressure of the 454 Casull. This is as opposed to the Win 1892 design with its bank vault dual locking lugs. Does anyone know how they may have strengthened the basic Marlin design for this application?

 

Not only the 92 action .. but the R95 action .. which is similar to the 336 action

 

 

I am pretty sure this is a printing error. It is common knowledge that the Marlin 95 action metallurgically simply can not handle the pressures of that cartridge. It would be nice to have it though.

 

I had heard that the Rossi 92 was having some issues in the 454. The Winchester 92 was a scaled down 86 which was a tough action. Rossi used special metallurgy for the 454 and possibly tightened tolerances.
Does it really offer any advantages over the 45 70.

DEP

 

That’s what I’m wondering…if the ‘92 action is at its limits with the 454 then how can the R95/336 action handle it?

 

I passed on a stainless version years ago and have kicked myself ever since. I have been debating buying a 92 in 45 Colt but a 454 would shoot both. Hmmm..

 

I always keep my eyes out for a 92 in 454 with a 16 inch barrel… I owned one once … should have kept it

 

Sounds interesting!

I can understand wanting a R95 in 454 Casull if you have also have a 454 revolver...

But otherwise, why not go with a 45-70 instead? Why choose a cartridge that operates at 65,000 psi over one that makes the same ballistics at 32,000 psi and has the potential for higher velocity, more energy, and heavier bullets in the same size rifle? Not to mention the increased muzzle blast and noise.

Not being critical here, just wanting to understand the thinking.

 

Not being critical here, just wanting to understand the thinking.

A large part of the attraction for me, was that I liked the duality of being able to use either .45 colt or .454.

 

Another complaint about the 454 in a 92 was the recoil.
There is the issue of the tool for the job. Lever action locking lugs are located just in front of the hammer. One of their weaknesses. More spring in the action. The 30 30 operates at about 40,000 psi. The 375 Win at 50,000.
The rifle designs limit most cartridges. The 444 makes sense to me in a classic lever action. Not in a bolt action. As stated the 45 70 makes more sense in a heavier built classic lever action. I had a Marlin CB in45 70 and traded it for a 38 55 due to recoil.
Pistol rifle interchangeability was more a marketing issue than a practical one.

DEP

 

Does it make sense? Does it need to? The 454 in a handy little lever gun has coolness factor over the 45-70. Being able to carry a pistol in 45lc and carbine in 454 is very versatile. Being able to swap ammo is awesomely versatile. I shot a Rossi 92 in 454 many years ago and it got me wanting a stainless version.

Stainless is a little stronger than molly steel, they might be making the new 92 from a stainless alloy?

 

If it’s going on the 95 action they should stop messing around and just chamber it in 460. Not a bad looking rifle from them. 👌

 

They would likely have to license the caliber from S&W and that is likely why they did't. S&W knew what they were doing when they created the 460.

 

I have a Ruger SuperRedhawk 7 1/2” 454 and a Stainless Rossi 16”. It’s compact, lightweight and can be a handful with full house 454 loads. I don’t think anyone makes a 45-70 that light and compact. Could be wrong. It’s a great companion to the Ruger.