Ruger M92?

[RJ556]

I would love to see Ruger come out with a copy of the Winchester M92. You know a Ruger version would make Rossi's look like a Cracker Jack prise :lol: Blued and stainless versions, standard carbine and Trappers. Build it in 327 Mag, 357 Mag, 41 Mag, 44 Mag, 480 Ruger as well as the old classic calibers. With Rugers expertise in investment castings, I think they could make it profitable. They did the AR type and the 1911 pistol. Can you imagine a very close edition of the '92, made in America? What do you think?

 

[EVR]

Ditto.

I've wished for this for years.

Add my vote FOR.

I want a 16-inch .44 Mag version.

 

[RJ556]

How about a stainless, walnut stocked, slightly unfaithful version, slightly stretched for 357 Maximum. Look out 30-30, now you really have company!

 

[blume357]

Seems like someone said Ruger tried the lever actions and they didn't sell.. but I bet it was before Cowboy Action Shooting became so popular....

I agree, i would love to see one in 357 or one up (357max) and in their gray stainless with Walnut stock would be absolutely tops.

You never can tell, they might be working on it under the covers... we can always hope.

 

[EVR]

Man have you guys struck a nerve!!

We need to pound on Ruger to produce the thing.

The lever guns by Ruger that failed were clubs. They were modern designs and frankly, unimpressive in the extreme. I owned a 96 and was wholly turned off. The only redeeming quality was the magazine, but even that design led to a bulkiness of mid-section that while appropriate as a reflection of modern American society was as sexy and sleek and useful as Michael Moore.

So...

I do not necessarily think that all Ruger "lever guns" would be cursed.

As for lengthening the action, I am 100% against it.

The 92 is perfection itself in the original length and lengthening would merely add weight which would defeat the "Personal Defense Weapon" appeal of the thing IMO. If a guy wants the ballistics of a .357 Max he isn't hundered in any way from getting it right now by modifying a 94 to .35/.30-30.

No, IMO the 92 needs to be left alone as-is, except possibly for a couple interior mods as necessary for Ruger production processes. Functionally, the 92 action is really quite amazing.

I have long used my own 94 in .44 Mag and it has been the companion on many an adventure, with many more to come. But deep down in I've wanted a 92 for many years, modified as mine is.

I also do not like the .357's in the short action levers due to the extra weight of the barrels. Ruins the handling liveliness IMO. I do understand WHY that cartridge would be a "must" in any 92 chambering, tho. Many would buy one I think.

Yup, .45 Colt, .44 Mag, .357, all would be winners. Maybe .454 Casull, too.

Here are two fellows from hereabouts back in the day. Guns are 92's with 14" "Prison Barrels" added by a long-dead gunsmith. Unfortunately both the men and guns are long gone, but the photo remains from a series shot for a local newspaper many years ago.

When I needed a similar gun for sort-of similar work {predator control} I was pretty much limited to what I had in the safe, so I modified a Win 94 as follows;

Not trying to hijack a great thread, but only to absolutely emphasize my 100% support for a Ruger 92.

And tho I am rarely a fan of stainless guns, I gotta say that option might be enticing for me as the time of year I use mine the most is miserable weather, wth snow as pictured or driving rain as well.

Keep the pressure on Ruger, RJ556!!!

 

[RJ556]

Great pictures EVR. They make me want to be there. I suppose you're correct, a true to the original version would be best. I can just feel my hand around that small rounded receiver now!

 

[EVR]

I can just feel my hand around that small rounded receiver now!

UHG!!!

I actually took a mill bastard file to the modernized "square" receiver edges on my .44 94 just so the thing fits "right" in the hand.

...and I drilled a hole in the tang, threaded it and set a screw in it to stop that DANG BLASTED stupid tang safety from snicking on in the winter!!!

I can't complain too much. It is a killer and has served us well around the ranch for some years, even with the factory stock;

We also had a Trapper in .30-30 but it handled like a club due to the heavier barrel. .44 or .45 for me.

PS: The anorak;

 

[Jeff Quinn]

I would love to see Ruger come out with a copy of the Winchester M92. You know a Ruger version would make Rossi's look like a Cracker Jack prise :lol: Blued and stainless versions, standard carbine and Trappers. Build it in 327 Mag, 357 Mag, 41 Mag, 44 Mag, 480 Ruger as well as the old classic calibers. With Rugers expertise in investment castings, I think they could make it profitable. They did the AR type and the 1911 pistol. Can you imagine a very close edition of the '92, made in America? What do you think?

Who leaked the info on the SR92?
I have heard nothing on a 480 SR92.
Where did you get that information?

Jeff

 

[mike7mm08]

I would not be surprised to see a traditional style lever action at SHOT from Ruger. With the stumble and possible demise of Marlin the timing is right. Ruger already has a huge chunk of the SASS market with their revolvers. Think Ruger's reputation with that market alone would make production profitable. If this does come to light and 480 is offered I am going to sell whatever I have to get ahold of one. Wonder how much they pay for blood in my area? Finally thanks Jeff at least keeping the rumor and our hopes alive for such a gun. You got your review all written and waiting to be posted on Gunblast :wink:

 

[TRanger]

The Rossi 92s I have shot were hardly Cracker Jack prizes. They are good guns. Wouldn't mind seeing Ruger produce one, though.

 

[EVR]

The Rossi 92s I have shot were hardly Cracker Jack prizes. They are good guns. Wouldn't mind seeing Ruger produce one, though.

Yeah, I've never shot one, but have heard very good reviews about them.

Interestingly, IIRC, Rossi has actually made more 92's than Winchester did!

 

[RJ556]

Jeff, alright now, you are playing with our heads with a post like that! No real info, I was just day dreaming. But I wish it was true. I have heard about as much negative as positive about the Rossi 92's, but I know a Ruger version would be hell for stout.

 

[mattsbox99]

I have a Rossi 92 in .45 Colt. It only shoots jacketed bullets as it leads horribly with everything I've tried in it. I would like a Ruger 92.

 

[Bob G]

The lever guns by Ruger that failed were clubs. They were modern designs and frankly, unimpressive in the extreme. I owned a 96 and was wholly turned off. The only redeeming quality was the magazine, but even that design led to a bulkiness of mid-section that while appropriate as a reflection of modern American society was as sexy and sleek and useful as Michael Moore.

I disagree. The mod. 96 is a handy little rifle. I shared Mr. Ruger's affection for the mod. 99 Savage, which was it's inspiration. It is every bit as utilitarian as the Deerfield, or even the 10/22. The short lever throw makes for fast follow-ups.

 

[mike7mm08]

The only misstep with the 96 was the stock. Ignore the looks and they where a excellent little rifle. Smooth and fast operating very short lever throw. Easy to mount a low power scope. It is truly a working gun. Which is what every lever gun should be. As I said the only down fall was the stock. A more traditional buttstock and a slimmer sporter type foreend would of mad this a much nicer rifle. Would of had the look of a slightly downsized Winchester Model 88. I have a custom 96/44. With such a stock. It is unbelievable the difference between it and my factory 96/44. It feels and points like a fullsized rifle instead of a 10/22. No hunting for the scope picture or the sights and you have a positive cheek weld. Here is a pic.

 

[EVR]

The only misstep with the 96 was the stock.

Nice guns!

I agree about the stock.

It took the concept of a slick handling, potentially handy rifle and married the barreled action to a telephone pole. For a little underpowered cartridge like the .44 Mag with no recoil in a rifle the thing should be short and very light IMO. The 96 was a club IMO, for my purposes.

Having said that, I might get another.

If I did I'd chop the stock back and thin it significantly. Then it might be a winner. In factory form, I hated it.

If I'm going to carry a gun with the bulk of the factory 96, I want a real rifle cartridge with longer range potential, not the softball .44.

Not condemning anyone who likes the factory rife, it's just that I don't. Would wonder if they might have sold more if the gun had a very light, slick little stock. A super thin buttstock with a short, Schnabel forestock would suit me.

 

[Stump Buster]

If someone at Ruger is reading this to gauge public interest....

Stainless 45Colt for me please!!!

 

[Cedar Creek]

Put me down for a blue saddle-ring carbine in .327 Federal and a stainless Trapper Model with saddle ring in .25-20!

Cedar Creek

 

[AJMD429]

If someone at Ruger is reading this to gauge public interest....

Stainless 45Colt for me please!!!

Same here...!

The 96 action might not handle the .357 Max or .454 Casull, unless major changes were made.

The Winchester 92 action is definitely not strong enough to handle the .454 Casull unless modified quite a bit (like Rossi did), and the .357 Max adds the challenge of greater length to higher pressures.