Colt Forum banner

Winchester '73 and '92 clones, replicas, reproductions

10K views 26 replies 19 participants last post by  tonelar 
#1 · (Edited)
What are people's thoughts and experiences with the various Winchester '73 and '92 clones, repros and replicas such as those made by Uberti, Rossi, Browning (Miroku) and the modern/current "Winchester" (Miroku), etc.?

If you wanted a '92 in .44 magnum, would you buy a Rossi, a Browning B92 (Miroku) or a current/recent "Winchester" branded gun as made by Miroku?

How about if you wanted a Winchester '73 in .44-40 (for shooting), would you get an Uberti, original Winchester, or a current/recent "Winchester" as made by Miroku?
 
#2 · (Edited)
I have Browning '92s, Uberti and Miroku '73s and had a Rossi '92.


In 44 Mag? I'd find one of the earlier made Browning '92s. They are IMO the best of the '92s. We have 3 in various forms. I won't own a tang safety on a lever gun. Sadly the newest Winchester/Miroku '92 with a tang safety isn't the easy one to change out.


44-40 in the '73? I really like my 44-40 Miroku carbine. I have to keep forcing myself to not buy the deluxe Sporter version of the same gun. But the Uberti guns are closer to the originals that the current offering from Miroku. Having torn apart both and tuned them... I like what Miroku is doing more for an "out of the box" gun.

But make no mistake they all shoot!


I shoot a Uberti '73 the most simply because of caliber, 32-20. Doesn't hurt that it is a full race rig with a short stoke kit that I built. But the Miroku seems to me to be the better gun, and a short kit from the factory already in them. But I have versions of the Uberti in 45 Colt and 44 Special as well. I have shot the 45 Colt Uberti the most over the years, had it now for close to 30 years. Use to think 45 Colt was OK in a '73. Have since changed my mind and think 44-40 is a much better answer.

I had the 44 mag Rossi total rebuilt, a custom barrel and new wood back when you couldn't get the rifle I wanted other than an original @ the time. Which was a couple of decades ago now. No comparison on the quality to the others mentioned even when totally rebuilt .

But if I wanted a cheap 44 mag '92 to beat up and shoot a lot, the Rossi would be the place to start.

Another look at my favorite 44-40 since adding the case colored parts. The Miroku Win. '73 carbine.

 
#3 · (Edited)
Just watched this short 3 part YouTube Story on Cimarron Owner Mike Harvey and his decades old connection with Uberti of Italy.

https://youtu.be/WxVDzCC-sPA

The gentlemen's favorite rifle, that he still owns and shoots, is a Winchester Model 61 Pump Action .22...and it's basically what got him into making rifle then handgun clones of most of the famous firearms of the Old West.

So yea, I would recommend a look at the Cimarron/Uberti rifle offerings...



I just picked up a Cimarron / Uberti 1875 "Outlaw" Convertible ( .45 Colt / .45 ACP )...and was very impressed with the quality, fit, & finish...then function of it at the range.





.
 
#4 · (Edited)
The only re-pops I've had experience with is Rossi and a Uberti, a M-92 in .357 Magnum and a M-62 .22 S-L-LR. The Uberti, a Henry 1860 in .44WCF.

For the M1992 in .44 Magnum I would go with the Winchester branded Miroku simply because the Rossi I had, had some metallurgy issues in the small parts. The Rossi M-62 is a pretty good rendition of Winchester's M-62 except for some parts, the front sight may as well be my thumb, it's that fat and non interchangeable with anything I've tried. The little gun is accurate once the front sight is dealt with and shoots reliably.

As for an 1873 in .44WCF, normally I would go original and shoot "Holy Black" out of it, but given the choices in the re-pop market today, whoever makes a "Short Rifle" case color receiver would get my nod. I've found the Uberti Henry leaves little to be desired, is accurate and reliable. I would expect the same from their 1873 Models. Don't know as I've ever seem a Miroku 1873, but they have an excellent reputation also, (Miroku will probably be closer to the original Winchester 1873). I say buy which-ever makes what you're looking for.
 
#6 ·
Miroku Browning / Winchester's are nice.
The older Browning repros are a bit nicer then the current Winchester's because they do not have the rebounding hammer, or top tang safety. we have a B-92 .44 Mag, as well as a B-53 32-20.
We have the 1892 Winchester's in .45 Colt, a rifle and a Trapper with the John Wayne lever.

We have one Uberti, a 66 Yellowboy its a nice repro too, but IMO the Japanese pay more attention to details.

The older Rossi's were more true to form then the current ones.

As for a Winchester 73, I'd be inclined to get the Winchester repro.
 
#7 · (Edited)
I have a R92 in 357 16 inch- really like it, fun as heck, cheap to shoot with .38's- hits hard with.357.

But it was a dog when I first got it, broke right away- the lever was binding up, something was out of place and binding on the internals when you cycled the action.

Local gun smith had it- took him forever to fix it, but now it works good.

Rossi might be good or bad, depending on the luck of the draw.

If I ran into a R92 .44, 16 inch, I would take a chance and jump.

Handy and reasonable priced rifles.!
 
#10 ·
I have the Win/Miroku 1873 “Deluxe” in 44-40 and a blue 24” tapered octagon also in 44-40 both shoot B/P amazingly well. They are my current favorite rifles to load top accuracy ammo and bang silhouettes out to 200m.
I have the BACO Win. 92 in 45 Colt and bought it strictly for one 300gr. Bullet and a hefty dose of H110 . With the over abundance of small medium and the big bears in the unit I work in during the hunting season. Something fast handling with near 45-70 performance that is easy off a horse or close by a kill. It handles very well and recoil is more manageable for follow up shots.
I have never had a Winchester USA or Miroku that I could not get to shoot cast bullets better than most people ever get with jacketed bullets. I can’t say that about any other lever gun maker new or old.
New production 44-40 WCF barrels are .44 Mag specifications, treat as such with proper size bullets they are very good to outstanding shooters.
 

Attachments

#11 ·
longranger said:
I have the BACO Win. 92 in 45 Colt....
Nice write up LR. Just to clarify for others here....the BACO is the importer marked on the barrel for the Win. 92 that Winchester Miruko is making. The Winchester/Miroku '92 are flawed IMO by the use of an additional tang safety. Browning's earlier version of the '92 carbines can be had at similar price without the tang safety. A bump in price point can get you a nice rifle or carbine with no additional safety from Turnbull.
 
#12 ·
I remember back when the Browning 92 came out and boy-oh-boy did I want one, and a Colt SAA 44 Special to go with it. Never happened.
For a Winchester 92 or 1892 reproduction its hard to beat the Browning imo. Okay you're limited to a 44 or 357 Magnum, unless you get the Model 53 32-20. We have one of them too, very nice. Browning also made a version in 218 Bee.

The current Winchesters are pretty nice also, but I could live without the top tang safety too. But they function just like the originals, except you have a rebounding hammer instead of a half-cock. The Model 71 we have is nice and it was about 1/3 the price of an original. Browning made them too.

I kind of liked to get a Browning M 95 in 30-40 Krag, just haven't done so.
 
#13 ·
I have a Rossi M1892 that I purchased in the early 1980s. The caliber is .44-40 and the wood is real walnut. I love it. I also own two Uberti M1866s, both in .45 Colt. One has a 24" barrel and the other a 20" barrel. My son and I used them in Cowboy Action Shooting. I owned for a short time, a Rossi M1892 with a hardwood stock and in .45 Colt. It was a nice rifle but it didn't like the .45 Colt cartridge. The rifle jammed all the time.
 
#15 ·
Good reminder Ken, thank you. Guess if I was hankering for a '92 I'd go look at Cimarron's offerings. Sadly looks like 45 Colt only. There is also Big Horn's '92 which is a pretty cool lever gun.

More here
https://www.rifleshootermag.com/editorial/review-rossi-model-92/83720

I've toyed with a '92 (my browning carbine in 44 mag) as a saddle gun in bear country. It is a handy gun. But finally decided that was kinda dumb when a 16" model '94, original top eject, in 30-30 could be had for a lot less money, and was easier to carry on a horse. Hot loaded 190gr Buffalo Bore type loads seem to offer plenty there. Using heavy for caliber bullets the 44 Mag can do 1260 flbs. 30-30 can do 1860 flbs. The '94 weights in at almost a 1/2 less and is a made in Conn. by Winchester. '94 is also 3+ inches shorter than the 20" Browning 92. 44 mag will beat the 30-30 ammo load when topped off in the mag tube. Some advantage there.

I don't like carrying a lot of stuff on my horse but I do have a '95 carbine in 30-06 and a '86 carbine in 45-90. Neither is light.
 
#16 · (Edited)
I had a good bit of experience with various Winchester type lever action rifles, both in the shop and my personal guns.

My buddy and I bought Rossi .357 Model 92 carbines in the very early 80's when a big distributor ran a barn burner sale on them.
I think we got a FFL Dealer price of about $130 for them.
We found that if you shot light load .38 Special ammo, they were so quiet that you didn't really need ear protection.
Internally they were a little rough and the wood was the South American hard wood another friend called "P*sswood".
There were reasonably accurate, but we decided we wanted replica Winchester 1873's in .44-40.

So we ordered a rifle from EMF for my buddy and a Navy Arms carbine for me.
His rifle was made by an unknown maker. It was mechanically an exact copy of an original Winchester right down to the flat spring under the sliding receiver cover and a one-piece firing pin/striker rod.
Strangely, the profiling of the receiver on the front sides was slightly off of the real Winchester's.
It has no makers mark anywhere on it, few proof stamps, and isn't a Uberti.
The color case hardening was fairly good.

My Navy Arms was a Uberti and was an excellent rifle.
It was all blue and shot very well. I was dissatisfied with the original Carbine ladder type rear sight so I replaced it with a rifle type leaf sight that was shorter then a standard sight of the type. Finding a shorter leaf sight was necessary because the barrel sight cut was too close to the receiver for a standard Winchester type sight.
The Uberti's use a two-piece, spring loaded firing pin with a separate "striker" rod"
I kept it and shot it for years with our lead bullet reloads.
At that time we were making our own bullet lead to an NRA formula and casting our own lead bullets.

My second lever rifle was a Browning B92 in .44 Magnum I bought simply because a distributor was running a special.
It was a fine rifle in all respects, with a coil hammer spring instead of the original Winchester flat spring.
I never fired it for some reason and a nephew has it now and has fired it. He says it's very accurate.

My next was a Browning B92 in .357 a local gun shop had.
I owned it for about 30 minutes. On the way home I stopped to see a friend and he really wanted it, so I sold it to him for my cost.
It was new in the original worn box.

My third was a Uberti rifle with case hardened receiver I bought in the late 80's.
This one had the finest color case hardening I've ever seen on any rifle. It looked like a Colt SAA with profuse mottling in Colt colors.
Again, for some reason I never got around to shooting it and stupidly traded it off for something else I wanted.
This is the one I wish I still had.

I saw a few Rossi, Uberti, and Browning rifles in the shop over the years.
The Browning's were the Japanese B92, and the Uberti's were from various importers, including Uberti USA.

The Rossi's were basic shooters, rough inside with poor looking hardwood, but usually shot well, if not extremely accurate.

The Browning's were uniformly high quality and all shot well. Internally they were smooth and well made. Wood to metal fit was very good, and the wood appeared to be American Walnut with a plain grain.
I noticed an odd issue with the hammers I saw.
The pocket in the hammer for the mainspring plunger was often not cut deeply enough and if you pulled the hammer all the way back you could feel the plunger slipping slightly in the pocket.
A minute with a carbide cutting bit in my flex shaft to deepen the pocket corrected it.

The Uberti's were all nice, a little rough inside, especially the elevator springs. As was/is common with Uberti's some of the screws were soft.
The Uberti's have a ball bearing and spring under the sliding cover, but that can't be seen.
Some of the rifles had magazine caps that were brazed on, but early carbines all seemed to have an original type cap retained by a screw.
The hammers were all grooved instead of checkered, but I could convert it to checkering for a better look.
All of them shot well, but quality of case hardening varied.
Early it was usually pretty good, but by the 1990's it had changed to a poor quality on most rifles.
The earlier Uberti I owned had a Colt-like base color of dark brown with profuse Colt-type blues and green mottling.
These later Uberti's had a base color of a steel-gray, with dark gray-black sparse mottling.
These just looked wrong, but was real color casing.

I haven't been able to see a new Japanese Winchester '73, but they apparently have some sort of firing pin safety device that's visible on the rear of the receiver as a round "plug"??.

General consensus seems to be that the Uberti is more authentic, but the Japanese Winchester is a better quality rifle then the current Uberti, who's quality seems to have slipped some.
 
#17 ·
This familiar picture of my Browning B-92 .44 Magnum below a 1911 .44-40 Winchester. The Winchester is very smooth, but the Browning is slicker. I cannot praise the Browning enough. This one was dinged up with use when I bought it thirty years ago. I like that better than shiny new. Too bad these are so pricey now.


 
#18 ·
One consideration is the 1873 action, with its lifter is more tolerant of feeding different bullet shapes. The round lines up with the chamber and pretty much pushed straight in. All the tapered old WCF cartridges usually worked really slick. If you want to use straight wall cartridges like .45 Colt or .38 special/.357 magnum it is better choice. The Browning designed 1892 feed round at an angle. OAL and bullet shape are more critical as the round has to 'ricochet' into the chamber. The sharp edge of a SWC or a short round hangs in the extractor cut out and ties things up. To me, the funnel effect of using 44-40, 38-40 or 32-20 is an even more favorable attribute in feeding a 92.
 
#19 ·
I have these. A early Browning 92 in .44 mag I bought back in the 1970`s and a Puma in .357 I bought about 2008. I have shot both of course, but not extensively. The only way you can quickly tell them apart is the Browning has the gold trigger. I did have one minor problem with the Browning. I broke the loading gate. It`s a one piece spring/gate where the older original winchester 92`s are two piece. I went back to the dealer I bought the gun from and he insisted he needed to put it in. I went to another friend dealer I used to work with on the job and he ordered one for me. They are simple to tear apart and save the "Guru`s" golden expensive touch & fee.
 
#20 ·
The Winchester Model 1892 as a John Browning design has all the benefits of a Browning firearm, like smooth operation, small receiver, and a strong action.

However, there's just an indefinable "something" about the huge action and hammer of the Winchester 1873 and it's distinctive sound and feel of the brass elevator feed.
The down side is it's extremely cartridge length sensitive.

My buddy and I found this out the hard way. He's the reloading expert so he ordered a Hensley & Gibbs bullet mold so we could cast our own bullets.
He made a mistake we realized the first time we tried to shoot our rifles..... the bullet was too long and would not feed out of the magazine, jamming the elevator.
He'd ordered the wrong size bullet mold by mistake.
As a work around we trimmed the brass to get the proper overall length.
 
#21 ·
'73 is more reliable when worked hard and fast compared to a '92. One reason the '73s kept being used for a long while after the '92 was available.

Both guns do better and are more reliable chambered in the original three WCF cartridges, using the original bullet designs. Both are sensitive to OAL cartridge length. '73 more so than the '92.

'92 is lighter by a far bit and handy in a same=same comparison to the '73.
 
#23 ·
I've tried .44 Special reloads with semi wadcutters with a pretty pronounced "shoulder" and they do in fact jam when levered into the chamber of my Browning 92. Then I just work the lever finessing them in. But I expected that very thing to happen.Come to think of it, when I had a Uberti '73 .45 colt it jammed with similar shaped bullets but definitely easier going straight in.
 
#24 · (Edited)
My 44 Rossi would flip 44 Special clear out of the gun if you ran it hard. And the reason I no longer have that '92. My B92 will just jam the 44 Specials if you run the lever really hard/fast...no matter what the bullet shape is. Run the lever hard enough on the B92 with 44 mag ammo set at the correct length using the right bullet (RNFT) and it will stick a round in the top of the chamber. Be kind to it and it runs fine. '73? With the right OAL and the right bullet the '73 will run upside down no problem ( a 92 might if you are careful). Pretty much the only thing that will stop a '73 using the right ammo is short stroking it or post ammo depression :)
 
#25 ·
Don't overlook the rifles and carbines made for Taylors and Company by Chiappa. I have one of their Model 1892 Rio Bravo carbines in .45 Colt...also made in .440-40 and .357 Magnum. They have other 1892s in .44 Magnum and replicas of the '73 and other Winchesters. The quality is excellent.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top