I've been itching to get one of these in .44 Magnum after acquiring my first revolver in that caliber. After looking at the .44Mag offerings from most of the well-known manufacturers, I think I've narrowed it down to a real deal Winchester 1982 Deluxe w/octagon barrel. They are just super sharp. They also have made these with a 16" barrel instead of the 24". You can find them on Gunbroker. I haven't been able to find any in-person to get my hand on them. That sucks because it would probably get me to my answer immediately.

The longer barrel will have a longer sight radius, more capacity, and will balance differently. It weights a hair more and is obviously longer. It may be fun to put a Marble Arms tang sight on it for some slightly longer range steel shooting with full power loads.

The shorter will obviously balance differently. A 16" barrel also seems plenty of length to max out velocity on .44Magnum, so I don't see much benefit here for the longer barrel. Most data I'm seeing states the velocity difference is negligible.

Thoughts on long vs. short? Any personal experience with pistol caliber lever actions (long vs short) is welcome.

This is just for range fun. I'm not going to be competing, hunting, or defending my life with this.

16" barrel 1892 image
24" barrel 1892 image

Must I remind you of the one correct answer?

Both!!

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Must I remind you of the one correct answer?

Both!!

I WISH I could afford both. I'm already pushing it with the Winchester. There are definitely cheaper 1892s out there.

If they made the octagonal barrel in 20", I'd probably grab that.

I have a Model 94 Trapper (16” barrel) in 44 Mag. It’s a really handy rifle, so I’ll vote for the 16” 1892. I have couple rifles with long octagonal barrels in 45-70 Gov’t and they are heavy which is good for the round, but probably overkill for 44 Mag, not that there’s anything wrong with that.

I've got a Uberti copy of the Winchester 1873 with 24" octagon barrel. I bought it via GB because I loved the cool look of the octagon barrel. But it turned out to be quite muzzle heavy. It's still shootable offhand, but I'm looking to trade it for more standard 20" model. Mine's a .45 Colt, but 16" or 20" would be fine for a .44 Mag.

16 inch and swap out the buckhorn rear sight for Skinners.

I was going to 100% go with a Skinner sight. Good idea.

I was wondering how front heavy a 24” octagon would be. Good to know.

I can't speak from personal experience, but I remember reading that Texas Ranger Jaoquin Jackson had a Winchester 1894 30-30 cut down to 16.5".

"Aiming that customized Winchester was like pointing my finger, and woe to those who found themselves facing its business end." *

* p. 79-80, "One Ranger - A memoir", by H. Joaquin Jackson and David Marion Wilkinson

I have that 1892 Takedown as well as an 1894. Both are .357mag with 16" barrels. I'd stick with the 16" especially if it'll mostly be used for range fun/plinking and not hunting. They're fun guns to be sure !

Sheedy ern ern.

https://www.cdnnsports.com/fir...t-rifle-g5-6-wd.html

quote:

Originally posted by MRBTX:
Sheedy ern ern.

https://www.cdnnsports.com/fir...t-rifle-g5-6-wd.html

I’ve seen that model, but it doesn’t have the octagonal barrel or case hardening finish. Granted, the finish is mostly a fluff item, but I really liked the octagonal barrel on the lever I’ve shot with it.

I wonder why on the model that I’m looking at they went directly from 16 to 24 and skipped the 20.

I'd go with a 16-inch round barrel for a short, handy lever gun in a pistol caliber. Octagon is unnecessarily heavy and not authentic in a short barrel carbine.

I have a 20” Rossi in 44. It’s the perfect l ength. I also have a 357 in 16” and it’s right handy

You won’t go wrong with either length.

quote:

Reply

I have the Winchester (Miroku) 1892 in the Short Rifle configuration, .357 Mag and like it a lot. The 16" carbines seem too short, and the 20" short rifle or standard carbine are about right. The 24" octagonal barrel will be a lot heavier. However, you can't get the short rifle, I think, with higher grade wood.

Seems that the lean is towards the 16", since the 20" doesn't exist with the octagonal barrel. I'm thinking the slight bit of extra weight in the 16" would be nice. I'll bet the 24" octagonal would be helpful for something larger like a .45-70, but would be pretty front heavy for the .44 Magnum version.

The grade of the wood isn't too high on my list. Good quality walnut is fine; I don't really need a super nova starburst maple or fancier. I can always replace it later if I feel the itch.

Just thinking out loud. While typing.

My vote is for the 24" rifle. You won't notice the extra few ounces. The Winchester 1892 is such a light and well balanced rifle. It's a shame you can't find one locally to handle. I think you'd be sold on the 24".

1 pound 2 ounces, but checking them out in person would be best.

quote:

Originally posted by crash:
My vote is for the 24" rifle. You won't notice the extra few ounces. The Winchester 1892 is such a light and well balanced rifle. It's a shame you can't find one locally to handle. I think you'd be sold on the 24".

What specifically sways you toward the 24”?

In my experience, differences in barrel length and profile have a significant effect on the weight and handling of these types of rifles. You really should try to handle the different configurations you're considering before you make a final decision if at all possible.

Specifically? I feel it balances well. I like the aesthetics of 24" barrel, the added magazine capacity is also a bonus. Also I like the "shotgun" style stock with the flat buttplate of the 24" rifle as opposed to the curved buttplate on the Trapper version. I have two of the 24" Miroku Winchester 1892s, .357mag and .44mag. both in 24".