Forget Miroku's '92
Posted: 11 Apr 2021 07:36
Well, I hate to say it, but forget Miroku's '92. It will never be as slick and smooth as a Chiappa, Cimarron (Chiappa), Taylors (Chiappa), or Rossi. Not for someone who has little or no access for a way to fabricate parts.
That rebounding hammer, while doable, workable (even of dubious need), puts a real wall of resistance in the lever's stroke. Its like backing out of your driveway and having a nasty speed bump after you've gotten 1/4 the way out.
I've read all over the 'net, and people say "just cut off the rebound leg of the hammer strut". Don't do it, it won't work, and here's why. The strut needs to rest on the hammer either on its "forward" or "rebound" leg. When the hammer moves forward, the "rebound" leg, which is below the hammer axis, begins to re-tension the mainspring by moving the strut rearward again. Its like a handoff from forward to rebound legs. Well... Miroku in its infinite wisdom has made that strut "just long enough" so that at the neutral position (where the forward and rebound struts "equal out" and both rest on the hammer), there is one a few scant millimeters of "extra length" poking out the piece that captures the strut. Take off the rebound leg, and the strut falls out of its holder. That wont do. The other reason is, and I have not confirmed this yet (but strongly suspect), is that the two legs on the strut, which straddle the hammer, keep the strut from falling off the hammer, as the two legs keep the strut captive.
I don't doubt all of of the sage advice on the internet. But I also know that one bit of un-vetted advice is often repeated, and repeated, and so forth, until it becomes canon, even though its still not true. On the other hand, I'm sure a certain percentage may be true, so am willing to concede that Miroku may have changed the design to eliminate meddling.
The whole placement of the strut on the hammer is poor too, very close to the axis, which means the tension on the mainspring is fiddly. Fiddly being not only strength, but length of spring to get the hammer to be "just right". Just right, to me, means totally reliable, and decent lock time. I've played a whole lot with my own Miroku '92, using Ruger and Wolff springs (for the Blackhawk/Vaquero) and found one that's sort of ok. You can actually get reliability just fine, due to the massive inertial firing pin, but the lock time goes all to hell.
So there's my little "rant". Miroku makes a nice looking gun. Frankly, the wood was not as well fit as on my new Rossi, but is nice walnut and easily made to fit better. The safety on the tang is no big deal for me, as I can't use tang sights, being long-necked... my nose darn near hits the hammer when its cocked!
The Winchester/Miroku is a great rifle. I like mine. It would be just fine for every "non-competition" use I can imagine. And it feeds everything I stuff into it. But the Rossi is far and away smoother, slicker, and easier to work.
That rebounding hammer, while doable, workable (even of dubious need), puts a real wall of resistance in the lever's stroke. Its like backing out of your driveway and having a nasty speed bump after you've gotten 1/4 the way out.
I've read all over the 'net, and people say "just cut off the rebound leg of the hammer strut". Don't do it, it won't work, and here's why. The strut needs to rest on the hammer either on its "forward" or "rebound" leg. When the hammer moves forward, the "rebound" leg, which is below the hammer axis, begins to re-tension the mainspring by moving the strut rearward again. Its like a handoff from forward to rebound legs. Well... Miroku in its infinite wisdom has made that strut "just long enough" so that at the neutral position (where the forward and rebound struts "equal out" and both rest on the hammer), there is one a few scant millimeters of "extra length" poking out the piece that captures the strut. Take off the rebound leg, and the strut falls out of its holder. That wont do. The other reason is, and I have not confirmed this yet (but strongly suspect), is that the two legs on the strut, which straddle the hammer, keep the strut from falling off the hammer, as the two legs keep the strut captive.
I don't doubt all of of the sage advice on the internet. But I also know that one bit of un-vetted advice is often repeated, and repeated, and so forth, until it becomes canon, even though its still not true. On the other hand, I'm sure a certain percentage may be true, so am willing to concede that Miroku may have changed the design to eliminate meddling.
The whole placement of the strut on the hammer is poor too, very close to the axis, which means the tension on the mainspring is fiddly. Fiddly being not only strength, but length of spring to get the hammer to be "just right". Just right, to me, means totally reliable, and decent lock time. I've played a whole lot with my own Miroku '92, using Ruger and Wolff springs (for the Blackhawk/Vaquero) and found one that's sort of ok. You can actually get reliability just fine, due to the massive inertial firing pin, but the lock time goes all to hell.
So there's my little "rant". Miroku makes a nice looking gun. Frankly, the wood was not as well fit as on my new Rossi, but is nice walnut and easily made to fit better. The safety on the tang is no big deal for me, as I can't use tang sights, being long-necked... my nose darn near hits the hammer when its cocked!
The Winchester/Miroku is a great rifle. I like mine. It would be just fine for every "non-competition" use I can imagine. And it feeds everything I stuff into it. But the Rossi is far and away smoother, slicker, and easier to work.