Cycling Action With vs. Without Ammo

[RickinVA]

Hello Fellow 92 Fans,

Have had my 92 .357 carbine for a few weeks and still haven't had the chance to shoot it, but loaded it with .38s and then .357s just to see how it cycles. They cycled fine, but I noticed that with ammo it takes quite a bit more force to close the lever/locking bolts the last 1/2 inch. Is this normal?

Also noticed the tips of the hollow points were scraped. Would that be from ejecting them?

Only other issue I've noticed is the front sight was bent pretty far to the left. I was able to bend it back pretty easily, but am surprized it was shipped that way.

Thanks again for all the great posts and advice on this site.

Rick

[Raymer]

They cycled fine, but I noticed that with ammo it takes quite a bit more force to close the lever/locking bolts the last 1/2 inch. Is this normal?

There shouldn't be a big difference in force to close the bolt. All that has to happen is for the extractor to ride up over the rim and the ejector spring has to compress. The Steve's Gunz video shows how to make improvements on both of those.

Raymer

[Deleted User 327]

They cycled fine, but I noticed that with ammo it takes quite a bit more force to close the lever/locking bolts the last 1/2 inch. Is this normal?

There shouldn't be a big difference in force to close the bolt. All that has to happen is for the extractor to ride up over the rim and the ejector spring has to compress. The Steve's Gunz video shows how to make improvements on both of those.

Raymer

Rossi puts an ejector spring in their M92 to will darn near orbit your spent brass; it's way too strong and to that is what you're feeling in the last 1/4" of bolt closure with a round in vs dry. Steve Gunz sells a slick up kit which includes a DVD, reduced power ejector spring, and a metal mag follower. In addition, he sells a plug to swap out the bolt safety that's more of a pain than a help for most of us.

[RickinVA]

Thanks guys. I've read about the ejector spring issue. Once I actually get to shoot it I'll start the fun of making modifications. Hope to use it on a Virginia white tail this fall.

[pricedo]

They cycled fine, but I noticed that with ammo it takes quite a bit more force to close the lever/locking bolts the last 1/2 inch. Is this normal?

There shouldn't be a big difference in force to close the bolt. All that has to happen is for the extractor to ride up over the rim and the ejector spring has to compress. The Steve's Gunz video shows how to make improvements on both of those.

Raymer

Rossi puts an ejector spring in their M92 to will darn near orbit your spent brass; it's way too strong and to that is what you're feeling in the last 1/4" of bolt closure with a round in vs dry. Steve Gunz sells a slick up kit which includes a DVD, reduced power ejector spring, and a metal mag follower. In addition, he sells a plug to swap out the bolt safety that's more of a pain than a help for most of us.

Personally (it's a matter of personal choice) I think the ill fitting SG safety plug is more of an eyesore than the almost inconspicuous "pigtail safety" it replaces is and the plug doesn't make unloading the gun or test cycling hunting ammo through the gun any safer........the barely noticeable bolt mounted "pigtail" does.
If I'm going to remove safety functionality from the gun & void my warranty and make myself more sue-able in case of an accident by removing the factory bolt safety switch I'll contact my friend who is a gun smith & a TIG welder and have him fill the safety hole with metal professionally & safely.
He did one of his own rifles and you'd never think there was ever a safety there.
You just can't weld willy nilly around gun receivers, barrels or other high pressure bearing equipment ........you have to know what you're doing to avoid tempering the strength out of the steel and creating a disaster (a long skinny grenade ).
If I ever buy a Braztech R92 the "pig tail" is staying where it is........it's a lot less conspicuous than the ill fitting "eyesore" SG plug or the new Winchester tang safety.

[willygene]

i made my own plug using the safety from the gun and you dont notice it at all.

[pricedo]

i made my own plug using the safety from the gun and you dont notice it at all.

The safety adds to the overall safety of the shooting experience with that gun and is much less conspicuous than say the tang safety on the new Miroku built Winchester 92s so I'd keep it if I had a R92.
All my Rossi 92s are Amadeo Rossi M92s and came WITHOUT the bolt mounted safety.
Removal invalidates the warranty & makes you more vulnerable to civil court action in the event of an accidental shooting with that gun.
I see nothing to be gained & lots to lose by removing it.

[Model 52]

It's been covered before, but the only thing it really brings to the table is a slightly greater degree of safety when clearing the weapon as clearing requires cycling the rounds through the action. However, if some one manages to shoot someone in that process, it's due to poor muzzle control, and a safety is just a crutch in that situation. Relying on a safety in that situation is also a bad idea and I suspect the rates of ADs on 92s with and without safeties will be virtually identical as the safety will most likely breed complacence.

In the field, a half cock /quarter cock notch can shear if the carbine is dropped in a manner where the back of the hammer lands on something hard. But that's a very low probability event. The probability that it's pointed, at someone when that happens is an order of magnitude lower, and having a tang sight behind the hammer reduces the potential for the back of hammer to be struck at all to the point where it becomes almost impossible.

The safety on mine was also a bit loose and was way too readily moved to be something I wanted to actually rely on.

In that regard, looking at everything involved, I saw the safety as adding almost nothing and removed it.

[pricedo]

It's been covered before, but the only thing it really brings to the table is a slightly greater degree of safety when clearing the weapon as clearing requires cycling the rounds through the action. However, if some one manages to shoot someone in that process, it's due to poor muzzle control, and a safety is just a crutch in that situation. Relying on a safety in that situation is also a bad idea and I suspect the rates of ADs on 92s with and without safeties will be virtually identical as the safety will most likely breed complacence.

In the field, a half cock /quarter cock notch can shear if the carbine is dropped in a manner where the back of the hammer lands on something hard. But that's a very low probability event. The probability that it's pointed, at someone when that happens is an order of magnitude lower, and having a tang sight behind the hammer reduces the potential for the back of hammer to be struck at all to the point where it becomes almost impossible.

The safety on mine was also a bit loose and was way too readily moved to be something I wanted to actually rely on.

In that regard, looking at everything involved, I saw the safety as adding almost nothing and removed it.

I didn't say or imply anything about relying on any kind of a safety.........I don't..........being continuously and constantly cognizant of muzzle direction is the best gun safety plan.
What I did say was that the bolt safety makes the process of cycle unloading the gun and cycle testing live ammo through the receiver a safer process because for a split second in the cycle process there is a cocked hammer over a live chambered round and if the trigger is impacted by whatever at the critical moment the result is an unintentional discharge.
I also said that I THINK (that ole personal choice thing again) the Rossi "pig tail" safety is much less conspicuous that the SG plug which contributes no functionality to the gun other than to fill a hole.
I see no point in removing the safety in favor of a more conspicuous redundant plug.
That's my opinion........others might see it different.

In regards to the "low probability" stuff.
I've seen low probability events "conspire" to create an accident on more than one occasion.
You might accidentally shoot someone with your gun. It could be as simple as stumbling on a trail and the gun discharges and the bullet hits the person ahead of you and you could have been doing everything right but several low probability events happened and seemingly "conspired" to created a tragedy.
If you are charged by police with reckless endangerment, criminal negligence or the person you shot sues you in civil court you are looking a lot less credible if it is established that you intentionally removed a safety device from the gun involved in the tragic event for purely cosmetic reasons.

[Model 52]

It's been covered before, but the only thing it really brings to the table is a slightly greater degree of safety when clearing the weapon as clearing requires cycling the rounds through the action. However, if some one manages to shoot someone in that process, it's due to poor muzzle control, and a safety is just a crutch in that situation. Relying on a safety in that situation is also a bad idea and I suspect the rates of ADs on 92s with and without safeties will be virtually identical as the safety will most likely breed complacence.

In the field, a half cock /quarter cock notch can shear if the carbine is dropped in a manner where the back of the hammer lands on something hard. But that's a very low probability event. The probability that it's pointed, at someone when that happens is an order of magnitude lower, and having a tang sight behind the hammer reduces the potential for the back of hammer to be struck at all to the point where it becomes almost impossible.

The safety on mine was also a bit loose and was way too readily moved to be something I wanted to actually rely on.

In that regard, looking at everything involved, I saw the safety as adding almost nothing and removed it.

I didn't say or imply anything about relying on any kind of a safety.........I don't..........being continuously and constantly cognizant of muzzle direction is the best gun safety plan.
What I did say was that the bolt safety makes the process of cycle unloading the gun and cycle testing live ammo through the receiver a safer process because for a split second in the cycle process there is a cocked hammer over a live chambered round and if the trigger is impacted by whatever at the critical moment the result is an unintentional discharge.
I also said that I THINK (that ole personal choice thing again) the Rossi "pig tail" safety is much less conspicuous that the SG plug which contributes no functionality to the gun other than to fill a hole.
I see no point in removing the safety in favor of a more conspicuous redundant plug.
That's my opinion........others might see it different.

In regards to the "low probability" stuff.
I've seen low probability events "conspire" to create an accident on more than one occasion.
You might accidentally shoot someone with your gun. It could be as simple as stumbling on a trail and the gun discharges and the bullet hits the person ahead of you and you could have been doing everything right but several low probability events happened and seemingly "conspired" to created a tragedy.
If you are charged by police with reckless endangerment, criminal negligence or the person you shot sues you in civil court you are looking a lot less credible if it is established that you intentionally removed a safety device from the gun involved in the tragic event for purely cosmetic reasons.

One of my most in the safety thread describes a low probability event.

I work with lawyers every day and I certainly understand the legal risk.

I just simply disagree with this:

"You might accidentally shoot someone with your gun. It could be as simple as stumbling on a trail and the gun discharges and the bullet hits the person ahead of you and you could have been doing everything right but several low probability events happened and seemingly "conspired" to created a tragedy";

as if you manage to do this, you weren't doing everything right.

I'm in the "I'd rather not have the safety camp" and you're not. There's nothing wrong with that.