Vetting Reliability for Lever Action Rifles (In this case, Uberti/Cimarron 1873 .357)

[SwampDweller]

I've been holding off on ordering one of the new production Winchester/Miroku 92's as I started reading about the rebounding hammer and multi-piece firing pin, a different-from-original design done for safety reasons. I see a lot of people saying how they do not like them. I get that from a "purist" standpoint, but my real concern is that people report sometimes experiencing reliability issues due to the lawyered up design. Apparently people pay Turnbull 1300+ to remove the feature and put original-spec parts back in the gun, along with color case hardening to cover the work done (I think a hole is plugged).

So now I'm back looking at Uberti 1873s, I just wonder if they're strong enough for frequently shooting .357 Mag level cartridges.

[Robinson]

I've been holding off on ordering one of the new production Winchester/Miroku 92's as I started reading about the rebounding hammer and multi-piece firing pin, a different-from-original design done for safety reasons. I see a lot of people saying how they do not like them. I get that from a "purist" standpoint, but my real concern is that people report sometimes experiencing reliability issues due to the lawyered up design. Apparently people pay Turnbull 1300+ to remove the feature and put original-spec parts back in the gun, along with color case hardening to cover the work done (I think a hole is plugged).

So now I'm back looking at Uberti 1873s, I just wonder if they're strong enough for frequently shooting .357 Mag level cartridges.

There is a 1983 Browning B92 357 available on GunBroker with several bids. From what I've read, these are very good guns without the tang safety or rebounding hammer.

[SwampDweller]

There is a 1983 Browning B92 357 available on GunBroker with several bids. From what I've read, these are very good guns without the tang safety or rebounding hammer.

I have seen it. The Browning B92s are beautiful and would be exactly what I want, but I want to get something new/unfired, preferably still in production.

Uberti does do ‘73s in .45 Colt. That’d be pretty low pressure for a toggle link system. Ammo is a lot more expensive than .357/.38 though

[Malamute]

I have seen it. The Browning B92s are beautiful and would be exactly what I want, but I want to get something new/unfired, preferably still in production.

Uberti does do ‘73s in .45 Colt. That’d be pretty low pressure for a toggle link system. Ammo is a lot more expensive than .357/.38 though

The Browning 92 is probably a better gun than anything made today, the current Winchester 92 parts should interchange other than the modified hammers/triggers and related small parts.

Your reason for only wanting a brand new gun are your own, for myself, I dont mind some history or character, and if its a choice between a better example, used is not a hurdle in any way.

The ammo budget plays into the question of how long one may last. After thinking how many rounds of 357 I was likely to ever shoot in mine, the cost even to reload any significant amount, vs the cost of having oversize links or oversize pins done to take up the wear by one of the people that do such things, the cost of a re-fit is insignificant compared to the ammo cost to get one where it may, or may not, ever need to be done. I stopped worrying and just got what I wanted, the 357 carbine. Ill probably not live long enough to ever wear it out. If youre buying factory ammo, you will probably spend much more in ammo than another gun costs before ever coming close to wearing one out.

[SwampDweller]

The Browning 92 is probably a better gun than anything made today, the current Winchester 92 parts should interchange other than the modified hammers/triggers and related small parts.

Your reason for only wanting a brand new gun are your own, for myself, I dont mind some history or character, and if its a choice between a better example, used is not a hurdle in any way.

The ammo budget plays into the question of how long one may last. After thinking how many rounds of 357 I was likely to ever shoot in mine, the cost even to reload any significant amount, vs the cost of having oversize links or oversize pins done to take up the wear by one of the people that do such things, the cost of a re-fit is insignificant compared to the ammo cost to get one where it may, or may not, ever need to be done. I stopped worrying and just got what I wanted, the 357 carbine. Ill probably not live long enough to ever wear it out. If youre buying factory ammo, you will probably spend much more in ammo than another gun costs before ever coming close to wearing one out.

Apologies, I’m pretty sure you already said it, but your .357 carbine you’re referring to, is it an 1873?

[Malamute]

Apologies, I’m pretty sure you already said it, but your .357 carbine you’re referring to, is it an 1873?

Yes, I have a recent Winchester/Miroku 73 carbine in 357. I also have a Browning 92 carbine in 44 cal, I believe I acquired it in the mid 90s. I'd love to have a Browning 92 in 357. If I felt the urge for another 92 (and lacking an affordable Browning 92) Id get a current generation Winchester/Miroku 92 and not look back.

The weak strikes from the rebound setup can be tuned somewhat, guys on the leverguns forum have posted about it I believe. The humps on the spring strut can be filed down a bit to reduce the amount of "hill" it has to overcome to strike the firing pin. I think some also put a little stronger spring in it, but Id opt for tuning the rebound humps. A general clean up of the action parts to get as smooth operation as reasonable is also likely to help. I have a 94 with rebound, it very much simplifies safe handling, and Im not opposed to it in general, so long as its reliable. I havent had much opportunity to shoot or mess with mine yet.

Some people put older Browning hammer and trigger parts in the rebound 92s, I dont know if the parts are still around and available at this point unless on ebay or similar venue. Other makes of 92 hammers and triggers may work in them, I think one of the main cowboy action gunsmiths that worked on 92s used to use Rossi parts to make the rebound Winchester 92s into half cock type operation.

Much of my interest in lever guns is the associated history. They may not be as technologically advanced as many other guns, but they are more interesting and fun to use and own. I can live with many perceived deficiencies they may have, but will suggest many of the supposed deficiencies (lack of detachable box magazines, not as simple to mount optics or various sights, not uber precise accuracy wise) arent quite as much of an issue in most uses by ordinary people. Having had a variety of guns over time, I reach for the levers most often when out tooling round not actively hunting larger game. In my normal life I carry a carbine most days at least for dog walks. Nothing else comes close for handiness.

[SwampDweller]

Yes, I have a recent Winchester/Miroku 73 carbine in 357. I also have a Browning 92 carbine in 44 cal, I believe I acquired it in the mid 90s. I'd love to have a Browning 92 in 357. If I felt the urge for another 92 (and lacking an affordable Browning 92) Id get a current generation Winchester/Miroku 92 and not look back.

The weak strikes from the rebound setup can be tuned somewhat, guys on the leverguns forum have posted about it I believe. The humps on the spring strut can be filed down a bit to reduce the amount of "hill" it has to overcome to strike the firing pin. I think some also put a little stronger spring in it, but Id opt for tuning the rebound humps. A general clean up of the action parts to get as smooth operation as reasonable is also likely to help. I have a 94 with rebound, it very much simplifies safe handling, and Im not opposed to it in general, so long as its reliable. I havent had much opportunity to shoot or mess with mine yet.

Some people put older Browning hammer and trigger parts in the rebound 92s, I dont know if the parts are still around and available at this point unless on ebay or similar venue. Other makes of 92 hammers and triggers may work in them, I think one of the main cowboy action gunsmiths that worked on 92s used to use Rossi parts to make the rebound Winchester 92s into half cock type operation.

Much of my interest in lever guns is the associated history. They may not be as technologically advanced as many other guns, but they are more interesting and fun to use and own. I can live with many perceived deficiencies they may have, but will suggest many of the supposed deficiencies (lack of detachable box magazines, not as simple to mount optics or various sights, not uber precise accuracy wise) arent quite as much of an issue in most uses by ordinary people. Having had a variety of guns over time, I reach for the levers most often when out tooling round not actively hunting larger game. In my normal life I carry a carbine most days at least for dog walks. Nothing else comes close for handiness.

Do you have a preference between a 73 and 92? Particularly in .357

[Malamute]

Do you have a preference between a 73 and 92? Particularly in .357

Depends on what you want to do with it and how much the historical aspects interest you. I got the Browning 92 because i wanted a 44 mag carbine, was not interested in another Marlin, nor a Winchester 94 in 44 mag. In the past the "92s are stronger!" thing was a factor to me, now, Im happy with a 73 in 357 cal. I wanted a 73, Id never had one long enough to shoot it much, 357 was the most practical and useful caliber for me as well as brass already being in hand. I have zero reservations about the caliber in that action.

I doubt theres any practical difference in the useful lifetime of the gun or the reliability in quality examples of either even for a fairly ambitious shooter. The guys that wear out those guns are the fringe minority of the shooting sport, like the same type that shoot modern guns and buys/loads ammo in large quantities and breaks or wears out parts (or not). If you can afford the ammo to wear one out you can afford to get it fixed, then start over... The only guns Ive ever been able to afford to shoot large quantities of ammo in are 22s, Ive not broken or worn one out yet.

If you want a modern type receiver sight, 92s are easier to do that on. I drilled and tapped my Browning 92 for a Lyman No 56 sight. The 73s dont play well with that type. Some like tang sights on them, me, not so much, I just use the barrel sight and call it good.

I probably didnt answer your question in the sense you asked it, but my criteria is probably different. Either one works well, I like older stuff in general.

If you can find a copy of the 2 volume set Firearms of the American West, by Garavaglia and Worman, read the sections on the various Winchester models from 1866 to 1894, the earlier times, places and events to me are much more interesting. Many mention various movies fueled their interest in certain guns, its the history that does it for me. In 1880 the artist Charles Russell moved to Montana as I believe a 16 year old. He fell in with an old trapper, meat hunter and general frontier character named Jake Hoover. Charlie mentioned one time they were on a trail and met several grizzlies, likely a sow with larger cubs, Charlie was quite concerned about the situation, Hoover never seemed to doubt the outcome, he dumped them all with head shots in the trail with his 73 rifle.

[SwampDweller]

Depends on what you want to do with it and how much the historical aspects interest you. I got the Browning 92 because i wanted a 44 mag carbine, was not interested in another Marlin, nor a Winchester 94 in 44 mag. In the past the "92s are stronger!" thing was a factor to me, now, Im happy with a 73 in 357 cal. I wanted a 73, Id never had one long enough to shoot it much, 357 was the most practical and useful caliber for me as well as brass already being in hand. I have zero reservations about the caliber in that action.

I doubt theres any practical difference in the useful lifetime of the gun or the reliability in quality examples of either even for a fairly ambitious shooter. The guys that wear out those guns are the fringe minority of the shooting sport, like the same type that shoot modern guns and buys/loads ammo in large quantities and breaks or wears out parts (or not). If you can afford the ammo to wear one out you can afford to get it fixed, then start over... The only guns Ive ever been able to afford to shoot large quantities of ammo in are 22s, Ive not broken or worn one out yet.

If you want a modern type receiver sight, 92s are easier to do that on. I drilled and tapped my Browning 92 for a Lyman No 56 sight. The 73s dont play well with that type. Some like tang sights on them, me, not so much, I just use the barrel sight and call it good.

I probably didnt answer your question in the sense you asked it, but my criteria is probably different. Either one works well, I like older stuff in general.

If you can find a copy of the 2 volume set Firearms of the American West, by Garavaglia and Worman, read the sections on the various Winchester models from 1866 to 1894, the earlier times, places and events to me are much more interesting. Many mention various movies fueled their interest in certain guns, its the history that does it for me. In 1880 the artist Charles Russell moved to Montana as I believe a 16 year old. He fell in with an old trapper, meat hunter and general frontier character named Jake Hoover. Charlie mentioned one time they were on a trail and met several grizzlies, likely a sow with larger cubs, Charlie was quite concerned about the situation, Hoover never seemed to doubt the outcome, he dumped them all with head shots in the trail with his 73 rifle.

That answers the question pretty well. As much as I like the Winchester Miroku 92, I am a bit concerned about the light strikes thing and not all that confident in my ability to modify the ignition system without messing it up. Thus, if a Uberti 73 in .357 would be durable/reliable, it sounds like that might be the way to go after all.

I do like the idea of a .45 Colt since I'm going to have a revolver in that caliber shortly, but for ammo cost (and component cost) reasons, .357 makes more sense.

I plan to just stick with the barrel sight. Really there's not much I want to do to a lever gun in any way, I just want it to give dependable service.

[awmp]

Great thread, but no pics?