Author Topic: Opinions of Puma 92? (Read 4457 times)

shilo · « **on:** January 10, 2006, 01:30:54 PM »

Thinking about one in 454. Read the Jan 06 review of one in Rifle. Never handled one though. How do they compare quality wise to Marlin and Winchester? Where are they made? Thanks.

shilo · « **Reply #1 on:** January 10, 2006, 02:27:02 PM »

One other question - is there a difference between the LSI and EMF? If so what is it and which one would you choose?

Leverdude · « **Reply #2 on:** January 10, 2006, 03:32:33 PM »

The LSI has a saftey on the bolt I believe & the EMF dont. I have one in 357 & cant find fault with it. The one I got is on par with current Marlins & USA made Winchesters but I'v heard of people having issues with all 3 as they come from the factory. Theyre made by Rossi in Brazil. Navy Arms imports one too stocked in walnut.I chose the EMF but woulda got a Navy arms before a LSI because of the saftey. LSI is the only one with it.

Graybeard · « **Reply #3 on:** January 10, 2006, 10:50:08 PM »

The major differences in the LSI and EMF guns are the lack of safety on the EMF and the chamberings they are offered in. EMF is primarily a supplier of guns for CAS use and as such they don't offer the magnum chamberings that LSI does. If you're wanting a .454 Casull you have no choice, the LSI is the only one available.

I'd rate the quality of both my LSI and EMF guns as superior to the Marlin and Winchesters.

shilo · « **Reply #4 on:** January 11, 2006, 06:35:29 AM »

Thanks for the replies. Superior. Wow, that's impressive. I also did a search on the Pumas and also found that alot of people think very highly of them. The only thing I see people mentioning are the sights. If I were to buy one I was thinking of putting a Williams Foolproof on it and a gold bead up front. Has anyone put a Foolproof on their's, what model (the one for Win 92?) and how'd it work out. Any other sight recommendations? Thanks.

Graybeard · « **Reply #5 on:** January 11, 2006, 10:26:30 AM »

I'm not so sure you can put such a sight on one of them, for sure not the LSI models I'd think. The silly little safety is in just the right place to be wrong. They are not drilled and tapped for any type of receiver sight. If there is one that fits a Winchester model 92 that would be the one to use I'm sure but you'd have to have a gunsmith do the drilling and tapping for it and on the LSI you're talking about I think you're going to be stuck with what comes on it from the factory. If that's not good enough for you then you really should look into another rifle. Just not much provision for changing out the sights.

Personally I see nothing wrong with what comes on them. For the distances the rounds they are chambered to are useful the sights are adequate.

phydaux · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2006, 10:57:49 AM »

This link tells how to drill and tap a Rossi 92 for a Williams 5D-----------http://www.beartoothbullets.com/tips/index.htm---

Camp Cook · « **Reply #7 on:** January 16, 2006, 05:16:11 PM »

I've spoken to the folks at XS Sights and they say that they have a Ghost Ring sight system that will work on the 454 Casull Puma rifles.

shilo · « **Reply #8 on:** January 24, 2006, 04:34:41 PM »

Finally had a chance to actually handle a Puma 92 at a gun shop. The action felt REALLY smooth. This one was blue with black stock in 454. Where did the black stock idea ever come from? Not my cup of tea. Might look better on the stainless version. And the saftey on top of the bolt; is it easily removed? I'm still thinking about one. If I bought one I'd probably restock it with some nice wood from Treebone Carving.

shilo · « **Reply #9 on:** January 24, 2006, 04:45:49 PM »

I forgot to add: the dealer wanted 650 something for it. OUT OF HIS MIND I see them 4 - 5 on the different gun sites.

shilo · « **Reply #10 on:** January 24, 2006, 04:46:55 PM »

I forgot to add: the dealer wanted 650 something for it. OUT OF HIS MIND I see them 4 - 5 on the different gun sites.

Dana C · « **Reply #11 on:** February 01, 2006, 10:15:19 AM »

This is kind of off topic, but why does everyone objectect to the saftey's on the Puma's. I have a .357 and a .44 and think that they are really great rifles with an extra margin of saftey. Yes, they differ in that respect from vintage 92's but is it that big a deal?

Poohgyrr · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2006, 10:50:56 AM »

I really like my one and only EMF .44, and think the stock wood looks pretty good. If you have to have a .454, then that's that, but otherwise these are good Levers.

shilo · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2006, 04:14:23 AM »

That is a nice looking rifle. How long is the barrel?

JCP · « **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2006, 06:15:08 AM »

I'm sure they are very fine rifles but I have a 92 made in 1906 and when comparing it to photos on the net I've noticed that the new ones are machined on the sides to the shape of a 94 instead of 92. look just in front of stock on either side . on the 92 ,that cut in the side of reciever runs parallel to stock. on the 94 and 92 replicas it runs vertical. I know it doesn't matter but if they are going to make a replica , why don't they go a little farther and make it look like one. Not bashing them, i'd like to have one myself.

Graybeard · « **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2006, 12:03:36 PM »

JCP, it's unclear to me what you are talking about. Can you provide some photos to show the difference you're mentioning? If you can find the photos of both on the internet just grab their URLs and post them and we'll be able to see what it is you're referring to.

kevin.303 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2006, 12:32:11 PM »

original 1894 rifle

original 1892 rifle

Puma 1892 rifle

Graybeard · « **Reply #17 on:** February 21, 2006, 12:43:29 PM »

I'm still just as much in the dark as I was. I can see nothing to help me figure out what you're talking about. Perhaps I'm just dense or blind but I don't see it. A close up of the area in question with an arrow if needed but in the photos shown I have no clue what I'm to look at to be different.

kevin.303 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 21, 2006, 12:53:00 PM »

no i can't see it either. that '94 is an original 1894, are you referring to something on a newer model '94? but the Puma looks the exact same as the original Winchester '92, so i'm quite confused??? :?

Jason · « **Reply #19 on:** February 21, 2006, 01:19:00 PM »

Although is looks to be nitpicking to me, I do see what he's talking about. If you look at the rear of the receiver on the side where it meets the very front edge of the buttstock, the original 94 has the wider lip of the receiver milled vertically whereas the original 92 has it milled parallel to the slanted front edge of the buttstock. You might need to click on the pictures of the originals to make them bigger to see more detail.

kevin.303 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 21, 2006, 01:28:31 PM »

i see it now. nothing to get excited about

JCP · « **Reply #21 on:** February 21, 2006, 03:39:26 PM »

kevin.303, you are right, It's really no big deal , I really would like to have one in 45LC. The reciever sides on a 94 are machined and the 92 has the forged shape if i'm not wrong. I can see why they would change the shape to make it easier to machine. I'm not knocking them but it does take from the beautiful lines of the origional .

kevin.303 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 22, 2006, 03:05:02 AM »

whats an original 1892 go for on average down south? i know it's a lot more then they sell for up here, because of the popularity of cowboy action shooting. the one in ythat pic is a .25-20, and the same dealer also has .32-20 and a fixer upper .38-40. the .25 and .32 are $625 CDN, and the .38 is $500. the .32 is also an original 1892 production gun. i assume they would sell for a lot more in the US?

doctordisaster · « **Reply #23 on:** February 24, 2006, 01:15:00 AM »

Quote from: shilo

Thanks for the replies. Superior. Wow, that's impressive. I also did a search on the Pumas and also found that alot of people think very highly of them. The only thing I see people mentioning are the sights. If I were to buy one I was thinking of putting a Williams Foolproof on it and a gold bead up front. Has anyone put a Foolproof on their's, what model (the one for Win 92?) and how'd it work out. Any other sight recommendations? Thanks.

I switched the front to a globe as well.I love the set up,fast and accurate.

John Traveler1 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 24, 2006, 07:09:10 AM »

Kevin,

In the US the prices of used winchester 1892's vary somewhat. Here in the southwest/pacific coast, they are high. I recently paid US$350 for a .38-40 with rust pitting, broken stock, and fair bore. Unusually low because the seller wanted funds for another gun.

Generally, the .44-40 is most desireable, either in carbine or rifle form, with the .25-20 and .32-20 in less demand. The Cowboy Action shooters gobble up original pieces, and push the prices up.

Standard prices for shooting condition (good/fair) m1892's range from US$800-US$1000 and more. This includes cut-down, rebarrelled, and modified pieces. The prettier guns bring a lot more than that, and are sought after by collectors. I recently attended the Reno and Las Vegas antique gun shows, and prices were way up there. It's hard to find a fixer-upper for less than the US$800 I mentioned.

I wish we had easier access to those thousands of Canadian M1892 guns used on the frontier for over 100 years, but the tightening up of gun importation/Canadian exportation laws makes it less likely for US buyers to find true bargians.

HTH
John

Poohgyrr · « **Reply #25 on:** February 24, 2006, 01:58:23 PM »

Quote from: shilo

That is a nice looking rifle. How long is the barrel?

Thanks. It's 16", and .44 Special. Nate made it from a 20" EMF .44.
www.stevesgunz.com

zipperzap · « **Reply #26 on:** February 25, 2006, 04:02:38 AM »

I have a Puma in 454/45LC and absolutely love it!

I have a few Winchester and Marlin levers as well. The Puma's action is as smooth - or smoother - then the best of the others.
It's a jem!

My 2Â¢

shilo · « **Reply #27 on:** February 25, 2006, 04:05:02 PM »

doctordisaster, nice set-up. Did your rifle have the saftey on it?

steveb3006 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 22, 2006, 06:36:02 PM »

The Rossi's 92's are great strong rifles. I love mine. Slick as snot. They rock-n-roll(see where this is going???) Heres a couple picts of my dads Rossi 92 chambered in 357 Mag with 24" Oct barrel and my Rossi 92 chambered in 44Mag with 20" Rnd barrell both LSI'S

steveb3006 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 22, 2006, 07:07:33 PM »

Quote from: shilo

Finally had a chance to actually handle a Puma 92 at a gun shop. The action felt REALLY smooth. This one was blue with black stock in 454. Where did the black stock idea ever come from? Not my cup of tea. Might look better on the stainless version. And the saftey on top of the bolt; is it easily removed? I'm still thinking about one. If I bought one I'd probably restock it with some nice wood from Treebone Carving.

The ones from Lsi come with that black finish. Which I immediatly stripped off and put a nice Tru Oil finish on. From what ive found its luck of the draw on the wood. My dads 92 has great lookin wood and my 44 is just plain jane, but still looks better than the black finish that was on them.