User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/20/2016 1:00:26 PM EST
Just got this.. for a great price.. usually they go for 1k+.. got it for 825 OTD.
Comes with factory skinner sights, .44mag, barrel is D&T for additional optics. Great fit and finish compared to what i have seen with Rossi (i know different price bracket). Also, it doesn't have a blasted cross bolt safety, or anything that takes away from John Browning's original design. Smooth and silk out of the box. Due to the cold and work i've only fired perhaps 30 rds through it and hit what i was aiming at due to the wonderful peep sight. It's quickly becoming my go to lever gun. The chiappa weights only about 5.5lbs, and is relatively short with its 16in barrel. Extremely handy, when you pick it up; and well balanced. Oh and the wood grain is beautiful.. Ok now for the pics. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2016 1:08:49 PM EST
[#1]
That's really nice...of course, now I want one real bad...sigh. I'd be awful tempted to put a tang sight on it, but only because of aging eyes that were never that great to begin with. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2016 1:13:24 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's really nice...of course, now I want one real bad...sigh. I'd be awful tempted to put a tang sight on it, but only because of aging eyes that were never that great to begin with. my eyes are crap.. and the front fiber optic matched with the large aperture of a skinner makes it easy to pick up and get a clear sight picture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2016 4:33:26 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
my eyes are crap.. and the front fiber optic matched with the large aperture of a skinner makes it easy to pick up and get a clear sight picture. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's really nice...of course, now I want one real bad...sigh. I'd be awful tempted to put a tang sight on it, but only because of aging eyes that were never that great to begin with. my eyes are crap.. and the front fiber optic matched with the large aperture of a skinner makes it easy to pick up and get a clear sight picture. Doh! Didn't even see the fiber optic front...if they make them in .45 Colt I'm doomed to another month of ramen and sriracha.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2016 4:53:57 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doh! Didn't even see the fiber optic front...if they make them in .45 Colt I'm doomed to another month of ramen and sriracha.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's really nice...of course, now I want one real bad...sigh. I'd be awful tempted to put a tang sight on it, but only because of aging eyes that were never that great to begin with. my eyes are crap.. and the front fiber optic matched with the large aperture of a skinner makes it easy to pick up and get a clear sight picture. Doh! Didn't even see the fiber optic front...if they make them in .45 Colt I'm doomed to another month of ramen and sriracha.
They do ;) they make it in 44mag / 45c / .357. The easiest to find is 44/45c. I would have went 45c.. but it was about 1k.. this one was only 8bills, that and a i have a uberti 1866 in 45c. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2016 10:28:41 AM EST
[#5]
Beutiful, I would love one in .45lc. They do seem to go for around 1k, in your opinion is it worth full price?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2016 10:37:05 AM EST
[#6]
May I ask why .45 Colt is preferable to .44 Mag.? Or it is just a nostalgia thing?
I honestly don't know. The .44 Mag's ballistic superiority is what drives my question. ETA - the gun is beautiful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2016 10:41:34 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Beutiful, I would love one in .45lc. They do seem to go for around 1k, in your opinion is it worth full price? yes, considering the other alternative is winchester made out of japan which go for over 1.3-1.5k Like i said you can find these on sale at times.. i paid 820 OTD for the one pictured. As for ammo.. .45 c folks like it.. but for this configuration i would take a .44 mag / .357 mag over it and leave the .45c for the 1873. The only reason i say i would have went .45c is because i have a TON of ammo for it.. and like 5+ guns that are chambered in it. In .44 mag i only have a 29-2.. now this.. but lax ammo reloads for it and its reasonable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2016 4:31:57 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
May I ask why .45 Colt is preferable to .44 Mag.? Or it is just a nostalgia thing? I honestly don't know. The .44 Mag's ballistic superiority is what drives my question. ETA - the gun is beautiful. Why .45 Colt? Because I already have a wide assortment of reloading gear and supplies in .45 Colt...and when properly handloaded in a strong action, the .45 Colt can easily equal anything the .44 Mag can do. And because of the nostalgia thing, too. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2016 5:42:51 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And because of the nostalgia thing, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
May I ask why .45 Colt is preferable to .44 Mag.? Or it is just a nostalgia thing? I honestly don't know. The .44 Mag's ballistic superiority is what drives my question. ETA - the gun is beautiful. And because of the nostalgia thing, too. Yep, its a nice old west caliber.. but surprising no lever guns were ever chambered into it until modern reporductions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2016 6:18:49 PM EST
[#10]
Very nice, love the wood on this one. A 92 trapper is just so handy. I have a stainless Rossi 92 Trapper and have killed a few hogs with it. The only thing handier fits in a holster.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 2:36:00 PM EST
[#11]
I am eyeing one of these, but my only beef is that the rear sight sits at an angle due to the taper of the barrel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2016 4:58:31 PM EST
[#12]
I have the Alaskan model with a the chrome and rubberized stocks in 44mag with a 20" barrel. Like the look of yours better. I think these are good guns. I like the lack of useless safeties and the inclusion of good sights. And while they are too pricey, to get better materials and craftsmanship you have to get one of the rifles made in Japan and those are even more expensive. Especially after you include the cost of decent sights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 9:08:44 PM EST
[#13]
decided to ditch the Skinner.. under recoil and additional shooting sessions i think i would like a red dot better. I am going with a weaver mounted Vortex Optics Sparc II . Ill post pictures when i get it together.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 9:15:39 PM EST
[#14]
WOW! That's a beautiful rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 9:28:24 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WOW! That's a beautiful rifle. Thanks weptek, nice to see you around. its been a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2016 10:16:42 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
decided to ditch the Skinner.. under recoil and additional shooting sessions i think i would like a red dot better. I am going with a weaver mounted Vortex Optics Sparc II . Ill post pictures when i get it together. That's a shame as the Model 92 has great lines and balance and adding a dot sight just screws it all up. I'm also not a fan of the skinner sight, but I'm a big fan of the tang sight on the Model 1892. You gain another 9" of sight radius, and the tang sight allows much faster acquisition and re-acquisition of the target under recoil as it's much closer to your eye. Use large aperture in a tang sight and you'll find short range target acquisition is much faster, and long range shooting will be much more precise. In low light or at very close range, you can leave the aperture out entirely and use the sight as ghost ring. ---- You also need to add a strip of 3/16" wide leather to your saddle ring. Put a larks head knot around the ring with the cross over on top with the ring laying to the rear and it will prevent contact between the ring and the receiver, and it will look nice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2016 10:23:15 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a shame as the Model 92 has great lines and balance and adding a dot sight just screws it all up. I'm also not a fan of the skinner sight, but I'm a big fan of the tang sight on the Model 1892. You gain another 9" of sight radius, and the tang sight allows much faster acquisition and re-acquisition of the target under recoil as it's much closer to your eye. Use large aperture in a tang sight and you'll find short range target acquisition is much faster, and long range shooting will be much more precise. In low light or at very close range, you can leave the aperture out entirely and use the sight as ghost ring. ---- You also need to add a strip of 3/16" wide leather to your saddle ring. Put a larks head knot around the ring with the cross over on top with the ring laying to the rear and it will prevent contact between the ring and the receiver, and it will look nice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
decided to ditch the Skinner.. under recoil and additional shooting sessions i think i would like a red dot better. I am going with a weaver mounted Vortex Optics Sparc II . Ill post pictures when i get it together. That's a shame as the Model 92 has great lines and balance and adding a dot sight just screws it all up. I'm also not a fan of the skinner sight, but I'm a big fan of the tang sight on the Model 1892. You gain another 9" of sight radius, and the tang sight allows much faster acquisition and re-acquisition of the target under recoil as it's much closer to your eye. Use large aperture in a tang sight and you'll find short range target acquisition is much faster, and long range shooting will be much more precise. In low light or at very close range, you can leave the aperture out entirely and use the sight as ghost ring. ---- You also need to add a strip of 3/16" wide leather to your saddle ring. Put a larks head knot around the ring with the cross over on top with the ring laying to the rear and it will prevent contact between the ring and the receiver, and it will look nice. Yep i know.. but this is my shooter and this is not permanent. I honestly would be happy with classic buck horns. I completely forgot about a tang sight solution as most of my rifles are not setup for one (you would have d&t) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2016 10:31:41 AM EST
[#18]
Gorgeous.
I love the shape of that lever ring... wow... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2016 8:56:38 PM EST
[#19]
sent the red dot back.. went with marble.. your right i couldn't take the look of it. I am too traditionalist.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 3:34:43 PM EST
[#20]
Still enjoying this rifle?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 5:47:41 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still enjoying this rifle? yep, i got the marble on it with no issues. I like it.. just got to sight it in on paper. Just havn't had a chance to setup a paper stand on my range (i usually shoot steel). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2016 6:19:11 PM EST
[#22]
I assume you mean a Marble tang sight. I have one on my Rossi 92 and I don't care for it. Was it a functional thing or just aesthetics?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2016 5:04:00 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I assume you mean a Marble tang sight. I have one on my Rossi 92 and I don't care for it. Was it a functional thing or just aesthetics? both. I didn't care for the skinner peep sight after i used it for a while. Actually i would be happy if it had the traditional buck horn sights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2016 5:39:44 PM EST
[#24]
I'm still watching one, but I'm not sold on the Skinner sight in that position.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2016 8:22:54 PM EST
[#25]
I've been really wanting one of these or an Alaskan take down in .357, but I keep seeing so many hit or miss reviews...
What are your thoughts on the reliability/feeding/etc? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2016 11:25:13 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've been really wanting one of these or an Alaskan take down in .357, but I keep seeing so many hit or miss reviews... What are your thoughts on the reliability/feeding/etc? i have had zero issues with feeding / reliability. Its just getting the sights to where i am comfortable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 3:57:02 PM EST
[#27]
I've had no issues relative to reliability on my 44 mag Takedown.
As for the sights, not sure I get the objection to Skinner sights. For me peep sights are better than buckhorn sights any day of the week and Skinner makes some very nice ones. Not like we've seen buckhorn sights show up on any new designs in the last 125 years or so so I'm guessing most will prefer peeps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:06:29 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've had no issues relative to reliability on my 44 mag Takedown. As for the sights, not sure I get the objection to Skinner sights. For me peep sights are better than buckhorn sights any day of the week and Skinner makes some very nice ones. Not like we've seen buckhorn sights show up on any new designs in the last 125 years or so so I'm guessing most will prefer peeps. I think it's the position of the peep. The optimal position for a peep is close to your eye. Putting it on the barrel negates the advantages and intent of the design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:40:10 PM EST
[#29]
Is that pot metal?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 9:43:16 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it's the position of the peep. The optimal position for a peep is close to your eye. Putting it on the barrel negates the advantages and intent of the design. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've had no issues relative to reliability on my 44 mag Takedown. As for the sights, not sure I get the objection to Skinner sights. For me peep sights are better than buckhorn sights any day of the week and Skinner makes some very nice ones. Not like we've seen buckhorn sights show up on any new designs in the last 125 years or so so I'm guessing most will prefer peeps. I think it's the position of the peep. The optimal position for a peep is close to your eye. Putting it on the barrel negates the advantages and intent of the design. Very valid point except for my 62 yr old eyes which kind of like having the back sight out there a ways. And while having them farther may not be as functionally optimum as farther in, they are no farther out than a buckhorn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2016 3:27:51 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it's the position of the peep. The optimal position for a peep is close to your eye. Putting it on the barrel negates the advantages and intent of the design. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've had no issues relative to reliability on my 44 mag Takedown. As for the sights, not sure I get the objection to Skinner sights. For me peep sights are better than buckhorn sights any day of the week and Skinner makes some very nice ones. Not like we've seen buckhorn sights show up on any new designs in the last 125 years or so so I'm guessing most will prefer peeps. I think it's the position of the peep. The optimal position for a peep is close to your eye. Putting it on the barrel negates the advantages and intent of the design. exactly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 2:38:00 AM EST
[#32]
I don't think moving the rear aperture of a peep sight to the barrel prevents the sight from working. You still focus on the front sight. At your nose or on the barrel they still work a whole lot better than a buckhorn.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2023 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
