Taylor and co. 1892 clones

[JerryW]

Are the 1892's by this co. good shooters? Thank you. JerryW

[The Lewis]

I had one for a short while and it seemed to shoot fine, but, it had a world of problems with the actions function. I think they cost a lot up front so, at that cost, I expect at least a functional action. If you are prepared to spend the extra $ for an action job then they are great looking rifles.

You might think about a Puma '92 from Steve's Gunz, less money with a slick action....

[1886]

While not a Taylor I had a beautiful Cim. Arms 92. She was eye candy and her action was as slick as can be. It was not a shooter however. I am not the worlds most experienced handloader but I understand neck tension, bullet hardness, load density, barrel time, etc. You get the picture. I could not get this rifle to shoot in the least. I tore it down, slugged the barrel and it was reversed choked! In short the barrel was never going to live up to my standards. Also the mag. retention was dismal, it would grow under recoil. I was able to fix this by drilling the area and installing a larger pin. I do not mean to scare you off but my experience has pretty much caused me to avoid 92 clones except a Miroku or one from Steve. I feel you could get a good example from Steve plus he can work it over for you. Just one guys experience. See what the other guys have say. Good Luck. 1886.

[Paul Jenkins]

Sir
I can't speak for '92s, But, I have a '63 Sharps that is pretty,but, has poorly engineered components; i.e., soft screws a loose barrel. I mean it started unscrewing itself under recoil. Had to replace the breech block because the nipple pushed off center. If it's made by Armi-Sport, avoid it. If it's made in Italy, avoid it.