Rossi M92 – “For brush hunting and wilderness packing”

I hate giving disclaimers. That being said, I’m about to give one. I have never fired a Rossi firearm. For a couple of years during undergrad, I worked at a gun store, which was the best job I ever had, and I don’t think I ever sold a single Rossi firearm. I know someone who bought a Trifecta for his son, but that is the extent of my connection to Rossi. Unfortunately, I had a negative experience reviewing this rifle. I’ll list the details below. In the interest of full disclosure, I want you to know that Rossi is sending a replacement in order to remedy the issues I’m going to tell you about. When I write reviews, I try to be as objective as possible, but I feel like I’ve been put in a difficult position which make objectivity almost impossible. In short, the rifle had cosmetic and quality control issues. While the functionality of the gun was adequate, the quality control issues were such that I did not want to shoot it.

I know how you feel, kid…

VIDEO

I worked in a gun store for several years during undergrad. I would not have been allowed to put the rifle I received on the shelf. If the new rifle Rossi is sending is better, I’ll shoot a box of shells through it and update you. Until then, this is a review of what I had to work with, which was disappointing. Objectivity under these circumstances is difficult, so I’m not going to try.

No doubt someone will make the comment about the frequently diminished quality of demo items.That’s not an entirely accurate assessment. I’ve received demos that were spotless. Some had wear but weren’t a mess. My issue with demo products is that they are a double-edged sword. Sure, they get a little wear, but manufacturers and reps know that. They also know that the products they demo are going to people who will highly scrutinize them. Sometimes they are scrutinized by a person who then submits his findings to a considerably large forum. So, they know, or should know, better than to send a product in less than pristine condition.

That’s that. Here goes:

Upon receiving the rifle, I saw that the inside of the box had been ripped up by the front sight of the rifle (more on the front sight, later). The damage to the inside of the box was mostly benign, but soon became indicative of other issues.

Normally I wouldn’t care, but this seemed excessive.

I couldn’t help but wonder how little it would take to secure the rifle in the box so it wouldn’t shift around so much. It was obvious a carbine had been put in a rifle box, but I mean, come on, it’s shifted enough for the front sight to tear up the inside of the box. How many times did it move unsecured in order for that to happen? A lot. At first I overlooked it because I was reviewing the rifle, not the box. Still, there’s a point here. Either no one thought about it or no one cared.

Immediately I saw that one of the screws on the receiver had not been properly set. It was sticking out. A guy at the FFL where I picked the rifle up noticed that as well. It’s very obvious. Besides the fact that it’s sticking out of the side of the receiver, someone stripped the screw and scratched the receiver – badly.

I know, I know…it’s just one screw. I’m being overly critical. What difference does it make? Well, quite a bit. Other screws on the receiver were damaged, although not as badly. This is more than a cosmetic issue. This is a quality control issue. Either it left the factory that way, or no one cared to follow up on the gun’s condition before it found me. The functionality of the gun was adequate, but this is the first thing I saw when I took it out of the box. Ouch.

Next, the receiver had some scratches and dings. If not for the other things, I would have possibly chalked it up to normal wear and tear on a demo. Taken as a whole, the excitement of reviewing this lever-action 45LC was fading fast and I hadn’t even left the FFL yet.

This picture doesn’t tell the whole story.

I couldn’t get a good of illustrative pic of this, but the sights wouldn’t line up well. It looked like the front sight was bent slightly to the left. This was the primary reason I didn’t shoot the rifle. Why bother?  Why should the onus be on the consumer to correct issues that never should have happened.

The wood on the gun was in good shape. Other than the awkward placement of the safety, I didn’t see any design issues. I will say that the hammer and lever were very stiff and loud, probably because the gun is new(er). But the tension and the noise of pulling the hammer back made me feel like I was setting a broken femur. There were other minor issues as well.

The worst part was that I wanted the gun to be great. I thought it was supposed to be an affordable lever gun for camping, hogs and/or fun. The gun is marketed as a gun for “brush hunting and wilderness packing”. I wasn’t expecting five-figure quality. Heck, I wasn’t even expecting four-digit quality. But consumers deserve better. You deserve better. Again, this would have never made it to the shelf of the gun store I worked at. It would be too embarrassing. All I can hope for is that this was an anomaly, several standard deviations away from all quality control expectations. However, until they send me another rifle, you know as much as I do.