Chiappa Lever Action .357 - thoughts?

[Newtosavage]

Came across a pretty nice looking and handling model 1892 Chiappa in .357 the other day. Not sure I've ever heard of Chiappa before but the rifle felt and functioned just like my old Winchester to me. Price seemed a bit high but then it seems everything is high anymore.

Anyone here own a lever action Chiappa and if so, what do you think about it?

 

[Remington1911]

I can't comment on that specific gun, but I have a feeling you are going to get a bit of not quite positive reviews of their other products.

 

[Newtosavage]

Doesn't bother me. Just looking for info. I was not expecting much when I handled it but was pleasantly surprised. However I never shot it.

 

[Electrod47]

If you like Western Style guns ( Like I do ) and want to handle and shoot them, as opposed to a 3000 dollar plus collector item. Its going to come from Italy. Though there are several makers from there. They all follow the same manufacturing processes. Chiappa can make an exceptional gun. They can also make a lemon, from time to time. What else is new? The Chuck Connors Big Bow 44/40 is a favorite of mine. Yeah, it needed a little tune up. But, it only cost 800 bucks compared to a genuine Winchester ( which I own also ) and you can rough house with it. It would be the last gun I would think of hunting with, but it probably could.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Chiappa are nice rifles. Sure you pay more but there is a reason. Besides being well built their actions are closer to original 92 than others. My wife has one chambered in 44wcf.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

I can't comment on that specific gun, but I have a feeling you are going to get a bit of not quite positive reviews of their other products.

Why? I've been around a lot of them and in the CAS community and generally they are regarded as the cream of the crop of the reproduction 92s.

 

[Riomouse911]

Why? I've been around a lot of them and in the CAS community and generally they are regarded as the cream of the crop of the reproduction 92s.

Because many of their .22 products are fair to middlin’. Lots of plastic and fair accuracy is the norm. Gun Tests, etc. did not like the revolver very much:

https://www.gun-tests.com/handguns/chiappa-1873-no-340-250-22-lr/?amp=1

Hopefully the rifles are better made.

Stay safe.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Because many of their .22 products are fair to middlin’. Lots of plastic and fair accuracy is the norm. Gun Tests, etc. did not like the revolver very much:

https://www.gun-tests.com/handguns/chiappa-1873-no-340-250-22-lr/?amp=1

Hopefully the rifles are better made.

Stay safe.

You are comparing apples to oranges which can spread bad info. I speak from first hand experience with the actual rifles. Chiappa 92s are about as close as you can get in a modern repro to an original Winchester. All steel and wood unless they have recently changed something. I don't recall a plastic part anywhere in any I've had apart.

 

[Riomouse911]

Chiappa is known to make inexpensive copies of other guns using zinc, plastic and low-end finishes.
Here is a review of their Beretta M9 inspired .22:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/chiappa-m9-22/

They also make .22 rifles that look like M1 carbines that look cool from a distance but are mostly flimsy plastic, Zinc and not that great.

https://www.gunmart.net/gun-reviews/firearms/rifles/chiappa-m1-22-carbine

The question was some people may say the Chiappa product may not be good. I don’t make their guns, I am just unimpressed with every one I have seen and held (Rhino revolvers excepted). The rifles I held, like the revolver Gun Tests shot, were not very impressive. I buy copycat guns that aren’t top shelf all the time, like my Rossi 1892’s and 64A, but the Chiappa handguns and the M1 copies I held were not worth me buying.

The guy in the review above liked the looks of the M1 .22, but “disappointing but shootable” is not a ringing endorsement. And, for most of Chippas line, that type of comment is universally said by reviewers. Their M1 9mm copy gets better reviews, but there is still a lot of plastic on it.

Decent review:

https://www.swatmag.com/article/new-take-on-a-classic-chiappa-firearms-m1-9-carbine/

Poor review:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/11/taofledermaus-reviews-the-chiappa-m1-9-carbine/amp/

If their 1892 clones are great, which your experience says they are, that is good to hear. Maybe the OP will be thrilled with it, and for his sake I hope he is. With Winchesters, Marlins, Henrys and Rossi’s in the safe I have no real desire to roll the dice on a Chiappa based on my impressions of their other stuff. (If I’m going for another lever, I think I’d rather get a Uberti 1885 copy in .303 or a Miroku-made lever).

Your experience with their 1892 was different than mine with a few of their other guns, and that’s great. Too bad the 1892 line isn’t the quality baseline for the rest of Chiappas lineup. I think the M1 9mm and other ideas they have do look like cool guns but the execution is weak. Maybe if they incorporated the good stuff in their 1892’s into other offerings, their rep would improve across the board.

Stay safe.

 

[hawg]

If their 1892 clones are great, which your experience says they are, that is good to hear. Maybe the OP will be thrilled with it, and for his sake I hope he is. With Winchesters, Marlins, Henrys and Rossi’s in the safe I have no real desire to roll the dice on a Chiappa based on my impressions of their other stuff.

Yeah they make cheap .22's etc. but their 92's and muzzleloaders etc. are top notch. Rossi makes cheap crap too. I had a Rossi 92 and it was top shelf after a little slicking up.

 

[eastbank]

more money, but the japanese miroku made winchester 1892 copies are first rate. i have quite a few japanese miroku made firearms, shotguns-rifles and never had a problem with them after fireing thousands of rounds.

 

[hawg]

more money, but the japanese miroku made winchester 1892 copies are first rate. i have quite a few japanese miroku made firearms, shotguns-rifles and never had a problem with them after fireing thousands of rounds.

Nah, not with that tang safety. That's a hard pass at half the price.

 

[Remington1911]

Why? I've been around a lot of them and in the CAS community and generally they are regarded as the cream of the crop of the reproduction 92s.

@Riomouse911 about covered it, the examples I have had (one ordered in special) left me.....not quite sure what 4 steps under unimpressed is, but yea about that.

The M1 carbine that was in 9mm sounded like such fun, I can't begin to tell you how poor it was, same with their 1911 22.

That has colored my view on the company as a whole....hole? Never looked at their "western" type offerings, never a desire to after seeing the examples first hand on the other stuff. Figured if I wanted a clone of something I would look elsewhere.

 

[Remington1911]

You are comparing apples to oranges which can spread bad info. I speak from first hand experience with the actual rifles. Chiappa 92s are about as close as you can get in a modern repro to an original Winchester. All steel and wood unless they have recently changed something. I don't recall a plastic part anywhere in any I've had apart.

Just to close out my thoughts on this:

In my book it is not apples and oranges. It is Fuji apple and a Golden Delicious apple. Both are apples and both are a bit different. But if you can't stand apples they are both from the same kind of tree.....an apple tree.

Chiappa has their name on the side of (IMHO) some flat horrid products, the simple fact they would release something that bad speaks volumes to me.....and trust me it was that bad. The 9mm M1 did not make it out of the store it was so poorly made. When the owner says we usually do a re stock fee on refused special orders but this time, no one in his right mind would take it....you know something is very wrong.

I have not "bought" another, and unless I lay fingers on one that knocks my socks off I doubt I will, other folks make "old west" type things and I think I am going to lean that way.

Now all that said I admit I have never had one of their western offerings, never even seen one, but I did see the sorry excuse for a 22 1911, and that 9mm M1....man that would be such a cool thing you know, how could you screw that up so badly. So perhaps they can make 100 year old designs and just now 80 year old designs, don't know, don't care. I can't suggest them based on my personal experience with products that had their name on the side of it. And that makes all of them an apple.

 

[kidneyboy]

My 1892 45colt version was excellent. Paired it with an Uberti 45colt revolver.
FWIW I have a Chiappa 22 revolver that I'm pretty happy with and the only revolver I really regret selling was a Chiappa 30ds.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I have a Chiappa 1911 22. It looked nice on Buds web site. But yeah it's cheaply built. Im glad i got the buds life time warranty with it. I used it. It wouldn't always fire. Buds fixed it. It's been reliable since the repair. If i would drop it. I fear the slide would crack. I also have 2 colt/walther 1911 22's. It's night and day in the quality.

 

[Tallinar]

I owned a Chiappa 1892 in .45 Colt for awhile. Ended up selling it because the LOP was just too short for me, and I couldn't get along with the steeply curved crescent butt plate. Other than that, was a beautiful gun and cycled well. I contemplated keeping it and doing something to customize the stock, but ultimately decided I didn't like it well enough to get that much cash invested in it. It was already quite a bit more expensive than a Rossi.

IIRC, I believe Chiappa uses leaf main springs on their 92's, while Rossi uses coil springs. The Chiappa spring was noticeably less stiff than the Rossi's I own. Who knows which will stand the test of time better.

I wouldn't discourage you from the Chiappa, but in the end, I do prefer the Rossi.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

I owned a Chiappa 1892 in .45 Colt for awhile. Ended up selling it because the LOP was just too short for me, and I couldn't get along with the steeply curved crescent butt plate. Other than that, was a beautiful gun and cycled well. I contemplated keeping it and doing something to customize the stock, but ultimately decided I didn't like it well enough to get that much cash invested in it. It was already quite a bit more expensive than a Rossi.

IIRC, I believe Chiappa uses leaf main springs on their 92's, while Rossi uses coil springs. The Chiappa spring was noticeably less stiff than the Rossi's I own. Who knows which will stand the test of time better.

I wouldn't discourage you from the Chiappa, but in the end, I do prefer the Rossi.

The Chiappa is made like an original Winchester 92, leaf type main spring, no dumb safety and gaudy stuff. Just a solid wood and steel gun. The Rossi while good rifles are generally rougher and most definitely stiffer but can be made to run very well. I've got both and been around many of both, the Chiappa is no question the better of the two if authenticity means anything and IMO smoother from the start and definitely easier to make slick as glass for competition.

As far as test of time I know of both with thousands of rounds shooting CAS and continue to run. I think you'll be hard pressed to wear either one out.

 

[Tallinar]

The Chiappa is made like an original Winchester 92, leaf type main spring, no dumb safety and gaudy stuff. Just a solid wood and steel gun. The Rossi while good rifles are generally rougher and most definitely stiffer but can be made to run very well. I've got both and been around many of both, the Chiappa is no question the better of the two if authenticity means anything and IMO smoother from the start and definitely easier to make slick as glass for competition.

As far as test of time I know of both with thousands of rounds shooting CAS and continue to run. I think you'll be hard pressed to wear either one out.

Yup, I particularly loved that the Chiappa did not have the irritating Rossi safety. I agree with your summary of the Chiappa's benefits.

 

[hawg]

Yup, I particularly loved that the Chiappa did not have the irritating Rossi safety. I agree with your summary of the Chiappa's benefits.

Mine was a pre safety. I won't have a lever gun with a safety. Not even one with a kit to take it out.

 

[Newtosavage]

You are comparing apples to oranges which can spread bad info. I speak from first hand experience with the actual rifles. Chiappa 92s are about as close as you can get in a modern repro to an original Winchester. All steel and wood unless they have recently changed something. I don't recall a plastic part anywhere in any I've had apart.

The '92 I handled was all wood and steel, and had a very tight but smooth action. Functioned like a less worn out version of my original Win '94. It was actually the way it functioned that caught my attention. I was expecting a sloppy mess or something that felt like sandpaper. I experienced neither of those things. But again, I never shot it.

I doubt I'll buy one as I just don't think it's something I'd use much. However it is always nice to find a decent quality lever gun out there. Makes me feel good that they are still being made.

 

[Newtosavage]

Okay, now this caught my attention -

May have to shoot one of these someday.