Winchester Model 53 vs 92

[MI2600]

Could someone please explain the difference(s) between the Model 53 and the Model 92.

 

[halfmoonclip]

I'm sure a diehard Winchester guy can give you more specific answers, but a quick search shows the '53 as a modification of the '92 action. It apparently fell victim to the Depression, and Winchester discontinued it after a short run.
It appears to have been another case of a lever designed for pistol caliber-sized rounds.
The '94 looks to have taken over for both; rediscovered interest in PCC levers being something more recent.
Moon

 

[MI2600]

Thank you. I sometimes see 53s on GB and externally they appear identical to the 92s. Personally, I don't see how they could improve on the 92s.

 

[PapaG]

Weren’t they the sporter version with pistol grip Or straight stock, short magazine and chambered in 25-20, 32-20 and 44-40. Only option was stock. Round barrel at 22” I think. Shotgun butt.

 

[MI2600]

From what little I could find online, they were cambered in the '92 calibers, except for the 38-40.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Thank you. I sometimes see 53s on GB and externally they appear identical to the 92s. Personally, I don't see how they could improve on the 92s.

No argument from me. Had a '94 in .45 Colt, and the '92 is just a much smoother, handier arrangement.
Because of their relatively short production run, the 53s may command more money.
Moon

 

[PRD1]

The model 53 rifles were made with a half magazine and in rifle style only (no carbines) - some in takedown type. The last of the 92-based models were the 65's, much like the 53, but with pistol-grip stocks and (iirc) a fuller foreend, but no takedowns. There is essentially no mechanical difference among the types, with the exception of the takedown feature, only cosmetic ones (stocks, magazines, etc.).

PRD1 - mhb - MIke

 

[MI2600]

Thanks all for your "nuggets of knowledge".

 

[Charlie98]

It's sort of the same deal between the 1886 and the 71. Improved metallurgy, but the same basic receiver.

 

[eastbank]

i have both and shoot them, the 92 is not quite as trim as the 53. the 53 is lighter than a 92 and a joy to carry, while the 92 is a little heavier to me and a little steadier to shoot off hand.

 

[CraigC]

The difference is in the configuration. It's functionally an 1892 but in a lightweight sporter configuration. Same action with a rifle forend, button mag, round barrel, shotgun butt, pistol grip. Very much like the relationship between the 1886 and 71 or the 1894 and 64.

 

[Barman54]

I Picked up .
a 53 on GB 5 years ago, as it was a 25-20 that I was looking for (had the Dies).
It has a Shorter Mag (Tube), 2 less Rounds.
Has a Curved Butt Stock, everything else is like the MDL 92.

Still a Joy to shoot, something different?

My Brother had a MDL 92 in 25/20 back in the day.

Wanted a 25/20 of my own.

Thx,

Barman54
Out

 

[Rodfac]

Here's my M-65 in .25-20...some wear on it externally (safe rash), but essentially in fine condition. The action is identical to that of a M-92 but with a curved finger lever. I added the tang peep 20+ years ago making it an outstanding woodchuck rifle for walking them up along fence lines. Brass for reloading is increasingly hard to find..but easy to make from .32-20. Best regards, Rod

​

 

[Barman54]

Yours is different than mine.
Your Lever is curved, mine is not?
Your Butt Stock is Straight, mine is Curved?
I like your Peep Sight.

Still a great Soot.
Thx,
Barman54
Out

 

[Nevmavrick]

I've wanted an M92/53 since forever, but could never afford any that I've found.
Finally I took an R92 .357 and went to work...
I installed a 21" .256 WinMag barrel, cut the magazine to a "button," and straightened the butt to "shotgun" configuration.
I installed a Lyman tang-sight, because I didn't want to d&t the action for a receiver-sight. I MAY end up doing that, anyway.
Have fun, Gene

 

[eastbank]

my 53 in 44-40 with a spike buck for camp meat, load was 21.5 grs 2400 with a 200 fn jacketed bullet, at 1600 fps. load not for weak actions.