Okay, it's a dumb question, but it's one I've thought about. On the one hand, we have the 94, designed for rifle cartridges, but the lever action is a little unwieldy, not all that smooth since the bottom of the receiver drops out before anything happens. On the other hand, we have the 1892, smooth as silk to work the lever. It was designed for pistol rounds, but modern incarnations will handle these rounds in a magnum load which equal the power of the 3030. Both guns look great, the 1892 perhaps a little more classic.

So which is the superior gun? My vote is the 1892, but I own both, and like both. Would like to hear some other views.

The model 92 was not designed around pistol cartridges. The 32WCF, 38WCF, and 44WCF are RIFLE cartridges that were later chambered in handguns and other rifles.

I don't find the 94 to be any less smooth than a 92, just different. They sound different, feel different and look different.
The handgun caliber versions made since the early 80s, have a modified action for a shorter lever throw. It feels like it is very close to the 92.

I have both a USRAC 94AE Trapper, and a Rossi 92 in .45 Colt, and the USRAC 94 wins hands down on smoothness, reliability, and versatility as far as I'm concerned.
It will feed overlength rounds a 92 will choke on. My Rossi 92 is modified to handle longer rounds but it still will not function with rounds as long as the unaltered USRAC 94 will take.

The 92s and 94s are totally different designs. Each with it's own good and not so good features. Neither is superior to the other, WHEN used as they were originally designed.

I think both have lost a lot of their original reliability and character in recent years. Being chambered for handgun rounds in addition to the original rifle rounds is a mixed blessing.

Joe

I guess the king fish would be the 1886. It has the same design of the 92, but much bigger. And it shoots much larger than 30-30 ammo. Never know when you might need a 50-110? Isnt compromise grand?

Bill

I only have a late 80's M94 and a early 1900's M92 to judge by, but I'll take the M92 based on what I know..based on what I have.

No doubt either will get the job done and there are plenty of either in use. I also believe that it is commonly accepted that the '92 action is stronger than the '94 action. John Browning designed the '92 for shorter "pistol-length" cartridges and it seems to excel at the task. Either design can be slicked up. I don't have a '94 but my Browning B-92 in .357 magnum (Miroku-made) is a superb, very fine quality lever rifle. They're not inexpensive, but they're very nice!

As popular as the '94 seems to be for .30-.30, among the Cowboy shooters (where pistol-caliber lever rifles are used continuously and heavily) the '94s are few and far between as compared to the Marlin 1894's or the Winchester or Rossi '92s.

The 94's I've felt have seemed to require a much heavier stroking effort than '92's or Marlin 1894's... but whether that is universal, I don't know.

And for what it's worth, you won't find any of the top echelon of Cowboy shooters with a Winchester '94. Most of them tend to shoot '73's, '92's and Marlin '94's. And I'm pretty sure it's because the actions can be made both quicker and lighter on those rifle designs.