I have been shooting short range lever action silhouette a little this year and decided that my 44 mag Rossi is abit challenged in the trajectory department when loaded light.

I've seen some guys shooting 25-20's and doing very well. Running the ballistics on the 32-20 and the 25-20 there seems to be little difference between the two. I'm a bit concerned about using the 32-20 in the winchester with some of the modern loads listed in the Hornady and other manuals. Particularly if I go with a Winchester 1892.

I found a 32-20 1892 that has been D&T'd with an excellent bore but now wonder if I should go with the 25-20 or wait for a Marlin 1894CL in 32-20 to come along? I've read that the 25-20 is extrememly accurate. How will the 32-20 compare?

Thanks in advance.

I use a .357 '92 replica to shoot silhouettes. Both of the calibers you mention would be excellent for the application of shooting steel. I don't believe that there would be enough accuracy difference between them when shooting offhand.

Most .32-20 loads I've seen listed are pretty mild, but I'm not going to say that it is safe for the rifle you're talking about...I'm just not qualified for that call. I think that Marlin in .32-20 would be really sweet.

The 92 is a fairly strong design. It is very similar to a small version of the 86 Winchester.
The later version - Models 65 and 53, were chambered for the .218 Bee which is much higher pressure than the original BP loads for the .25-20 and .32-20. At one time there was a high velocity .32-20 load specifically for the Model 92. I had a box of the Remington HV loads and they warned agains using in the Model 73 Winchester.
The .32-20 case is the parent case of the .218 Bee and the .25-20.