Model12Win
Moderator
I saw a commercial about the Henrys on TV how they were made in the USA. Had that Italian owner man on there. I thought boy what a gun.
Guys buy American. Buy a Henry.
Guys buy American. Buy a Henry.
Best new lever action in .22lr?
- Thread starter moodorf
- Start date
The Henry is still better than the Marlin.Ill admit to a preference for steel and walnut; but I've had so many good alloy framed 22 auto rifles it's not a make or break deal with me. The single 'zamak' Henry 22 we have has been with us two years and it's an excellent rifle in very way. Their brass finish, by the way, has proved far more resilient than I expected it to be.
Tube loading on centerfire lever actions is another matter entirely and so far, one I haven't been able to resign myself to.
Tube loading on centerfire lever actions is another matter entirely and so far, one I haven't been able to resign myself to.
Model12Win
Moderator
Ah geez about the Zamak already,
GET OVER IT.
Henry has been making guns from that material for years with great results. It's just FINE for a lever gun.
GET OVER IT.
Henry has been making guns from that material for years with great results. It's just FINE for a lever gun.
Guv,
You obviously have a problem with the Henry.
Go put 28,000 rounds through one & I'll consider you qualified to discuss the materials used with me, in the way HENRY uses them.
Until then, your prejudice is just that.
Equally, put 28,000 rounds through one of those Lorcins that you mention, and we can discuss your results there, too.
The purpose of not cleaning the test sample was to create a worst-case abusive run & see what wore out, what broke, and in general how it performed under very harsh conditions.
If it held up as well as it did through 22,000 rounds without cleaning, firing extended strings until it got too hot to handle with a bare hand, and only broke one STEEL spring at 26,000, while continuing to function for another 2000, it might be possible to conjecture that it could very easily outlast an original owner who took better care & maintenance with it.
The gun was not babied, it was deliberately exposed to harsher conditions than it ever would be by anybody who bought one for personal use.
If you don't like the Henry products, stick with whatever you do like.
The whole purpose behind my endurance run was to show people like you that these guns do hold up.
Talk to me again after you've spent 30 hours running one as hard & fast as you could.
In the meantime, your opinion is useless.
I've DONE it. Have you?
Denis
You obviously have a problem with the Henry.
Go put 28,000 rounds through one & I'll consider you qualified to discuss the materials used with me, in the way HENRY uses them.
Until then, your prejudice is just that.
Equally, put 28,000 rounds through one of those Lorcins that you mention, and we can discuss your results there, too.
The purpose of not cleaning the test sample was to create a worst-case abusive run & see what wore out, what broke, and in general how it performed under very harsh conditions.
If it held up as well as it did through 22,000 rounds without cleaning, firing extended strings until it got too hot to handle with a bare hand, and only broke one STEEL spring at 26,000, while continuing to function for another 2000, it might be possible to conjecture that it could very easily outlast an original owner who took better care & maintenance with it.
The gun was not babied, it was deliberately exposed to harsher conditions than it ever would be by anybody who bought one for personal use.
If you don't like the Henry products, stick with whatever you do like.
The whole purpose behind my endurance run was to show people like you that these guns do hold up.
Talk to me again after you've spent 30 hours running one as hard & fast as you could.
In the meantime, your opinion is useless.
I've DONE it. Have you?
Denis
Denis,
I don't have a problem with Henry but I do have a problem with someone telling me a gun made to a price point is the equal of a True American classic.
The 39 Marlin is a product of a different era, machining a receiver to accept a threaded barrel is pretty special for a 22, don't you think?
I have no doubt the Henry is durable, so is a Marlin 60, Ruger 22 and many others. Are they the equal of a Blued Walnut 77/22, 9422 or a 39 Marlin, not in my book.
I work at least 50 hours a week, with my hands. I don't foresee having enough time to waste in the near future to shoot any of my 22's as much as you say I need to, to speak of them intelligently.
Oh well.
I don't have a problem with Henry but I do have a problem with someone telling me a gun made to a price point is the equal of a True American classic.
The 39 Marlin is a product of a different era, machining a receiver to accept a threaded barrel is pretty special for a 22, don't you think?
I have no doubt the Henry is durable, so is a Marlin 60, Ruger 22 and many others. Are they the equal of a Blued Walnut 77/22, 9422 or a 39 Marlin, not in my book.
I work at least 50 hours a week, with my hands. I don't foresee having enough time to waste in the near future to shoot any of my 22's as much as you say I need to, to speak of them intelligently.
Oh well.
I bought the basic H001 Henry a few years ago at Walmart for just under $300 (and they have gone down a little). It is the slickest and smoothest gun I have. I would not hesitate to buy it again. I have offered it to my grandson if he becomes an Eagle Scout. He is getting close and I might replace it with a Golden Boy from Walmart ($399). I don't see how it could possible be any smoother and be more reliable.
I refer to the Henry, specifically.
The fact that you've never seen a Zamak piston in 35 years as a mechanic means exactly nothing in this context and has zero relevance.
Appropriate design for the material application is the key. In other words- context.
The machine that Henry uses to produce the alloy receiver & cover cost the company $600,000 when they bought it, state of the art.
I seriously doubt that any of the throw-away pistol makers you cited paid more than a fraction of that cost for their entire operation.
Regardless, you are forming an erroneous opinion based on emotion, and what you THINK you know about the properties of the material that Henry uses.
You know nothing about the engineering that goes into those two parts.
You've never discussed them with a plant manager.
You had no idea (till now) that Henry engineers an additional 1.5 safety factor into them beyond what their calculations indicate the guns require.
Did you know that Henry sources components for the Golden Boy from 8 different states?
I think they do a helluva job in mating all those together.
Not in the same class as a Marlin?
You've run a Marlin to 28,000 rounds?
You've bought spare parts from Marlin & gotten them inside a week?
You've gotten free parts from Marlin's service department, when you didn't even expect them to be free?
You've gotten emails returned directly from Marlin's president?
You've got a Marlin that runs as smoothly as a Henry?
Marlin will sell you two different stock lengths for a 39 Golden like Henry will for a Golden Boy?
Marlin will sell you a factory-made over-sized loop lever for glove use?
You can break a Marlin down & replace drop-in parts in 20 minutes on the kitchen table, with no fitting?
Marlin offers you alternative sights?
Marlin offers you a choice of round or octagon barrels?
Marlin offers you more than one barrel length?
Marlin offers you a range of features & models from entry level on up to collector level?
Marlin offers you tribute editions?
Marlin donates hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of cash & products to charity, veterans' recognition, and the shooting sports in general every year?
Yeah- one thing we can agree on: They are not in the same class.
Elsewhere & otherwise, the Henry has the traditional profile of a classic levergun, it functions exactly like a classic levergun, it's very accurate, it's very reliable, you load it the same way as the Marlin, it's the smoothest rimfire levergun on the market, it does everything a classic levergun does, it's just not built the same way.
And that alloy that people like you, Guv, can't bring yourself to get past, very simply holds up.
If you don't like the looks of the Henrys, don't buy 'em.
If you absolutely have to have a design originating with the machining methods of over a century ago, don't buy one.
Ruger went through decades of the same nonsense when they started producing quality guns with (gasp!) CAST parts.
Took a long time, but Ruger's alternative methods that "everybody knew were inferior" are no longer considered radical, just a different approach that functions every bit as well as the "classic" forged guns that preceded them.
I'm just quite tired of this BS about that Zamac from people who won't put their money where their mouth is, and sit back in front of a nice comfy keyboard spouting more of the same old BS about how "cheap" it is, and how "inferior" it has to be, in their minds.
That's why I did this project.
To see how well a hard-used Henry would survive through more rounds in 90 days than most would put through one in a lifetime.
Guv, equality means different things to different people.
And merely because you don't like the way the Henry's built in no way makes it less "equal" to a design originating in the days of steam power & hand files.
If it has the looks, offers the function, shoots as well (or better), loads the same, and runs slicker, it's the equal in every important way but nostalgia.
You don't like the Henry, fine.
Could not care less if you buy one or go to your grave never having soiled your hands by touching one.
I just say that till you've done what I've done, don't be trying to equate a Henry to a Lorcin, and don't be trying to tell me the Zamak can't hold up.
Denis
The fact that you've never seen a Zamak piston in 35 years as a mechanic means exactly nothing in this context and has zero relevance.
Appropriate design for the material application is the key. In other words- context.
The machine that Henry uses to produce the alloy receiver & cover cost the company $600,000 when they bought it, state of the art.
I seriously doubt that any of the throw-away pistol makers you cited paid more than a fraction of that cost for their entire operation.
Regardless, you are forming an erroneous opinion based on emotion, and what you THINK you know about the properties of the material that Henry uses.
You know nothing about the engineering that goes into those two parts.
You've never discussed them with a plant manager.
You had no idea (till now) that Henry engineers an additional 1.5 safety factor into them beyond what their calculations indicate the guns require.
Did you know that Henry sources components for the Golden Boy from 8 different states?
I think they do a helluva job in mating all those together.
Not in the same class as a Marlin?
You've run a Marlin to 28,000 rounds?
You've bought spare parts from Marlin & gotten them inside a week?
You've gotten free parts from Marlin's service department, when you didn't even expect them to be free?
You've gotten emails returned directly from Marlin's president?
You've got a Marlin that runs as smoothly as a Henry?
Marlin will sell you two different stock lengths for a 39 Golden like Henry will for a Golden Boy?
Marlin will sell you a factory-made over-sized loop lever for glove use?
You can break a Marlin down & replace drop-in parts in 20 minutes on the kitchen table, with no fitting?
Marlin offers you alternative sights?
Marlin offers you a choice of round or octagon barrels?
Marlin offers you more than one barrel length?
Marlin offers you a range of features & models from entry level on up to collector level?
Marlin offers you tribute editions?
Marlin donates hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of cash & products to charity, veterans' recognition, and the shooting sports in general every year?
Yeah- one thing we can agree on: They are not in the same class.
Elsewhere & otherwise, the Henry has the traditional profile of a classic levergun, it functions exactly like a classic levergun, it's very accurate, it's very reliable, you load it the same way as the Marlin, it's the smoothest rimfire levergun on the market, it does everything a classic levergun does, it's just not built the same way.
And that alloy that people like you, Guv, can't bring yourself to get past, very simply holds up.
If you don't like the looks of the Henrys, don't buy 'em.
If you absolutely have to have a design originating with the machining methods of over a century ago, don't buy one.
Ruger went through decades of the same nonsense when they started producing quality guns with (gasp!) CAST parts.
Took a long time, but Ruger's alternative methods that "everybody knew were inferior" are no longer considered radical, just a different approach that functions every bit as well as the "classic" forged guns that preceded them.
I'm just quite tired of this BS about that Zamac from people who won't put their money where their mouth is, and sit back in front of a nice comfy keyboard spouting more of the same old BS about how "cheap" it is, and how "inferior" it has to be, in their minds.
That's why I did this project.
To see how well a hard-used Henry would survive through more rounds in 90 days than most would put through one in a lifetime.
Guv, equality means different things to different people.
And merely because you don't like the way the Henry's built in no way makes it less "equal" to a design originating in the days of steam power & hand files.
If it has the looks, offers the function, shoots as well (or better), loads the same, and runs slicker, it's the equal in every important way but nostalgia.
You don't like the Henry, fine.
Could not care less if you buy one or go to your grave never having soiled your hands by touching one.
I just say that till you've done what I've done, don't be trying to equate a Henry to a Lorcin, and don't be trying to tell me the Zamak can't hold up.
Denis
FrankenMauser
New member
Generalities will get you nowhere.
Remember, many of us, even if we don't mention the details, have experience on many firearms.
I, for example, said previously that I would buy a Browning in the 'new' category, or a Marlin for a used rifle.
That doesn't mean that I haven't seen, touched, or fired a Henry.
I have experience with all of them, and do own a Henry H001.
If in the market for another (or "first") .22 LR lever action rifle, I'd still be looking for a good Marlin 39/39A.
It doesn't mean that the Henry is a bad rifle, or that it comes from a 'bad' company (it doesn't). But...
Henry H001s are consumer goods. They're not built to last, and the major components are not repairable.
Marlins are durable goods. They were built to last, and be repairable.
My Henry might be enjoyable for 20 years.
My Marlin will be enjoyed for another century.
That is random input from a possible buyer. No experience. I am interested in the Henry and a two features that appeal to me:
1. Available in 22mag and for me its 22mag or nothing in a lever.
2. They offer models like, "Henry Small Game" with a clean barrel, no rear sight. That gun has a receiver peep which can be replaced with a Marbles tang. The front can be drifted out and replaced with a globe. And a proper stock, without excessive drop.
EDIT: I just looked at couple Henries and the tang is not drilled an tapped for a sight. Not quite the advantage I though.
The alternatives. Marlin 39a was not a 22mag, or I never saw one. The Winchester 9422 will not easily take a front globe and the tang is not drill & tap for a sight. That is if I could even find a good one for fair price.
I will speculate, if BACO, re-introduces a Japanese 9422 it will be close to $1000 gun. I dont think I need one that bad.
I wish I new more about the accuracy of the top guns recommended here. I mean actual (group size) results with ammo and distance stated. Are they all that bad?
1. Available in 22mag and for me its 22mag or nothing in a lever.
2. They offer models like, "Henry Small Game" with a clean barrel, no rear sight. That gun has a receiver peep which can be replaced with a Marbles tang. The front can be drifted out and replaced with a globe. And a proper stock, without excessive drop.
EDIT: I just looked at couple Henries and the tang is not drilled an tapped for a sight. Not quite the advantage I though.
The alternatives. Marlin 39a was not a 22mag, or I never saw one. The Winchester 9422 will not easily take a front globe and the tang is not drill & tap for a sight. That is if I could even find a good one for fair price.
I will speculate, if BACO, re-introduces a Japanese 9422 it will be close to $1000 gun. I dont think I need one that bad.
I wish I new more about the accuracy of the top guns recommended here. I mean actual (group size) results with ammo and distance stated. Are they all that bad?
Last edited:
ok wow, so much information here.....
I was going to mention, I'm not shortsighted enough to not be interested in any used firearms or anything, I just figured that since many .22lr caliber rifles are on the cheaper side even when bought new, it would be a good place to start.
But I did look into some older used .22lrs and a quite a few other ones in different actions interested me.
Remington Nylon 66
Remington 12A
Winchester 1890
Browning Semi-Auto 22 (sa22)
Winchester model 74
Anyone got any opinions on these? thanks
I was going to mention, I'm not shortsighted enough to not be interested in any used firearms or anything, I just figured that since many .22lr caliber rifles are on the cheaper side even when bought new, it would be a good place to start.
But I did look into some older used .22lrs and a quite a few other ones in different actions interested me.
Remington Nylon 66
Remington 12A
Winchester 1890
Browning Semi-Auto 22 (sa22)
Winchester model 74
Anyone got any opinions on these? thanks
I've always liked the old 22" long-tube Marlin/Glenfield 60's but I somehow managed to make it to middle age without one. They are around, but current Model 60 innards are not interchangeable. So I bought two, put the best parts together as my keeper gun and sold off most of the spare- excepting receiver parts, sights and the inner magazine tube. That was pretty painless, but it would be expensive to do with old Ballard rifled 39's or 9422's.
The Uberti Silver Boy has recently caught my eye... nicely stocked and finished but the fixed rear sight annoys me. I install flat top sights on every rifle I own and if there's no 3/8 dovetail front and rear, it's a no-go.
If we are going to open things up to 47's and etc...
I own both the Ruger American Rimfire and CZ 452 rimfire. These are both reliable and accurate bolt action rifles. Excellent value both. The CZ is more hi class walnut stock, old school action. The Ruger has plastic stock but is priced accordingly and a great gun. IMHO.
You dont need to ask opinions on either of these if either one suits your fancy go for it. You wont need parts. Of course any gun might have an issue old or new. You wont be done until you test fire and verify function and accuracy.
A good bolt is best matched up to a good scope. That adds to the cost. Either gun can be purchased with open sights for starters.
I own both the Ruger American Rimfire and CZ 452 rimfire. These are both reliable and accurate bolt action rifles. Excellent value both. The CZ is more hi class walnut stock, old school action. The Ruger has plastic stock but is priced accordingly and a great gun. IMHO.
You dont need to ask opinions on either of these if either one suits your fancy go for it. You wont need parts. Of course any gun might have an issue old or new. You wont be done until you test fire and verify function and accuracy.
A good bolt is best matched up to a good scope. That adds to the cost. Either gun can be purchased with open sights for starters.