Henry .22lr - Any reason not to get one?

My VERY used 39a was built in 1954 and it still shoots VERY small groups. The last Henry I looked at had more potmetal and plastic than I prefer. I have my doubts about whether one will last long anough to get as used as my old Marlin.

They're American made and good for the price, but they're not in the same league.
Click to expand...

I was wondering how long it would take for someone with a Marlin to bring that up. Instead of arguing each point, I want you to cite ANY documented failure that could be blamed on the materials used in the construction of the rifle.

While you're at it, why don't you expound on why the new post-Remington Marlins are worth buying. In fact, let me ask you this - would you rather buy a new Marlin, or a new Henry?
 
Who said anything about a new one? Far as I'm concerned, Marlin went out of business when they closed the old factory.

Steel > Potmetal and Plastic. If you don't believe me, bang a steel hammer on a block of "magnesium alloy" and see which one breaks first. I didn't say that the Henry wasn't a good rifle (stated the opposite, in fact). I said that I'd rather buy a rifle made of superior materials used for a similar amount of money. The original post in this thread requested reasons not to buy one. In my opinion, that's a good reason. If it's not a good reason for you, than by all means enjoy whatever rifle you wish.
 
The Henry's are good dependable shooters. They are not a long term value however. Like many other 22 rifles they work just fine for the average shooters lifetime, but they just don't hold up to the test of time. While the Henry stamped 22's are fairly recent on the market, the rifle has been sold since the late 50's or 60's under a couple of different names so there is a long term track record to look at.

If I just wanted a rifle that shot well, and didn't want to spring for a better quality rifle, there is no reason not to get one. If you want a rifle that you will be proud to pass down to the grandkids, and one that will still be working 100 years from now I'd find a Marlin or Winchester.

The Marlin or Winchester will cost a lot more new, but as others have said a used one can be found within $100 of the cost of the Henry. The Henry will never be worth more than you pay for it, depreciating in value over time. A used Marlin will continue to appreciate in value and 10 years from now a good Marlin or Winchester will prove to be less expensive in the long run.
 
i have the golden boy in .22mag and just love it. the only downside for me is the cost of .22mag ammo it keeps me from shooting it as much as i would like.
 
The Henry's are good dependable shooters. They are not a long term value however. Like many other 22 rifles they work just fine for the average shooters lifetime, but they just don't hold up to the test of time.
Click to expand...

I guess that remains to be seen, doesn't it. They've been making these rifles for almost 20 years now. You'd think that we would start hearing about how they "don't hold up" by now, or are you thinkin' we should wait another 20 years and re-evaluate the question...

If I just wanted a rifle that shot well, and didn't want to spring for a better quality rifle, there is no reason not to get one. If you want a rifle that you will be proud to pass down to the grandkids, and one that will still be working 100 years from now I'd find a Marlin or Winchester.
Click to expand...

Wow, I could almost imagine you spitting when you said that. I think I hear banjos...

The Marlin or Winchester will cost a lot more new
Click to expand...

I think you meant to say that they *do* cost a lot more new. On the other hand - and this is direct from existing Marlin enthusiasts, the new Remington-made Marlins ain't worth spit. Would you still be proud to hand down one of those?

Personally, I'm happy that you like your Marlin, but it sounds to me like you've never owned a Henry or fired more than a handful of rounds from one. Mine's five years old and has 12k rounds of experience, and it's never had a failure that couldn't be blamed on the occasional squib round.

Instead of claiming an as yet to be experienced longevity problem, or assuming the value of a 50-year old Henry is gonna be less that what it cost new, why don't we all just kick back, shoot the hell outa our rifle(s) of choice, and wait and see what happens? Doing otherwise is just plain pretentious.
 
Last edited:
i have a henry 22, the short one with the large loop lever. it is remarkably accurate and fun to use. i am aching to get one of the blued 22 mag lever actions next chance i get.
 
It wont last the test of time..... So how much time are we talkin hoss? I have put 500 rounds a trip through mine MINIMUM each trip to the field. Heck, I would be willing to bet my 2nd ammendment rights that it will outlive me. I have 2, the exact same ones. I just liked one so much that I felt my wife needed one. 31,500 rounds through mine to date. Thats 63 blocks of 22lr. Just clean it nicely, and dont use it as a paddle, fire poker, or any obserd thing like that... Sorry for the rant but they are GREAT guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top