Henry Golden Boy or Browning BL-22

6MT said:
I would sell my soul for a 9422m.
Click to expand...

:D Father gave it to me, he paid $100 for it.
IMG_0909_zpsaaae4574.jpg
 
People seem to be confusing Quality with Functionality and Preference. The gun that uses the better quality materials, machining, and finishes is the better quality gun which in this case would be the browning, But that doesn't mean it will be your favorite try them both I'd suggest trying a 94-22 and a marlin too . Everyone seems to love their Henry's and I have to say after handling one the action is nice and smooth but after reading that the action is made of zamak I'd have to pass. I'm a machinist and have worked with this material, its tougher than plain zink but it is what it is, a cheap pot metal made to mass produce cast parts. But I love my 10/22 that has a cheap cast aluminum receiver so to each his own.
 
hoytcanon said:
Confused
Click to expand...

And that's what I meant by the hype and hand wringing by non owners.

Yes the receiver and some internal parts are cast alloy. But part of "good engineering" is picking materials that do the job. The steel used for some of our guns that folks revere would be considered poor choices for other items. It's all about picking the right stuff for the job.

The plain and simple fact is that Henry rifles have shown themselves to last over the long haul. Is it bad engineering and quality if the parts function well over many 10's of thousands of cycles to where they can easily be handed down to one's children and then on to their children? Near as I can tell the Henrys I've got will last as long as an all steel gun provided I don't trip and fall on it. And steel guns won't take that sort of abuse either. Hoytcanon's 25K rounds is just more proof that the Zamac used by Henry is a complete non-issue.

Look around on various sites and do searches for Henry problems. All I've ever found is reports of excellent service from Henry and precious few cases of broken or worn cast Zamac parts. In fact the lack of such reports over Zamac, or whatever trade name of the alloy they use, is why I got my first Henry.

I've been a life long hobby machinist as well. At first the idea of the cast alloy put me off. But after opening up the rifle and seeing virtually no wear at all after something over 5500 rounds through it I feel that through luck or good engineering that Henry hit the nail on the head. I will not wear out this rifle in my lifetime and I strongly suspect it'll still be going when the next owner is too old to shoot it. And in my books that is quality enough for me.

The fact that my basic H001 has proven to be very consistently accurate doesn't hurt either. It won't win any bench rest competitions but it consistently makes me think I'm a more lucky or better shooter than I usually appear to be. Can one ask for more?
 
Thanks for the clarification... I agree completely... As a matter of fact, I will go one step further... I believe that the Zamac receiver is responsible for the buttery smooth action... which is noticeably smoother than my Winchester's, Browning's or Marlin.
 
Hoyt, I was really aiming my post more at others than you. Given your ownership and long time use and high round count on your Henrys you're clearly already one of the folks that understands.
 
BCRider said:
Hoyt, I was really aiming my post more at others than you. Given your ownership and long time use and high round count on your Henrys you're clearly already one of the folks that understands.
Click to expand...

I was thanking you for the clarification on behalf of others reading the thread... the Henry detractors always bring up the pot metal, but can't point to any actual problems... IME they have been excellent firearms.
 
I actually returned a new BL-22 field grade 1 to my LGS today. I had brought it home, cleaned the grease of it and it had numerous tool marks, a dent in the butt stock and a loose forend. The LGS was very good about it, pulled another out from the back and it was perfect, so we did a straight exchange. They told me it was pretty common to get duds from all manufacturers.

I hope to shoot it shortly, but right now I am on this fence between the two. Maybe I should have saved myself the 250+ dollars.
 
To my eye the Henry is Fugly, it looks like it was designed by someone who had never seen a lever action. The BL-22 is pretty nice, I had a grade 2 for several years. The Winchester-USRAC 9422 are an order of magnitude better than a Henry. I prefer the original un-checkered Winchester marked 94-22. I have one in .22 LR that has 100% feather -flame grain in the stock.

The BL-22 has an Aluminum reciever-frame, if the Henry has a Zamak frame maybe Atlas lathes makes them?
 
I used to have a 1981 BL-22 and a new Frontier. No longer have either but only regret selling the BL-22. The Henry looked nicer with the octagonal bull barrel and buckhorn sights but the Browning was the better built firearm. Plus with it being so much lighter and smaller, it was easier to pack around.
 
bandicoot said:
... Browning was the better built firearm. Plus with it being so much lighter and smaller, it was easier to pack around.
Click to expand...

If you want small and light, get the Browning... if you want a smooth, shooting gun with "real" lever rifle feel, get the Henry Frontier.
 
Ive shot both rifles extensively while doing some old fashioned ground squirel hunting.

Both have good points, the BLR has a awesome short throw that really feels just like opening and closing your fist. The rifle is light and has a very fast action.

Henry has the better accuracy (marginal), better balanced, cool octagonal barrel, rifle is heavy for a .22, and very pretty.

Neither have EVER jammed on me as long as you know how to work a lever gun, and both goble up any rounds you put in them no exceptions.

Both guns are fantastic and the choice is personal preference. The BLR is more exspenive and dose come in different grades i beleive.

That being said i just purchased a Henry golden Boy in .22 LR/L/S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom