Lever guns (the oddities aside) do tend to be a PITA to load, and to clean for that matter. My Winchester 9422 was no exception, so I sold it. The 9622s are mag-fed levers and supposedly excellent guns, but have not been manufactured in a while so demand is high. (=$$$)
anyone know of a rifle like this?
- Thread starter triple tap
- Start date
mags are a pain to carry. I pocket full of loose rounds is easier and cheaperthen I don't have to top up mags or try and figure out how much is left in a mag... my problem is the exact same as what shotgun guys face in a competition, its eaiser to load up a few rounds when moving to the next stage than fiddling around with mags...
If you can load a shotgun tube that fast, you should have no problem replacing a magazine even faster. Mags are easy to carry and always oriented the right way when you use a pouch. There isn't a lever gun out there that can keep up with a mag fed auto.
Just because a manufacturer offers tube fed doesn't mean its still an equal let alone superior. They offer what sells regardless of practicality or logic.
TDC
interesting turn around...
You've changed from "replaced" to "what the market will bear".
Whatever...You don't have to like tubes (you have my permission to rock on), but don't be so silly as to assert they've been replaced when they haven't, nor get confused between opinion vs. fact (see above).
Did you find a tube fed, receiver loading gem for OP, or are your opinions so important as to get pushed second time? You might do well to show pics of your old Colt or Marlin...I can only wish for one.
From a PRACTICAL AND LOGICAL standpoint the tube magazine is an outdated dinosaur. Mag fed firearms trump all others when it comes to reloading, unloading, and capacity. If the market as in the general public wish to purchase outdated junk then why would a manufacturer not offer it? Walmart excels at selling cheap sh*t because people are dumb and base their purchase decisions on cost and cost alone. Same deal for the dollar stores you see.
Compare the attributes of a tube magazine to a detachable box magazine and the winner is clear. I could list the pros and cons for each if you're struggling to see the light. Feel free to use outdated equipment, its your money..
TDC
Lot of misinformation here...
The century+ old small bore rimfire gate loading guns were discontinued due to bullet damage... .22 rimfire ammunition does not possess the structural integrity to handle the lateral pressure of the loading gate without deformation of the bullet in the case... for the OP... go to a local archery shop and ask if you might have some broken 2514 arrows... or buy a couple. Cut them to length so that they hold a full mag load... cap one end and use a shaved wooden plug (easily removable) on the other end... you can make a half a dozen of these for a few buck or possibly for free... you can load your gun in seconds... I have made many of these for loading my Henry rimfires and other rimfire lever actions.
The century+ old small bore rimfire gate loading guns were discontinued due to bullet damage... .22 rimfire ammunition does not possess the structural integrity to handle the lateral pressure of the loading gate without deformation of the bullet in the case... for the OP... go to a local archery shop and ask if you might have some broken 2514 arrows... or buy a couple. Cut them to length so that they hold a full mag load... cap one end and use a shaved wooden plug (easily removable) on the other end... you can make a half a dozen of these for a few buck or possibly for free... you can load your gun in seconds... I have made many of these for loading my Henry rimfires and other rimfire lever actions.
I don't question your opinion on the matter(for the 3rd time). As I stated earlier, to assert something is replaced, when clearly it has not is just plain silly. To continue to do so in the face of contrary evidence seems more like dogged determination to be obtuse. I'll also reiterate that I have owned, and do own both. I have never referred to any of them as "equipment" though...
So what lever actions do/have you own/ed? Have you ever had equipment/gear in rimfire that comes close to what OP inquired about?
Speed loaders for tubes are great. No blackened thumbs, and can be used with gloves easily. Cost effective too.
The vast majority of rifles in rimfire are either semi or bolt action. Lever guns and tube fed are far from popular offerings. The OP stated his issues(which are common) with tube magazines which clearly shows how outdated and inefficient the system really is. Again, companies offer these designs because there are those who wish to run outdated junk. Companies are for profit and sell what people wish to buy, its key to making money.
Firearms are indeed equipment, if you actually have a purpose in mind as opposed to "collecting" them. I for one don't own any lever action guns because I don't ride a horse to and from, nor do I have a wood stove in my house. I've evolved along with the design of firearms. I have no use for outdated obsolete junk that bring more negatives than positives to the table. As mentioned above, the OP illustrated some very common problems with tube fed guns, which logically should lead one to select a better operating system, like a mag fed auto. If you want to run something historical or for nostalgic purposes so be it, but be prepared to take the negatives that come with it.
1.Anything kept, furnished, or provided for a specific purpose.
2.
the act of equipping a person or thing.
3.
the state of being equipped.
4.
the personal knowledge and skill required for a task, occupation, etc.:
He has the necessary equipment for law.
5.
the rolling stock of a railroad.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equipment?s=t
TDC
So being "practical, and logical"; Tube fed .22's are Dinosaur Junk? OP states his Henry is his favourite to shoot, and your best guess is it should be replaced with a box fed, semi auto, so they'll be better "equipped"? What's he supposed to do with his Horse? Of course no confusing opinions with facts here.
There are no box feeding Henry's, and they are most certainly not Dinosaur junk because of it. No horse required (no matter how high you ride 'em). They are fine little gems. I'm sure a mall would be equally safe if in the capable hands of an operator equipped with such gear, as the upgrades you suggest.
There are no box feeding Henry's, and they are most certainly not Dinosaur junk because of it. No horse required (no matter how high you ride 'em). They are fine little gems. I'm sure a mall would be equally safe if in the capable hands of an operator equipped with such gear, as the upgrades you suggest.
You figured it out. Lever guns are outdated and yes, impractical if you're interested in an accurate, easily/rapid to load system. Someones "favorite" is a personal choice, not a factual statement. Autos trump lever guns, hence their popularity and issuance to all respectable militaries and Le agencies. I have never seen an issued lever gun have you? That is issued in the last 40 years.
Tdc
It was with incredulity I inquired, and with pity I respond...
You've shared your opinion on a style...continuously. It doesn't matter how often you suggest something, you're still mistaken. Confusing opinions with facts, with a dogged determination to continue. You seem to believe a box mag is vastly superior, prove it. Surppass the 'ol Nylon 66 test with any box fed rimfire you choose. (you can use three identical to be fair), otherwise you're spewing opinion regardless of it's foundation. I can certainly load a tube faster than it's equivalent box magazine. I can't drive with a tube full, but the OP didn't inquire about that.
I have seen an issued lever gun. What a military gets issued has less to do with rimfire enjoyment than the shoes I wear, but for the record: the only issued rimfire I have owned was a single shot.
Are you implying that you can shoot and reload a 66 or a lever faster than a 10/22 or 597? Hahahaha, ok. I would like to see the world you live in.
Detachable box magazine fed guns (dbm for short) offer many advantages. You can change barrel length without issue where as a tube fed(tf for short) firearm is incapable. For those who can read and wish to know their gear. A barrel longer than 16" is useless and unnecessary, but I'm sure you knew that. Bringing a dbm rifle to bear from the truck(where and when legal to do so) is much faster than a tf gun due to the ease at which you can immediately insert 10-110 rounds.
Magazine fails on a dbm gun, you toss it and use another. Magazine tube or spring gets damaged on a tf gun, you're f@@ked. Is this making sense now?
Tdc
Last edited:
Bartender/ I'll have what he's having, but make it a single.
What I'm implying is you cannot match, much less beat a benchmark made 50 years ago...by a tube fed rifle. I would happily fill a tube magazine faster than you can fill a box of equivalent size. For those that can read, they'll see you're working from an incredibly limited perspective, and going tangential with introducing barrel lengths. You are welcome to praise the mighty box magazine over, and, over, and over, and over. You don't have much else to offer. I don't deny your preferences, I'm just not so limited as to believe they mean anything.
The original assertion that one style has replaced another, is just plain wrong. All your blather to the contrary is based on your preference.... Referring to time tested, and appreciated designs as junk makes it hard to take anything you try to share seriously. I mentioned a benchmark of performance that was set decades ago buy a "dinosaur". Validate your opinions...beat the 66. It would be easier to keep posting your opinion (as silly as they seem) skipping record style, and you've certainly demonstrated an aptitude for that. Put your foolishness where your mouth is, and prove it.
EDIT:
added on, I had suggested 3 identical rifles, but the original test used 2:
"In 1959, over a period of 14 days, Remington's exhibition shooter Tom Frye shot at 100,010 wood blocks thrown into the air, using two Model 66s. He hit all but six and had no malfunctions."
Obviously an operator not using "dinosaur junk" will have no issues besting this. My experience guarantees it can't be beaten with the box magazine version the 77, but you have your own preference(made abundantly clear multiple times), so use your own equipment, and use 3 of them...
What I'm implying is you cannot match, much less beat a benchmark made 50 years ago...by a tube fed rifle. I would happily fill a tube magazine faster than you can fill a box of equivalent size. For those that can read, they'll see you're working from an incredibly limited perspective, and going tangential with introducing barrel lengths. You are welcome to praise the mighty box magazine over, and, over, and over, and over. You don't have much else to offer. I don't deny your preferences, I'm just not so limited as to believe they mean anything.
The original assertion that one style has replaced another, is just plain wrong. All your blather to the contrary is based on your preference.... Referring to time tested, and appreciated designs as junk makes it hard to take anything you try to share seriously. I mentioned a benchmark of performance that was set decades ago buy a "dinosaur". Validate your opinions...beat the 66. It would be easier to keep posting your opinion (as silly as they seem) skipping record style, and you've certainly demonstrated an aptitude for that. Put your foolishness where your mouth is, and prove it.
EDIT:
added on, I had suggested 3 identical rifles, but the original test used 2:
"In 1959, over a period of 14 days, Remington's exhibition shooter Tom Frye shot at 100,010 wood blocks thrown into the air, using two Model 66s. He hit all but six and had no malfunctions."
Obviously an operator not using "dinosaur junk" will have no issues besting this. My experience guarantees it can't be beaten with the box magazine version the 77, but you have your own preference(made abundantly clear multiple times), so use your own equipment, and use 3 of them...
Last edited:
If box magazines are so superior, then why do all repeating shotguns have tubular magazines? There are only a couple box magazine shotguns one is made in China, the other Russia (Saiga). No US or European manufacturer makes one, except for a couple bolt action shotguns intended for slugs.
The reality is that for high capacity hunting use, a tubular magazine is far superior to a high capacity box magazine. Box magazines protrude way below the bottom of the rifle and catch on brush and things and they don't allow a gun to lie flat on a surface.
Try putting a rifle with a high capacity box magazine into a scabbard.
The reality is that for high capacity hunting use, a tubular magazine is far superior to a high capacity box magazine. Box magazines protrude way below the bottom of the rifle and catch on brush and things and they don't allow a gun to lie flat on a surface.
Try putting a rifle with a high capacity box magazine into a scabbard.
Last edited:
My head is spinning... I'd have to agree with camster though, and, question why speed-of-loading appears to be such a hang-up for TDC? I personally never liked how my 9422 had to be loaded whether I was standing/sitting...so it's part of the reason I moved away from it. (picture that long, brass, rod having to be slid-out so far, or, completely removed) Since I didn't have to defend myself against the soup cans that I was shooting at, it wasn't that huge a deal though. I disliked how dirty it got (as mentioned previously) and how lack-luster the accuracy was compared to even a modestly-priced bolt gun. Carrying a handful of .22-charged aluminum arrows around doesn't sound like that much fun, but, all 22s need 1 round loaded at a time, whether you do that with a speed loader, a box mag, a tube mag..whatever.
I'd have to agree with camster though, and, question why speed-of-loading appears to be such a hang-up for TDC? I personally never liked how my 9422 had to be loaded whether I was standing/sitting...so it's part of the reason I moved away from it. (picture that long, brass, rod having to be slid-out so far, or, completely removed) Since I didn't have to defend myself against the soup cans that I was shooting at, it wasn't that huge a deal though. I disliked how dirty it got (as mentioned previously) and how lack-luster the accuracy was compared to even a modestly-priced bolt gun. Carrying a handful of .22-charged aluminum arrows around doesn't sound like that much fun, but, all 22s need 1 round loaded at a time, whether you do that with a speed loader, a box mag, a tube mag..whatever.
It's not a question of what is "superior". The assertion that tubes have been replaced is just plain wrong. As I suggested waaaaaaaaaaay back in this thread, I don't care why someone might choose a box magazine over tube. I don't care to debate the merits of either, owning/having owned both I already know the merits of either. TDC could associate a box magazine with a phallic symbol as it being a motivator for his choice, it wouldn't matter. That's the foundation for an opinion/preference. To assert something has been replaced, when it clearly has not been is abject foolishness. Had the tubes been replaced by box magazines, OP wouldn't have been able to pose their question.
No matter how often, loud, or arrogantly an error is posted, it's still an error. Pushing it with a curiously unwarranted arrogance is comical.
Not only have I provided an opportunuty to serve me crow, I'll also keep an eye on the gems in the safe. If any dinosaur junk suddenly changes from tube to box, I promise to let everyone know my tubes have in fact been replaced with box magazines...
EDIT/ADD-ON:
Hooper: [trying to get the fishing line secure] It may be a marlin or a stingray... but it's definitely a game fish.
[Hooper pulls as the lines snaps and he crashes his head into the wall]
Quint: [picking up the line] Gamin' fish, eh? Marlin? Stingray? Bit through this piano wire? Don't you tell me my business again! You get back on the bridge...
Hooper: Quint, that doesn't prove a damn thing!
Quint: Well it proves one thing, Mr. Hooper. It proves that you wealthy college boys don't have the education enough to admit when you're wrong.
Last edited:
Not that is has anything in the world to do with OP: I just finished testing, and I most certainly can load and fire a 66 faster than a 597. At no point did it's tube change to a box either.
Not sure what you're getting at here? The OP expressed issues with his tube fed rifle, which are inherent in all tube fed rifles(obviously those with a rod are not included with those without a rod but they too have issues). Let me quote the OP,
I think my favorite .22 rifle has got to be my Henry H001 but its kind of a PITA to load... is there any rifles out there that load like the bigger rifles like the 30-30's and 45-70's? (pushing the rounds in one at a time through the loading port under the ejection port) it would make top ups on the mag much easier and if a rat pops up when your loading you don't have to fiddle with that dang rod trying to get it back in to firing order...
Note his concern with top ups and fiddling with the rod. What tube fed rimfire can solve these problems? The answer is none, the design is outdated. My reference to barrel length (and stock modifications) was to illustrate the advantages of a DBM rifle over a FIXED tube design.
I'm aware of Tom Frye and his amazing feats; which does nothing to prove tube fed is just as capable as mag fed. Seeing as he had an assistant load his rifles and the shooting pace was very controlled(see slow) the tube fed guns could keep up. The problems the OP expressed were with front loading of a tube fed rifle, not that the 66 is a great deal better. Topping up either style is a nightmare compared to a DBM rifle.
You half answered your own question. Tubular magazines in shotguns allow the shotgun to remain slim and low profile. 7/8/9 round shotguns are far from "high capacity". I would take a Saiga over a tube fed gun any day of the week if it were an option. The shotgun like the lever action is another dated design. Aside from bird hunting(and clays) and breaching, there is nothing a shotgun can do that a rifle can't do better.
Your excuses for a tube magazine are a joke. you say a DBM can be "caught on brush and things.." I would suggest you stop crawling through the bushes with a firearm. I have yet to have an issue in the bush with a DBM magazine catching on foliage, and what exactly are "other things.."??? Sounds like a fabricated excuse to validate your position. As for allowing the gun to "lie flat on a surface" just what the f**k does that have to do with anything? If its lying down its not in use, which means I don't really care how it sits/lies there. Explain how this is a negative with regards to performance?? If your scabbard doesn't fit your rifle, get a different scabbard. Better yet, sling the rifle on your person instead of storing it in a scabbard. Oh, and magazine should be removed for transport and storage, just saying..
My head is spinning...
Speed loading is of benefit to those who varmint hunt, or compete. I agree that if you sit at the bench and chase stationary paper targets the need really isn't there. You're right, all firearms are in essence loaded one round at a time, but the difference between action styles comes with the speed at which multiple targets and/or follow up shots can be achieved. The other factor that affects this is how that system is loaded. Changing a DBM takes far less time than pulling the tube, dropping loose rounds in then reinserting said tube. Even with the "mighty 66" it requires opening the stock, removing the rod/spring and dropping loose rounds in.
Care to explain how you achieved this feat?? If you included loading the magazine of the 597 then you're not reaping the full benefit of a DBM gun. The magazines should be loaded prior to use, not left unloaded until you need to use the rifle. Additionally, if you only have magazine, you're doing it wrong.
Oh hey, if the Nylon 66 is so great, why did they stop production in 1989??
TDC
This obvious to everyone who reads. Try it (feel free to continue to admonish others to do so the hypocrisy brings mirth)...Reread the whole thread. The assertion that something was replaced when it clearly has not been is just plain wrong....continuing to do so incessantly does not make it fact.
I demonstrated the glaring error, with ease and respect. For some indemonstrable reason, you continued (and seemingly continue) to describe why you prefer one style over the other (each subsequent post devaluing that very opinion) skipping record style. At no point have I denied the variance of opinions on the topic, and even demonstrated (very early) how you had confused your limited opinion with fact.
How could one person become so clouded as to totally confuse an expression of preference for fact? I keep thinking of a little kid stomping and yelling until mommy gives in. When facts (the continued existence of tube magazines) have been provided to the contrary of your incredibly limited opinion, you just keep on spewing why the opinion was formed.
I doubt you've re-read, and become familiar with your own silliness, but I do ask you to to it again. There is no instance of my suggesting a superiority for one over the other. Should be a couple of opportunities to see I have suggested merits to both designs... Didn't stop the foolish blah blah blah of confusion that your opinion of one is somehow a fact.
I also believe that there's a point of diminishing returns in addressing such blatant idiocy. Your ability to ignore your own error, and continue to post as to why you made it becomes a cyclic effort of wasted time. ( doubting anything has been reread) I have at no point suggested one was better than the other. I have made it abundantly clear nothing has been replaced.
I'll take it for granted [when dealing with someone of such demonstrable limitations] at this point that loading, and actually firing a .22 is a feat for you. The quote from you "Are you implying that you can shoot and reload a 66 or a lever faster than a 10/22 or 597?" didn't get responded to until after the accomplishment. Yes yes yes yes yes (should I add "Sam I am" for demonstrated comprehension?). I can load and shoot a 66 faster than a 597 (both conveniently here). Your challenge, and my acceptance has demonstrated as fact what all the idiotic "defense of originally mistaken assertion" couldn't, but it does undermine the rest of the blathering opinion (something oh so many posts ago I didn't wish to get into).
You were wrong at the start by supplanting facts with your opinion, and now even that incredibly limited opinion is questionable...see above. A 66 can be loaded and fired faster. Pretending that time stands still, and no clocks tick while you load a coveted box magazine loans itself to insanity, and brings you further and further from fact...
You Sir, are just plain wrong. Living with your errors shouldn't be too bad if you can learn from them.
When you wake up, you'll see there's just one world, and You're welcome to come back anytime.
