I'm all on board with people buying whatever they like and all of us having different tastes. You put the toppings you like on your pizza and I'll do the same with mine. However somewhere along the line this topic changed into which lever 22's are better. Subjectively you can pick anyone you like as your favorite but objectively some are simply made to be better then others. Even if we all agree
just for the sake of argument that they all work, lets even go as far as saying that they all work about equally as well as one another (which I don't really believe is the case but
just for the sake of argument). What still remains is that they are not equal in terms of how well they are made and how long they will last.
The simple fact is, the Henry 001, 22 (or the old Erma/Ithaca 72) wasn't designed to be as good as the Marlin (or the Browning) from the start. It was designed to be cheaper to produce. Hence, the use of Zamak which is cheap and easy to cast. It offers no advantages from a gun performance or longevity standpoint except
maybe resistance to corrosion. There are many different Zamak alloys but roughly speaking when fresh cast it is about half as strong as mild steel. As it ages it will certainly loose about 1/3 of it's original strength and become more brittle. This isn't speculation it is fact and has been tested many times. The effects of more extreme age on zinc alloys are largely unknown. Die cast model and train collectors have seen once perfect 80 year old models made of zinc/aluminum alloys become "crazed" and begin to literally crumble in the span of 1 year. So, regardless of which lever gun subjectively feels better, looks better or whatever they are not made equal. Try doing a search for zinc or Zamak fatigue over time and then tell me how well made the Henry is.
I find it hard to believe that Henry'd still be selling their rimfire leverguns by the boatload after almost two decades if they were wearing out prematurely & exhibiting widespread Zamak shrinkage.
I don't find it hard to believe. It sells for half the price of it's lever action competitors. If Americans didn't price shop there wouldn't be Walmarts all over the place. Joe average shooter unfortunately doesn't shop for something that will last a life time, he buys something that will serve his immediate purpose at the lowest possible price. Why is that unfortunate? Because we loose the availability of lots of really good guns that way, but hey, that's the marketplace. There are other guns out there that have sold by the millions but hardly represent the pinnacle of gun making. What is considered the acceptable lifespan or premature wear in a 22? 5 years? 20 years? 50 years? 10,000 rds? 20,000 rds? 200,000rds? Marlin 39s have gone well past 1 million rds.
The Browning has a steel receiver outer "shell".
The main large assembly inside that shell, what they call the "frame", is aluminum.
The steel parts do their job inside an alloy assembly, so do the Henrys.
While it may look to an untrained eye that the internals of the Henry and the Browning are similar in materials and quality there is really no comparison. The machined aluminum frame and steel receiver is far superior to the Zamak frame with the cheap powder coat metal cover held on with screws and star washers of all things. The Henry is built like a cap pistol or a cheap pellet gun, literally, Zamak is what is frequently used in these applications.
Zamac is not pot metal & is superior in terms of strength & wear.
Your comments are the first time anywhere that I've heard of any shrinkage issue.
Ah… yes it is "pot metal"
Pot metal—also known as monkey metal, white metal, or
die-cast zinc—is a colloquial term that refers to
alloys of low-melting point metals that manufacturers use to make fast, inexpensive castings.
