Is Marlin 39A worth the money over Henry H001T?

[daveit]

I've been looking at the Marlin 39A and the Henry H001T (Octagon Frontier model) lever actions. The Marlin goes for $550 locally and the Henry for $320. I really like the octagon barrel and looks of the Henry. The 39A is a beautiful gun as well. I'm just wondering what makes the Marlin worth so much more. Seems like I could spend that money on ammo. I don't want to regret the purchase though. I've read good reviews of both. Suggestions?

 

[Fast Frank]

Read the Marlin 39 club thread, and ask yourself why the Henry doesn't have a thread like that.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=261635

 

[ArmedBear]

Yes

The Marlin is a takedown, and it has a machined all-steel receiver. It also has cut checkering, comes drilled and tapped, and includes a scope mount (shipped with the gun, but not screwed onto it).

The Henry is made of mystery metal, and lacks the other features mentioned above.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't consider the Henry, especially for $230 less, but the Marlin does offer things the Henry doesn't.

The Marlins can be had for a bit less around here, which surprises me, really, since San Diego is not the best place to buy a gun, usually.

I bought a 39A. I really liked it, and when I found a 39M Octagon (rare 1-year production of the Mountie, but with a tapered octagon barrel and other styling like the current 1894 "Cowboy" models), I bought it, too, even though I had to scrape the money together.

I'd looked at the Henry Octagon as well, but I never did buy a Henry, especially after I found that old Marlin...

Unfortunately, Marlin doesn't make a straight-grip 20" .22 lever gun currently, but you can find one used -- generally with a round barrel. These are the "Mounties" and they're great guns.

 

[vicdotcom]

I had a henry (not that model) and a 39a. The 39a is certainly a better made rifle. Did they both hit targets at 25 yards? yep they both did.

Either will do what you need it to do. Actions were nice on both rifles. But I did feel a difference in the quality of materials in the two rifles. The henry was fine but the 39a was exceptional. The parts were made better and seemed studier. Trigger broke better on the Marlin also. The only problem I had with the Marlin was that the stock wasnt as perfect as it could have been. It had great wood but the fit had a few small gaps near the grip.

Overall, I felt the extra money was well spent on a studier rifle that I will hand down one day. The Henry I sold long ago but if I were on a tight budget, I would buy it again. If you have the extra money to spend, I would say 39a. It was worth the extra money to me.

Vic

 

[Library Guy]

It has been said that the Henry looks like a classic rifle but the Marlin is a classic rifle.

No reason why the Henry shouldn't be fun to shoot though....

 

[Matt-J2]

Read the Marlin 39 club thread, and ask yourself why the Henry doesn't have a thread like that.

Because us Henry owners don't need a club to make us feel good about owning our rifles!

 

[Avenger29]

Henrys use an unconventional design...they have a more modern design as far as the internal workings go (which accounts for that buttery smooth bolt). The reciever, however, is not what you think it is. The outer reciever is merely a aluminum or plastic cover (depending on the model)...the Henrys are less durable than the Marlin, too, and some owners report issues with wear and age...

If you can swing the cash, go with the Marlin. Very good, high quality construction. Get one now, before the quality goes down (Cerebus, which owns Remington, also bought Marlin and some buyers are reporting QC issues- MadOgre/George Hill is one who has observed this).

I'd get a 39A before the quality goes downhill, the price goes up, or Marlin discontinues the 39A...it is an expensive gun to produce, afterall.

You might also want to look at the Browning BL-22.

 

[daveit]

I didn't realize it was a takedown. That's a nice feature. I can afford either I was just wanting to see the major differences. Thanks for letting me know those.

I'd like an older used Marlin, but used gun prices in Alaska are ridiculous and shipping+FFL makes any good deal from the Lower 48 not such a good deal.

 

[balletto]

We have a club...

...just not on THR:

Rimfire Central Henry Forum

 

[Carl Levitian]

I've had the same Marlin 39 since 1967. I can't begin to count how many thousands of rounds have been through that gun, as it is still one of my favorites. Gets shot alot.

Never a problem.

Still going strong.

Will a Henry after 41 years?

 

[vicdotcom]

I'd like an older used Marlin, but used gun prices in Alaska are ridiculous and shipping+FFL makes any good deal from the Lower 48 not such a good deal.

If your going Older Marlin, keep your eyes out for the 39 Mounties. They have shorter barrels and are really desireable in good condition great resale also.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

made of mystery metal,

Tee hee.

 

[aka108]

Both are good rifles. If you field strip each of them you will see why the Marlin is more costly. Steel vs zinc and plastic components. The Henry is a lot smoother in action operation. Marlin, in my experience has a edge on accuracy and is heirloom quality.

 

[Sistema1927]

Your great-grandchildren will still be using the 39.

I cannot speak to the durability of the Henry, but there is never a doubt with a Marlin.

 

[brentwal]

YES!

 

[jkingrph]

Yes!

 

[Threeband]

A thousand times, YES!

The Marlin is classic, honest steel.

The Henry has that fake aluminum (?) sleeve over a pot metal (?) reciever.

The Henry is pretending to be something it isn't.

The Marlin is the real deal.

The Marlin holds its (metaphorical) head high. It is never (metaphorically) ashamed in the company of ANY other rifle.

At the range, experienced riflemen with expensive centerfires will ogle your Marlin, and say things like "Nice rifle!"

Get the Marlin. You'll be glad you did. It's a fine, old-school rifle you can always be proud to own.


(I've had mine for 32 + years. I treasure it more than perhaps anything else I own. Gift from my Dad, of course.)

 

[streakr]

YES

streakr

 

[daveit]

Thanks guys. I've been calling pawn shops to see if I can get $500 for my wife. Haha!

 

[bchannell]

I don't think those who bash the Henry are being all together accurate. First, the receiver is an alloy, and many good rimfires are made this way. The 10/22, parts of the Browning BL22 and many others. As to longevity, well, I doubt you'd wear out a Henry. Parts are easy to get and usually not needed. I've had them all, Winnies, Marlins and Brownings, of all of them, I like them all, but the Henry Traditional is a keeper. It will outshoot all the others, hands down. I know, you don't believe it, but it will. I think most of the dislike for 'some' of the newer manufacturing methods are misunderstood, and I fall into this category, as I don't like the plastic on the new 10/22's, so I understand the Henry bashing. But it simply is not true that they are less than durable guns or that they are cheap.
Buy one and shoot it, you'll be a believer. Do I think you should trade off the others, no, but if you shoot a Henry, you just might retire them. I must say, I've had more trouble with Marlins than I ever have with all the Henry's I've owned.

 

[Bula]

I own a Henry, and for the money they're fun. But that 39 is an heirloom quality long gun. If you just want a shooter, get the Henry. If you want a shooter that one day you'll give to your grandson, get the Marlin.

 

[offthepaper]

Your great-grandchildren will still be using the 39.

I cannot speak to the durability of the Henry, but there is never a doubt with a Marlin.

Pretty much says it all.
They've been making the 39 a loong time.

 

[DMK]

A long while back, I paid $400 for a used 1966 39A (it was mint though) and I never regretted the money spent. It's built like a tank. Many, many, bricks of 22lr have gone through that rifle since. It's never given me a bit or trouble and it still looks and shoots great.

 

[ThomasT]

I have never shot a Henry so I can't comment on them. I do have a 39 made in 1978 IIRC. This rifle is dead nuts accurate. I bought it 18 years ago for $200. It has a few little dings in the wood but other than that it is very clean.

I read all good comments on CZ rifles and get to thinking I should buy one but then I remember how well the 39 shoots and give up on the idea.

I do wish Marlin would make the mounties again. I would like a lighter, shorter levergun.

 

[sebtool]

I've got an old 39A, that I actually listed for sale for awhile. Had a few nibbles, couple of offers, but not what I wanted.(Thankfully!) I looked long and hard to find it - it ain't always easy!

Then about 2 weeks ago,a local fellow had a Marlin 1894 .22 mag for sale & I picked that up!I'd been wanting a .22 mag, but couldn't find 1 reasonably.

Now that I've got the pair of them, I'm kinda wondering why I ever thought about selling the 39A in the 1st place! I've never shot the Henry, but a buddy has 1 and likes it alot.

IMHO, Marlin has always made a top of the line lever action, and if feasible, i'd definitely lean that way!