Lever Action .22

[crestoncowboy]

^^^ Agreed ^^^ Look how Ruger put out a cheaper SA .22 with the wrangler and plastic frames on the MK .22s and plastic parts, stock on the 10-22.

That one had made me wonder how long the single six has left. I have no wrangler, and several single six. But with the success of the wrangler I figure it's coming to an end.

 

[Gerd33]

Thank you for having good taste. All of the levermatics (per my understanding) except for the model 62 had store brand cousins produced on the same assembly lines. I have a 30 carbine. I have easy access to the .256 that I will inherit someday in the hopefully far distant future. I killed my first deer with the .256 specimen that resides at my dads house. I have been looking for a rimfire version for reasonable money for a while. They are in quite short supply.

As far as I know that's correct and there should be some examples out there with the Western Auto Revelation or the Sears J.C. Higgins branding. The only difference being a birch vs walnut stock and the lack of the bullseye insert in the stock

I have seen one example of a Model 57M .22 Mag with the Western Auto Revelation branding show up on a local estate sale a couple of years ago. When I was looking up information on that one, the numbers I found indicated that there weren't very many of the store branded versions produced, If I recall it was only about 2500 total between the Sears and Western Auto for the 57M out of the total ~67,000 made.

Recently there was a .256 model 62 show up on a local auction. I would have liked to acquire it but it ended selling for I think $1600.

 

[borrowedtime69]

Had a rimfire Henry that the finish flaked off the receiver exposing the Zamak receiver underneath. Not a fan..

Same here, I just stripped the receiver and barrel band and sprayed a clear coat to stop the metal from oxidizing. Looks pretty good with the large loop lever. I may even order the aftermarket receiver with a saddle ring, and strip and clear coat that one too.

 

[3Crows]

I have NEVER, EVER seen a Marlin 39A wear out.

These guns are TANKS and can take hundreds of thousands of rounds with no issues and just routine maintenance actions. If Ruger decides to make them again (they won’t) they’d pale in comparison to the master craftsmanship of a vintage Marlin with its milled solid steel receiver etc.

As I stated before, you CAN find superb deals on them if you know where to look. Also helps to have family friends at the various shops. Private sales and even yardsales will turn them up.

I do not think a 39A could be worn out either if it is maintained reasonably. Or a 9422 either. Or a Single Six. And I do not think Ruger will stop making the Single Six. They are just trying to grab some of the sales going to the low end market such as Heritage. Why not!

But, if Ruger makes the Marlin 39A again and you have said that you were told (?) or had other information that stated they would not (?), I forget. But if they did the new rifle would be better is my bet based on my experiences with two new 1895 rifles vs several older JM and Remington rifles.

 

[Mosin77]

In my opinion the only reason the new Marlin 39a was $3000 was because Marlin could, not because it really needed to cost that much. I suspect they didn’t actually produce new parts any longer, and had not in some time, and the 39a “production” was simply assembly by hand in the custom shop using leftover parts. This is obviously going to be a lot more expensive than series production. I’m sure full production costs would still be higher than a 336/1895, but I don’t know that it would be dramatically so. The main problem is that the “bread and butter” clientele of gun companies today expect that a rimfire option will be notably less expensive than centerfire guns of similar design. This, the 39a would definitely not be. They could perhaps cut corners to make it so, which would open the gun up to “mainstream” buyers. But they’d definitely upset all those who reminisce fondly about the “real” Marlin 39s. And I’m sure they feel that if they bring it back at original quality (milled steel throughout) they would sell hundreds, rather than the thousands they need to make the wholesale re-engineering worthwhile. Whether this is true or not I don’t know… I think a lot of “Millennials” definitely have a frugal/luxurious “buy once cry once” mentality. It might sell better than they think.

 

[3Crows]

@Mosin77 and @JCooperfan1911 you are both wise gentlemen. I am with JCooper in that it is unlikely Marlin will bring the 39A back. I am only saying, that if Ruger where to, based upon what they have done thus far, such a 39A would be worthy. We heard it all, that Ruger would use castings, that the barrel would be MIM and that Ruger would fail to produce a working rifle. If Ruger fails, it was not that they did not produce a quality rifle because the function and machine work evidenced thus far are superior and in working the lever, there is something there that is more than the sum of a few parts. It seems so many things, not just guns, are in a race to the bottom, there is room for a quality lever .22. The 39A was never inexpensive or cheap. Neither was the 9422.

 

[CraigC]

^^^ Agreed ^^^ Look how Ruger put out a cheaper SA .22 with the wrangler and plastic frames on the MK .22s and plastic parts, stock on the 10-22.

Apples and oranges. The new Ruger/Marlin guns are very good. The Wrangler is built to a price point, to compete with the Heritage Rough Rider. The only MK-series guns with polymer frames are the 22/45's. On the 10/22, the polymer parts were an upgrade. Tougher and more durable. No, if Ruger reintroduced the 39, I'd wager it'd be like the JM guns but better.

 

[nofendertom]

^^^ Agreed ^^^ Look how Ruger put out a cheaper SA .22 with the wrangler and plastic frames on the MK .22s and plastic parts, stock on the 10-22.
I said this because I feel that if Ruger does introduce a lever .22, it would be more to compete with the lower priced levers than the higher priced lever .22s. But, I could be
wrong.

 

[GooseGestapo]

Contrary to speculation, the NEW Ruger/MARLINS are NOT CASTINGS.
They are forged. Barrels are machined and button rifled.

Standards are BETTER than the Remlins, and even superior to the Marlins.

If Ruger wants to produce a lever action .22 rifle, they IMO should bring back the 96/22.
I wanted one, but at the time could not justify the expense. Today I’d buy one just because...

I certainly don’t NEED one as I already have a Marlin Model 39D. Think “Mounty” w/o the white spacers and gold plated trigger. It has the straight stock and trim forend and a barrel band.
Got it for $175 in distressed condition in ‘11. Touched up, sights replaced, receiver sight installed. It’s a GEM! Still stiff as it probably hasn’t been fired 1,000 times...
Turned down $600 offer...

 

[crestoncowboy]

The 39A was never inexpensive or cheap. Neither was the 9422.

In 64 the Marlin was 89 dollars. Right on par with any other. Far cheaper than a shotgun at that time.

 

[3Crows]

In 64 the Marlin was 89 dollars. Right on par with any other. Far cheaper than a shotgun at that time.
View attachment 1123104

Yes sir, in 1964 dollars the Marlin 39A was $89.95 and in 2022 dollars that calculates to $863.84. Not sure about your family but in 1964 $89.95 was a bunch of money. The $863.84 is a lot of money. In 1964 I did not have $89.95 but today, I have the $863.95.

A useful tool to help you reminisce about the good old days that for many never were.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com

 

[Rex in OTZ]

Mossberg 464 Rimfire .22 LR Lever Action 13rd 18″

The .22 Lr Rossi Rio Bravo is based on the company's popular line of R92 lever.

.22 LR Chiappa LA322 take down rifle.

 

[crestoncowboy]

Yes sir, in 1964 dollars the Marlin 39A was $89.95 and in 2022 dollars that calculates to $863.84. Not sure about your family but in 1964 $89.95 was a bunch of money. The $863.84 is a lot of money. In 1964 I did not have $89.95 but today, I have the $863.95.

A useful tool to help you reminisce about the good old days that for many never were.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com

But all guns were expensive. My point was that the Marlin wasn't premium priced over the other guns by the 60s. It wasn't a budget gun... but it costed less than a colt 1911 and within 15 dollars of a ruger 10-22 or Remington 66. Costed nearly Half of a Remington 700 and less than an 870. By 200 you could buy 3 870 for the price of a used 39. Or buy 10 new 870 for one new custom shop built 39.

 

[3Crows]

But all guns were expensive. My point was that the Marlin wasn't premium priced over the other guns by the 60s. It wasn't a budget gun... but it costed less than a colt 1911 and within 15 dollars of a ruger 10-22 or Remington 66. Costed nearly Half of a Remington 700 and less than an 870. By 200 you could buy 3 870 for the price of a used 39. Or buy 10 new 870 for one new custom shop built 39.

I agree, guns mostly are expensive and feeding them can be even more so . The 1022 was introduced in 1964 and I think from what little I can find the MSRP was $54. The price in that advertisement for the Marlin 39A was likely not MSRP but street price? The little 1022 would be $515 today for a $349 difference equivilent! I remembered I found this image somewhere:



Guns are usually discounted about 10% of MSRP but not always. Well, nowadays it is sometimes MSRP+ .

 

[CraigC]

Contrary to speculation, the NEW Ruger/MARLINS are NOT CASTINGS.
They are forged. Barrels are machined and button rifled.

Standards are BETTER than the Remlins, and even superior to the Marlins.

If Ruger wants to produce a lever action .22 rifle, they IMO should bring back the 96/22.
I wanted one, but at the time could not justify the expense. Today I’d buy one just because...

I certainly don’t NEED one as I already have a Marlin Model 39D. Think “Mounty” w/o the white spacers and gold plated trigger. It has the straight stock and trim forend and a barrel band.
Got it for $175 in distressed condition in ‘11. Touched up, sights replaced, receiver sight installed. It’s a GEM! Still stiff as it probably hasn’t been fired 1,000 times...
Turned down $600 offer...

Agreed. For some reason, people assume everything Ruger makes is going to be a casting and they further assume that that's a bad thing. The strongest revolvers on the planet have frames cast by Ruger (BFR, Freedom Arms), not forged.

I wish they would bring back the 96-series with walnut instead of birch.

 

[dh1633pm]

I too have been wanting a lever 22. My Henry Pump was a big letdown so they’re out of the running. An older Marlin would be nice, but they bring some silly prices. Want something made of steel and wood. No zincolium metal. Not that zincolium is bad, it doesn’t blue very well.

Been looking at the Browning BL22. Marlin would be good, if they bring back the 39. Which brings up the question, who wants to wait?

 

[crestoncowboy]

I agree, guns mostly are expensive and feeding them can be even more so . The 1022 was introduced in 1964 and I think from what little I can find the MSRP was $54. The price in that advertisement for the Marlin 39A was likely not MSRP but street price? The little 1022 would be $515 today for a $349 difference equivilent! I remembered I found this image somewhere:

View attachment 1123161

Guns are usually discounted about 10% of MSRP but not always. Well, nowadays it is sometimes MSRP+ .

Yeah. My 64 wish book don't have the 10-22. But my 69 wish book has both. The 10-22 was 69 dollars while the 39 was 89.

 

[Steve Milbocker]

I only have one 22 lever action, a Henry Golden Boy. Good lumber and blueing, excellent wood to metal fit. 1000s of rounds with nary a hiccup. I thought enough of it to have an MVA vernier sight installed and a trigger job done on it. No problem ringing the 8” dinger at 200 yards. Do I wish it didn’t have a zmack receiver... yup but It sure as hell ain’t junk.

 

[Seedy Character]

I bought a Browning BL-22 Grade II in 1975, $121. Could have bought a Marlin M-60 for $38, my brother did.

That Browning is tough, reliable, accurate and gorgeous. The Marlin????? Long gone.

Was at the range, guy showed up with a new Henry .22. He was looking at my target and rifle. Started asking questions. I let him shoot the Browning. He left, saying, "I got to get me a Browning."
I shot his Henry. Meh, I'll keep the Browning.

Those Marlin 57 M are awesome, too. Rare, but amazing rifles.

 

[DM~]

My Henry rimfires have worked perfectly, absolutely worth the money they cost,



DM

 

[Jimster]

Now I’m wanting a Henry Classic. Haven’t owned a .22 in almost 45 years.

 

[hawg]

I don't like the short lever throw on the Browning or the trigger coming down with the lever. I had a Marlin 39A made in 1960 and I let it get away. I wish I had it back but there's no way in Hell I'd trade my Henry Golden Boy for it. It's 15 years old and no sign of oxidizing or flaking.

 

[Steve Milbocker]

Now I’m wanting a Henry Classic. Haven’t owned a .22 in almost 45 years.

Jimster, the Golden Boy has more drop in the stock than the other models of the Henry lever action 22s I’ve shouldered which personally I like for shooting iron sights. If you can try one to see if it fits you it would be good. Seems like a lot of manufacturers these days assume everyone is going to scope their rifles and if that’s what you’re going to do you’ll be good to go.

 

[Jimster]

Thanks for the heads up (get it?).

 

[nofendertom]

Is the drop built in the stock or the receiver ? If only built in the stock, could it be replaced with the stock from the Golden Boy ?