Win 9422 vs Marlin 39A...

Status
Not open for further replies.

GZOh

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
632
Location
Ohio
Looking to purchase one...
What are the basic differences between the Winchester 9422 and the 'pre-2005' Marlin 39As?
.
 
Sorry for the late reply. 2 sons-1 with 9422 and 1 with 9422M. Both are very well finished and very accurate-.5" at 50 yds. I have shot several 39's and found them to be accurate but not as well finished nor smooth as the Winchesters. Both you are asking about are quality firearms and you need to visit the local gun store to see which "feels" the best to you.
 
I am on my second 9422 (1st was stolen) and have shot 39's. Both are good guns. The Marlin is a little heftier and longer, something that might be prefered by some. Both are great guns, but I think the 9422's action is slicker and the workmanship is slightly better.
 
I have both and prefer the 9422. My Marlin 39 is a 1969 Mountie model and I have both .22 LR and .22 Magnum 9422s.

Both are great guns, but the 9422s are slicker operating. Both seem equally accurate.
 
If you can find a 94-22 I like them slightly better. I have one Winchester and 2 Marlin 39 Mounties. One from the 50's and another from the 60's. Both are good guns. Finding a Marlin will likely be easier. I just like the straight stoked shorter barrels of the Mounties much better than the standard 39.
 
The Winchesters are a little nicer. I have a Marlin M39D. A plain wood, 20"bbl version of the M39. Snagged it for $149.00 recently.
They were offered in the '70's.
Every thing the original M39's were, but much shorter and lighter. Somewhat like the "Mountie", only rarer, but less expensive.

The Henry's aren't even in the same league with the Winchester or Marlins.

The only M39's you need to avoid are the ones from 2009 and newer. There are very few of those available. Even then you "may" get a good one.
It's the 2009 (91xxxx) serial numbered or Remington serial#'d M336's you need to look real closely at. However the latest ones appear to be decent firearms.
 
Heard good things about the 94-22 but after one Winchester 94 I'll stick with my 39's. As far as the 39d mentioned earlier the typically run at least 100+ over the standard 39a, you got a steal at 175.
The reason I'll stick with the Marlin 39 vs a 94(only one I have its a30-30) is have you tried to take a94 apart to clean? It took me 3hrs to reassemble(if the 22 is any thing close i'm not interested) vs the Marlin brakes down in seconds and goes back together just as quick. Good luck with your choice.

As far as the Henry question...... I know this its going to tweak some noses but its a pet peeve off mine, they aren't in the same league for one reason in my book because...... they don't have the history of either company, and if you want a true Henry(with history behind them) go with an old Winchester. But so many people like Henry the company has to be doing something right.

See what fits you right, what you like best....buy that one.
 
Last edited:
Heard good things about the 94-22 but after one Winchester 94 I'll stick with my 39's. As far as the 39d mentioned earlier the typically run at least 100+ over the standard 39a, you got a steal at 175.
The reason I'll stick with the Marlin 39 vs a 94(only one I have its a30-30) is have you tried to take a94 apart to clean? It took me 3hrs to reassemble(if the 22 is any thing close i'm not interested) vs the Marlin brakes down in seconds and goes back together just as quick. Good luck with your choice.

The Winchester '94 and the 9422 are nothing alike other than outer appearance. The 9422 is a breeze to assemble/disassemble. That said, I also own 39's and 9422's and slightly prefer the Winchester over the Marlin.
 
I have used both quite a bit, the 9422 is the first gun I ever saved for and purchased with my own money, they are both excellent guns but if I could only have one it would be the 9422.
 
The Marlin is excellent. I have a handful of Marlin centerfire leverguns and had a REALLY hard time passing on a nice 39 for $400 a few months ago. I just think the Winchester is better. Its fit and finish are much better, the actions tend to be smoother and I like the overall design better. They are all milled steel. No castings, no stampings, no plastic. It is far and away the best domestically produced levergun in the last 50yrs. Which is why I have two of them.


And why, pray tell, is that?
Because the Winchester is built to be as fine a leveraction rifle as possible within reason. The Marlin 39 is not far behind. The Henry is built to meet a certain price point.....and a low one at that.
 
The Henry's aren't even in the same league with the Winchester or Marlins.

And why, pray tell, is that?


The Henry is a decent cheap plinker. But with plastic sights, plastic barrel bands and an aluminum receiver that is painted black it is simply not anywhere near the same quality as a blued steel Winchester of Marlin.

They are fine as a plinker that someone wants to get on the cheap. They seem smooth and accurate enough and they do put a decent stick of wood on them. But long term they will be in the scrap heap while the other 2 are still being handed down for many generations.

While the Winchester or Marlin will cost a bit more today, those 2 will appreciate in value and be worth quite a bit more than you paid in a few years. The cheap Henry's will depreciate and be worth next to nothing in a few years.

And yes they do have a history. They have been made since sometime in the 60's or 70's under at least 3 different names. You sometimes see the older versions on used gun racks under the Ithica name. They simply don't hold up.
 
The Henry is a decent cheap plinker. But with plastic sights, plastic barrel bands and an aluminum receiver that is painted black it is simply not anywhere near the same quality as a blued steel Winchester of Marlin.

Mine didn't come with plastic sights, or a plastic barrel band. So what if the receiver cover is painted and is not steel? That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality or durability of the rifle. For what it's worth, I stripped the paint off my cover/band, and despite putting 12,000 rounds through the rifle since 2007, I haven't hasn't been a single weapon malfunction (probably because the "lesser quality" receiver cover doesn't have anything to do with the rifle's utility.

They are fine as a plinker that someone wants to get on the cheap. They seem smooth and accurate enough and they do put a decent stick of wood on them. But long term they will be in the scrap heap while the other 2 are still being handed down for many generations.

Henry has been selling them for almost 20 years, and I honestly haven't heard of a single one that is "on the scrap heap" yet. I used mine to great success in NRA Cowboy Lever Action Silhouette, and had no problems keeping up and even surpassing the guys with Marlins (nobody was using 9422's at the time).

While the Winchester or Marlin will cost a bit more today, those 2 will appreciate in value and be worth quite a bit more than you paid in a few years. The cheap Henry's will depreciate and be worth next to nothing in a few years.

Yeah - I found a 9422 at the gun show a few weeks ago, and the guy as asking $1500 for it - a .22 lever action. That's just absurd.

And yes they do have a history. They have been made since sometime in the 60's or 70's under at least 3 different names. You sometimes see the older versions on used gun racks under the Ithaca name. They simply don't hold up.

Henry Repeating Arms has as much to do with previous copies of the "Henry" rifles as Glock has to do with the M1 Garand. Their history, and their .22 lever rifle in particular, started in 1993.

It seems to me that Henry's unlimited lifetime warranty (the life of the rifle, regardless of how many times it changes hands) is a pretty bold statement to make given the rifle's perceived weaknesses.

Final point, I can recall a single comment from a Henry owner bad mouthing a Marlin or 9422, yet Marlin owners refuse to show the Henry the same kind of respect.

My rifle is six years old and is about about 150 rounds shy of the 13,000-round mark (which might be surpassed this weekend if I get a chance to go to the range). It's still as smooth and accurate as it's ever been, and the trigger is an absolute joy to pull. Was it less expensive than a Marlin? Yes. Is it any less accurate? Nope. Does it show any sign that it's about to go tits-up? Nope. Is it a collector's item? Heck, I don't know, but I don't care either. Are the sights competition quality as it comes from the factory? Nope, but show me a non-specialized rifle that fills that requirement.

You guys that trash Henry's are really doing yourselves a disfavor, but I guess that's your loss. Me buying a Henry means there's more Marlins for you, and I'm certainly okay with that.
 
I just think the Winchester is better. They are all milled steel. No castings, no stampings, no plastic.

Marlin has always advertised the 39 as being made of forged steel ?

Having owned both the 39 and 9422 I will agree the smoother action goes to the Winchester.

The 9422 I owned did have plastic buttpad. As does my Marlin 39A. My 39AS has a rubber buttpad.

My 39s are both pre-drilled/tapped for an aperture sight , a feature I really like as one of the 39s has a Lyman. My understanding is the newer ones are not drilled /tapped for the aperture sight.

The 9422 I owned was not as good a shooter as my Marlins . There could be some others who find just the opposite to be true.

Regardless I still wish I had kept my Winchester. It is one I miss.
 
So what if the receiver cover is painted and is not steel?
If painted zinc is acceptable to you, that is just fine and dandy. It is not acceptable to me and many others who prefer blued steel to painted zinc.


That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality or durability of the rifle.
It has everything to do with quality and durability. I don't know what it takes to make you guys understand. Zinc-based alloys are only used on the least expensive guns ever produced. Period. So it is a logical conclusion that any firearm using zinc alloy components is probably at the low end of the spectrum. I'm sorry that this offends your delicate sensibilities but it is the truth.


Final point, I can recall a single comment from a Henry owner bad mouthing a Marlin or 9422, yet Marlin owners refuse to show the Henry the same kind of respect.
The fact that most Henry owners cannot have an objective discussion about these guns and many equate them to Winchester and Marlin is the problem. Sorry but Winchester and Marlin are simply better guns and they cost more. The fact that Henry owners cannot accept this is irrelevant. Nobody here bad-mouthed Henry but it is a true statement, that you took offense to, that the Marlin and Winchester rifles are simply better. What is so diffucult about that???


Marlin has always advertised the 39 as being made of forged steel ?
I didn't say they weren't.


The 9422 I owned did have plastic buttpad. As does my Marlin 39A. My 39AS has a rubber buttpad.
So does my $4000 Merkel. :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top