• America’s Most Popular OU: A very high-quality shotgun for the price, the Browning Citori holds up to extensive shooting. Takedown is accomplished by turning the screw on the LEFT side of the receiver with an appropriately sized screwdriver or a coin----no thumbscrew here. The 9422 lever-action rimfire rifle was first introduced by Winchester in 1972 and was produced for 32 years until 2004 in both .22 Long Rifle and .22 Magnum models. Winchester’s 9422, introduced in the early 70s, duplicated the style of the Marlin at the same time it varied from it and challenged it. With specific comparisons out of the way, let’s proceed to general impressions one gets from carrying and shooting each. cal., 20 1/2 in. I have an 1894CL 25-20 with it, and do not really mind it, though I am not enthusiastic about it. I don’t dry fire the Winchesters just in case the same is true of them. Fortunately, the 9422 has not been out of production long, so they are not at all hard to find on the used gun market, and it’s not that unusual to find examples in absolute mint condition or even brand new. A tang peep sight is another option, but neither the Marlin nor the Winchester is factory drilled and tapped for it, so I won’t consider it for either. Questions & www.Winchester-guns.com . The 9422’s is nicely grooved, Marlin’s smooth. Over the course of its 17-year life-span, the 788 was offered in nine calibers: .222 Rem, .22-250, .243, 6mm Rem, 7mm-08, .308 Win, .30-30 and .44 Magnum. Their magazine tube is also held to the barrel with another “accuracy-robbing” barrel-band, while the Marlin’s is a dovetailed arrangement. I have made more lucky, spectacular shots with a scoped 9422, though, than with the Marlin. Better hurry, though-----this is the last year for them! | Friends of Billy Dixon Open sights or scope sights, I have tested both rifles and, at least with my limited abilities, they both shoot reliably and consistently for me. For scope mounting, though both accommodate this option, the kudos go to Winchester, I think, who grooved the top of their receiver for rimfire mounts. uncheckered, and later versions on both checkered. Rear sight has been removed. The 9422 action design was original and extremely reliable. The 9422 is supposed to be an understudy of the centerfire 94, the classic “thutty-thutty.” In exterior appearance and weight, balance, etc., it is very close and owes much to its father. They wanted it to be a quick handling, easy-to-use design with traditional craftsmanship and a large dose of 19th century nostalgia. Winchester’s designers knew what they were doing when they tried to duplicate the centerfire 94’s feeling, and have come very close. The former proved to be the most popular by far, and the latter was discontinued in 1962. Winchester did a nicer job on its rear sight than the Marlin, I think, virtually duplicating the standard rear semi-buckhorn sight found on its centerfire 94. In his manual on Scanning the Internet forums dealing with recent 9422s, apparently mine is not an isolated case. Spent or unfired ammo ejects at any and all rates of speed from the older versions. My earlier, steel-tubed 70s models certainly reflect this. It also had a buttplate screw hole that was missing any threading---the screw was just sitting there, ready to fall out! Review our online safety tips here before you buy anything. The bolt stays in the left side of the receiver unless removed, so the rifle can actually be stored this way in a case, such as provided for a few years in the late 80s and early 90s in the “TDS” version with a 16 1/2”“Trapper” edition. The two 9422Ms I mentioned take on the heavier varmints and have proved wonderfully accurate at longer rimfire ranges. Both the .22 magnum and .22 rimfire are identical, and you can even get a .17! Although it is more of a hassle to mount a scope on it, once it is done, the results are preferable to the Winchester, if one is going to keep the scope on it. Already having a Marlin .22, I wanted a .22 Magnum, and Marlin’s offering was really a rimfire adaptation of the centerfire 1894 action, not a 39.