I have three of them:
- a 1978 9422 XTR, and a 2000 9422 Trapper;
The 1978 XTRs were not checkered. Most 9422 XTRs were checkered from 1979-89, and after Winchester discontinued the XTR grade in 1989 all 9422s were checkered.
All 9422s had high polished receivers. What makes an XTR an XTR is the high polished flats on the hammer and lever, a higher gloss stock finish, and the XTR stamp on the barrel.
1978 also was also the last year Winchester used a steel inner magazine tube. They switched to brass in 1979.
I don't recall the precise year but it was around the time USRA was acquired by FN when they started using the 9422M receiver on the .22LR 9422. The 9422M receiver has a slightly longer ejection port and on the .22 LR guns you can see the bolt carrier and link at the extreme rear of the port. (If you look close you can see the difference between the two above with the trapper having the 9422M receiver. A more significant difference is that the later 9422M receiver rifles are .22 LR only rather than .22 S, L, and LR.
- and a 9422 Legacy. The 9422 Legacy paid homage to the Winchester Model 64 rifle with the longer barrel over hanging what became a 7/8 magazine tube, and a pistol grip and curved lever. It's still a carbine pattern but looks more like the rifle pattern.
All three are very well made and a joy to shoot.
All of them are also worth a lot more than I paid for them.
——
I also have an older BL-22, it's also a well made, quality firearm that is very enjoyable to shoot.
Given the quality of the Winchester 9422, the Browning BL-22 and Marlin 39A, I've never understood the passion for the zinc alloy receiver, painted receiver cover, lever action Henry .22 LRs. They're not bad, but they don't hold a candle to the Winchester, Browning or Marlin lever action carbines in terms of fit, finish, feel or accuracy.
——-
I see some discussion now and then over at rimfire central where folks will claim the later checkered 9422s were lower quality. These are often the same people who claim to have owned a 1990's era checkered 9422 XTR. There was no such animal after 1989, so from that point forward it's hard to take them seriously.
The 9422 Legacy, which appeared just after the XTR era ended is also frequently brought up as an example of declining quality. It's not entirely untrue when it's being compared to the mid to late 1980s 9422 XTR Classic. Like the 9422 Legacy, the 9422 Classic also had a longer barrel, curved lever and pistol grip, but was an XTR, left uncheckered in the pre-1979 tradition. As such it had highly polished hammer and lever flats and a higher gloss stock finish. So yes…it was "lower quality" - just like the non XTR was compared to an XTR. Given that the 9422 Legacy was a non XTR finished rifle that effectively replaced the 9422 XTR Classic thet comparison is a pretty natural one.
I've also heard people complain the 9422s made in the last couple years of production (2002-2004) were lower quality and are often claimed to have been made from mis matched left over parts. I've never owned from that era, so I can't say.
I've also heard similar comments about the Marlin 39A after it got the rebounding hammer and safety, as well as the more recent "Japanese made" BL-22s, even though the BL-22 has always been made by Miroku in Japan since it was introduced in 1969 - and Miroku still makes very high quality guns.
I can say however, that the worst 9422, BL-22 or Marlin 39 to ever come off the production line was still better than the best Henry .22 LR. Since people like the Henry a lot, you need to put the "low quality" comments regarding the later 9422, BL-2 and 39A in proper context - if those claims are even true.
I haven't seen a 9422 for less than $1000 for several years now. Congratulations! 
