I have mixed feelings about it.
At an MSRP of $419 the Winchester Ranger is competing directly with the $$425 MSRP Henry lever action, which sells for a street price around $350. I suspect the Ranger will follow a pattern of selling above MSRP until the newness wears off and shops stop overcharging for them. Then we’ll see if it goes below the MSRP. Henry pretty well expects its dealers to sell below MSRP and lets customers know they should able to get a local gun shop to price it below MSRP.
However, even at full MSRP I’d happily pony up an extra $70 to avoid the Henry and its Zamak alloy receiver. I know Henry has sold a million of them, and they have a strong following, but it’s not going to be a legacy/heirloom gun.
On the other hand, the aluminum receiver on the Ranger won’t wow people like a steel receiver either. They are using a pressed in steel insert to ensure the assembly screw doesn’t strip out, but I’m wondering how that will fare several years down the line in real world use given the potential for dissimilar metals corrosion. I can envision corrosion occurring around that insert and lifting the anodizing.
And of course that matte black anodized receiver isn’t pretty. But when they start Cerokoting them to hide the scratches in the anodizing, it won’t look much worse. I guess that’s a plus.
Browning Grade 1 BL-22s have jumped in price over the last few years, going from around $500-$550 to about $750. Greedflation is keeping the prices high. Winchester probably isn’t competing with the BL-22 on price, but since both are FN owned, it means there now is even less incentive to sell the BL-22 at a price closer to the Henry.
Ruger has not yet announced any intention to start making the Model 39A, and there are reasons for that, so don’t hold your breath.
——
Winchester is upfront in admitting the Ranger is not another a 9422, given the cost of production a modern 9422 would involve today. But they did have the option to resolve some of the few failings the 9422 had. They did so with mixed results. Let’s look at how the Ranger compares with the 9422 and the traditional higher end competition:
1) I like the 9422 style takedown design, at least compared to the much more complicated to get back together BL-22. But I think it’s a bit of a misnomer to call it a take down rifle. It’s a good system for cleaning but not really a true take down design, like the Model 39/30A. But to be fair the Model 39 receiver halves are very expensive and difficult to produce with the required precision. (It remains to be seen if Ruger will acquire the production skill to do it at a competitive price point, or at all.)
The 9422’s major take down failure is that while it can be broken down for more compact carry, the bolt can come out of the receiver fairly easily. That really makes it more of a “cleaning only” take down design, unless you are very careful to ensure the bolt doesn’t fall out and become lost. In this carry case the bolt cannot move far enough aft to come out of the receiver. Unfortunately Winchester has carried that same vulnerability over to the Ranger, and will require similar consideration.
2) Winchester also missed the boat on a take down rifle in the 9422 (and repeated that failure in the Ranger) by requiring a screw driver to disassemble it. Aftermarket saddle ring screws have been available for the 9422 for decades and Winchester should have taken the hint and included one on the new Ranger. That’s a fail. It would have been an inexpensive way to add value.
3) A major flaw with the 9422 is the potential to lose the magazine tube. When the magazine was empty there is no spring force on the tube and nothing to hold it in the detent. It was and remains way too common for shooters carrying the 9422 in the field to walk back to their vehicle with an empty 9422 and have the tube fall out and become lost. Consequently there are a lot of 9422s out there with aftermarket magazine tubes.
A fix is to install a suitably thin o-ring to hold the stud on the inner magazine tube in the detent in the outer tube. Winchester should have done that from the start. I don’t know how prone the inner magazine tube on the Ranger will be to falling out, but keep the o-ring idea in mind if you get one.
In short, the magazine tube design was a weakness in the 9422. FN which owns Winchester and Browning uses a superb magazine catch on the BL-22. However, they didn’t carry that over to the Ranger and that’s a fail.
4) It would be nice to see a 16” barrel model offered as well, which Winchester eventually did with the 9422, albeit in very limited numbers. We’ll see what Winchester does if the rifle finds market acceptance.
5) Scope mounting has always been a bit awkward on the 9422 and the grooved receiver isn’t the best approach. It’s even worse on an aluminum receiver, so the lack of a drilled and tapped receiver for scope mounts is a large step backwards. Drilling and tapping the receiver, or receiver and barrel, for scope mounts should have been a given. That’s a fail.
6) There were no tang sights in production when the 9422 was designed in 1972, and Winchester can be excused for omitting the facility for them on the 9422. However tang sights have become very popular again in the last 30 years, along with receiver sights, and the Ranger is not drilled or tapped for either. That’s a major weakness. A single hole drilled and tapped in the tang would have made it very tang sight friendly. Throwing in a screw set to accommodate a tang sight would have added a lot of value for not much cost.
On the other hand the BL-22 has the same failing, along with the lack of an upper tang. However, like the BL-22, the Ranger should be able to accommodate the Skinner sight designed for grooved receivers. It will however require a taller front sight, which means removing the front sight hood. On the plus side it gets the line of sight high enough that you can carry a different size aperture in the barrel mounted sight blank.
7) The lever throw is almost exactly the same as the 9422, which is a good balance between the short but heavier throw of the BL-22, and the light and smooth but very long throw of the Model 39/39A. I’ll call that a win on the Ranger.
8) Magazine capacity is the same 15 rounds found on the 20” 9422. However, Winchester doesn’t advertise compatibility with .22 long or .22 Short, which had capacities of 17 and 21 rounds in the 20” 9422. But to be fair the 9422 lost the 22 LR/Long/Short capability when Winchester adopted a common receiver for both the 9422M and the 9422.
Internally, due to the aluminum receiver Winchester is using a lifter and cartridge guide arrangement that is steel, and appears to be made in two halves, assembled and then inserted into the receiver. We’ll see how well it holds up over time.
At an MSRP of $419 the Winchester Ranger is competing directly with the $$425 MSRP Henry lever action, which sells for a street price around $350. I suspect the Ranger will follow a pattern of selling above MSRP until the newness wears off and shops stop overcharging for them. Then we’ll see if it goes below the MSRP. Henry pretty well expects its dealers to sell below MSRP and lets customers know they should able to get a local gun shop to price it below MSRP.
However, even at full MSRP I’d happily pony up an extra $70 to avoid the Henry and its Zamak alloy receiver. I know Henry has sold a million of them, and they have a strong following, but it’s not going to be a legacy/heirloom gun.
On the other hand, the aluminum receiver on the Ranger won’t wow people like a steel receiver either. They are using a pressed in steel insert to ensure the assembly screw doesn’t strip out, but I’m wondering how that will fare several years down the line in real world use given the potential for dissimilar metals corrosion. I can envision corrosion occurring around that insert and lifting the anodizing.
And of course that matte black anodized receiver isn’t pretty. But when they start Cerokoting them to hide the scratches in the anodizing, it won’t look much worse. I guess that’s a plus.
Browning Grade 1 BL-22s have jumped in price over the last few years, going from around $500-$550 to about $750. Greedflation is keeping the prices high. Winchester probably isn’t competing with the BL-22 on price, but since both are FN owned, it means there now is even less incentive to sell the BL-22 at a price closer to the Henry.
Ruger has not yet announced any intention to start making the Model 39A, and there are reasons for that, so don’t hold your breath.
——
Winchester is upfront in admitting the Ranger is not another a 9422, given the cost of production a modern 9422 would involve today. But they did have the option to resolve some of the few failings the 9422 had. They did so with mixed results. Let’s look at how the Ranger compares with the 9422 and the traditional higher end competition:
1) I like the 9422 style takedown design, at least compared to the much more complicated to get back together BL-22. But I think it’s a bit of a misnomer to call it a take down rifle. It’s a good system for cleaning but not really a true take down design, like the Model 39/30A. But to be fair the Model 39 receiver halves are very expensive and difficult to produce with the required precision. (It remains to be seen if Ruger will acquire the production skill to do it at a competitive price point, or at all.)
The 9422’s major take down failure is that while it can be broken down for more compact carry, the bolt can come out of the receiver fairly easily. That really makes it more of a “cleaning only” take down design, unless you are very careful to ensure the bolt doesn’t fall out and become lost. In this carry case the bolt cannot move far enough aft to come out of the receiver. Unfortunately Winchester has carried that same vulnerability over to the Ranger, and will require similar consideration.
2) Winchester also missed the boat on a take down rifle in the 9422 (and repeated that failure in the Ranger) by requiring a screw driver to disassemble it. Aftermarket saddle ring screws have been available for the 9422 for decades and Winchester should have taken the hint and included one on the new Ranger. That’s a fail. It would have been an inexpensive way to add value.
3) A major flaw with the 9422 is the potential to lose the magazine tube. When the magazine was empty there is no spring force on the tube and nothing to hold it in the detent. It was and remains way too common for shooters carrying the 9422 in the field to walk back to their vehicle with an empty 9422 and have the tube fall out and become lost. Consequently there are a lot of 9422s out there with aftermarket magazine tubes.
A fix is to install a suitably thin o-ring to hold the stud on the inner magazine tube in the detent in the outer tube. Winchester should have done that from the start. I don’t know how prone the inner magazine tube on the Ranger will be to falling out, but keep the o-ring idea in mind if you get one.
In short, the magazine tube design was a weakness in the 9422. FN which owns Winchester and Browning uses a superb magazine catch on the BL-22. However, they didn’t carry that over to the Ranger and that’s a fail.
4) It would be nice to see a 16” barrel model offered as well, which Winchester eventually did with the 9422, albeit in very limited numbers. We’ll see what Winchester does if the rifle finds market acceptance.
5) Scope mounting has always been a bit awkward on the 9422 and the grooved receiver isn’t the best approach. It’s even worse on an aluminum receiver, so the lack of a drilled and tapped receiver for scope mounts is a large step backwards. Drilling and tapping the receiver, or receiver and barrel, for scope mounts should have been a given. That’s a fail.
6) There were no tang sights in production when the 9422 was designed in 1972, and Winchester can be excused for omitting the facility for them on the 9422. However tang sights have become very popular again in the last 30 years, along with receiver sights, and the Ranger is not drilled or tapped for either. That’s a major weakness. A single hole drilled and tapped in the tang would have made it very tang sight friendly. Throwing in a screw set to accommodate a tang sight would have added a lot of value for not much cost.
On the other hand the BL-22 has the same failing, along with the lack of an upper tang. However, like the BL-22, the Ranger should be able to accommodate the Skinner sight designed for grooved receivers. It will however require a taller front sight, which means removing the front sight hood. On the plus side it gets the line of sight high enough that you can carry a different size aperture in the barrel mounted sight blank.
7) The lever throw is almost exactly the same as the 9422, which is a good balance between the short but heavier throw of the BL-22, and the light and smooth but very long throw of the Model 39/39A. I’ll call that a win on the Ranger.
8) Magazine capacity is the same 15 rounds found on the 20” 9422. However, Winchester doesn’t advertise compatibility with .22 long or .22 Short, which had capacities of 17 and 21 rounds in the 20” 9422. But to be fair the 9422 lost the 22 LR/Long/Short capability when Winchester adopted a common receiver for both the 9422M and the 9422.
Internally, due to the aluminum receiver Winchester is using a lifter and cartridge guide arrangement that is steel, and appears to be made in two halves, assembled and then inserted into the receiver. We’ll see how well it holds up over time.
