Looks like Winchester is making a 22LR lever gun again. Walnut stock and MSRP of $420..

The take down looks just like the 94/22..which is kind of what I don't like in a take down. Not that its bad. I never use that feature on mine.

I'm hoping it shoots 22L and 22short...I can't see why not.


https://www.winchesterguns.com/products/rifles/ranger/overview.html

Shotshow 2024

I like it. I’ll probably pick one up once they’re available.

I'm a buyer.

I would give that a try. Nothing more fun than acting like a 5 year old cowboy making cans dance.
Seems like a nice alternative to a Henry, which I love but want another 22 lever gun with open sights.

I hear you on the takedown design.  It’d be slick if it was like the Browning design interrupted barrel threads and a mag tube to lock it.

I have a 9422 and a 39A,   actually thinking of parting with the 39A.  Crazy what they go for now.

Sadly I think this “Winchester” is another Turkish import.  I do like it better than the Zamak metal Henry rifles or the half zamak alloy Browning BL22.  The “lower” on the BL22 is not steel like the outer shell receiver.

Came to ask this.    

Meh, love my Henry. I forget the model but it's large loop, octagon barrel, and a nice walnut stock. Very very accurate.

I handled the Ranger at Shot Show just the other day, it seems nice but I am not sure where it is manufactured.

It is in fact imported from Turkey.

But the Turks are capable of making great firearms, it all depends on the specifications set by the customer/importer.

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.

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 as 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.  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.

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.

Ruger has not yet announced any intention to start making the Model 39A, and there are reasons for that.


——


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:


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 as 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.




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.




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 was 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 hoped by 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 the common receiver used by the 9422M for the 9422 as well.

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.

Would be nice to have a no-wrench-needed takedown knob or ring. But could see the pressed threaded bushing in the aluminum receiver pulling loose by over tightening, which may still happen with a big fist torquing on a screwdriver.

Does look better than the Henry with the big receiver screws.

The last common receiver concept Winchester did was the 150/250, 270, and 190/290 rimfire rifles. Same one used in the lever, pump and semi auto versions. Cast and machined aluminum with most examples holding up well after 50+ years if internals kept relatively clean. And for most of the production run all were marked for S, L and LR.

If it's the same quality as a Tisas I will give it a try. Unfortunately I don't think that will be the case.

Nice to see this one..

I have a like new 94/22 made in 1975. It sat unfired in safe 40 years until I talked my buddy out of it. It's a good shooter, just not as good as my cheap Henry H001. I beat up the Henry and cherish the Wimchester.

I've kinda had my eye on lever 22lr for a bit and this looks interesting
Takedown would be betterer

Anything else to look at other than Henry?
Nothing against them

Sweet. Have to see what real world price they'll be.

New? I'd go with the Henry H001 or the Winchester Ranger. Used, "BOAT" and get a Marlin 39 or a Winchester 94/22...my buddys have 39s. I prefer the 94.

You can't beat Henry's customer service.

Wife wanted the Henry .22 for a gallery gun thing.

I believe it's a spraypainted zinc receiver with other odd alloy parts here and there.
Octagonal barrel is cool and heavy. My son loves it. Getting into trick shot stuff a little.

The lever is either flaking or corroding. Not really impressed with the materials although the function is just fine.

I'd echo what was said about getting the Winchester as a keeper/heirloom while recognizing the Henry asca shooter/toy.

Looking forward to this new gun. Although it's made in Turkey I really like that they are trying to make a quality lever action 22 at an affordable price. I might be willing to pay more for it if was made in the USA though.

Is the receiver and barrel band pot metal?

Ah, yes, an anodized aluminum receiver.

It's not for me, thanks.

I was considering one of these for my son, but I ended up getting him a Browning BL-22 Micro Midas instead. I will keep an eye out on these though as they start to trickle out. Might make a good beater gun.