Henry Rifle Forums

I'm on the fence about buying another rifle. I'd like a 22LR for plinking lots of rounds. I love my Henry to pieces, but that 22 mag ammo isn't cheap, and I'm often going through 100-125 each range trip.

I saw an older (not sure what year) Anschutz 22LR single shot, bolt, at my local gunsmith's shop. It's worn, but still really classic looking, in good working shape, no rust etc. It's very likely this model, it looks exactly the same:
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/189 ... C50EDDACE0

If I was to buy the Anschutz, compared to say a new Savage BF 22 with the new rotary magazine:
http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/model/B22FV What would I expect with the Anschutz, vs the newer Savage. Would the Anschutz be more accurate?

I know it's only a single shot, but I'm kind of looking for a rifle that will let me "place" shots more carefully, not mag dump.

Opinions anyone?

I cant answer your question about which one is more accurate. But I do know that the Savage rifles I have owned have all been great shooters and very accurate. There triggers are also very good. I would not be afraid to buy one at all.

I have three Savage rifles. Two 17's and a 22.
I restocked the one 17Bmag that came with a plastic stock.
They are all accurate. IMO Most of that accuracy is the "Accu-trigger" setup they have. The pillar bedding is good but not Remington good.

Ojaileveraction, when you say the pillar bedding isn't as good as Remington, is it good "enough"? I basically want dime sized groups at 50 yards, I won't expect anything more after 50 yards. I shoot the Henry at 50-100, and a CZ 455 can hit 1" potatoes all day long at 100 - but the ammo is expensive.

I've been having a ton of fun shooting at 50 yards, and it makes sense to shoot cheaper ammo.

I think for some emotional reason I'm stuck on the idea of a "wooden" rifle, being "better" than anything modern production. But I have no real clue. The new Savage B22 rifles are about the same price as this used Anschutz. The Anschutz looks like it would be more difficult to get apart and clean. The bolt isn't as elegant, looks like an older war rifle, but it's slick and well used, and works.

If it was me I'd skip the Anschutz and look for a CZ452.

Anschutz,CD, Savage, I'm sure any could fill the bill.
BUT here we are on the Henry forum I got to ask.
Why not a Henry 22lr. Scope an Octagon and single load it. More fun than any bolt action.
I can agree with "Only accurate rifles are interesting ".
Henry 22's fit the bill.

Bugs wrote:If it was me I'd skip the Anschutz and look for a CZ452.

That is what I would do. Matter of fact I've already bought a few.

While any Anschutz is a good rifle, they did make some economy class single shots with a very basic action for many, many years. In these early years, they didn't mark them with model numbers. These most basic Anscutz models are equivalent to an old Remington or Winchester single shot in terms of accuracy. In other words, very good, but unlikely to be any better than a current Savage.

To get to the level of legendary Anschutz accuracy, you need to move up into a model with their better 54/64 type actions. These guns got their best barrels and the 54/64 actions have outstanding triggers. These are the guns that were introduced into the country as Savage/Anscutz guns by Savage, sometime back in the 70s. Now, these guns, are truly outstanding and also collectible.

If you just want a shooter, I'd recommend the Savage, but, honestly, a good CZ 22 bolt gun like a 452 Trainer can be had for under $400 and these a better build quality than any Savage and at least as accurate, if not more so. If you like traditional wood and steel, you'll love a 452 Trainer. Our local Wal-mart even sells these, now, for just a bit over $300.

This one os from our CZ collection, one of two 452 Trainers. My favorite CZ 22 LR model. The tangent open sights are outstanding. Best open sights supplied by the factory of any gun made.

Ojaileveraction, — Ha, that's exactly what I've been doing with the Henry 22 mag, placing shots at 50 and 100 yards. I thought about another Henry in 22LR, they're so much damn fun, I LOVE mine, and would never sell it. It's that slick smooth action, nothing compares, but I have to start taming my consumption of 22 mag ammo. I bought 4 boxes of 200 rounds each this weekend, they went on sale at Cabela's, so I couldn't resist.

I wish Henry would release an all steel single shot break open 22LR, .22 mag, like their center-fire models, I want one in .223 so badly. My god they're handsome, and so simple.

NCG, I was actually looking at another CZ in 22LR, it's the varmint heavy barrel model, just like my 455 in .17. But I was trying to keep the price down. That rifle sells in my area for $600 + HST, not "cheap", but likely a much better rifle. I might try and locate a 452 trainer, that seems like it would fit the bill nicely.

Segue here, I had to share this. I've been using a Caldwell Rock Jr for months since I bought the Henry, and this cheap Allen rear bag, that's way too hard, too wide. The Henry tends to cant a bit in the rear rest, so I'm always fiddling with it. It works fine with the 455, flatter wider fore-end, wider rear stock etc.

Last weekend, I bought a Caldwell Deadshot dual bag kit: http://static5.uttings.info/images/prod ... _large.jpg and it's changed everything. I LOVE these bags. I can flip it over, on its side for more height, slide the rear stock back a bit in the deeper and narrower ears, to raise or lower the POA, it's amazing. It supports the entire underside of the fore-end, it's so stable. I'm shooting much tighter now, and no potato is safe with this setup. Best purchase I've made in a long time.

Sorry, had to add this..

I've noticed with the Henry 22 mag, at 50 yards, often I'll sight in with 3 shots, maybe a few more. Let's say I'm trying to shoot in the center of a 1" square on the target paper, and the bullet hole is actually high and right by 1", top right corner of that square, or slightly higher and more right, into the next square — up and above SEE: https://s31.postimg.cc/p6dvbooor/POA_vs_POI.jpg

What I'll often do is adjust the windage and elevation turrets by 2 clicks each way, LEFT 2, DOWN 2 to get closer to center. But I've noticed when I do that, then the POI is often too far left. Instead, if I do 1 click up and down each, I often get center, or very close to.

Why does that happen? You'd think that 2 clicks, 1/4 MOA each would result in bringing the POI dead on, but usually it's been 1 click. If I was off by 1.5 inches, high and right, you would assume that it would take 6 clicks, 3 DOWN and 3 LEFT, but it usually works best with, 2 clicks DOWN and 2 LEFT that bring it closest to center. ??

Henry22, I doubt the problem is with your scope or even your gun. It's more likely the 22 mag cartridge, itself. Two clicks of a 1/4 MOA adjustment scope at 50 yards is a tiny adjustment, only 1/4". Remember, on any scope adjustment, you're moving the impact of the center of a group, not individual shots, unless, of course, you have an exceptionally accurate gun that is shooting one hole groups at that distance. Then moving the scope 1/4" will move an individual shot POI 1/4". Even my best 22 mags, which have shot half inch groups, moving two clicks is still going to be trial and error to see how the POI changes. On a 22 mag that is shooting 3/4" groups, moving two clicks to see how the POI changes is going to be a whole LOT more trial and error. If all our guns shot one hole groups, adjusting a scope and sighting it in would be a whole lot easier.

By the way, on rimfires at 50 yards, I never shoot any less than 5 shot groups when sighting in, unless of course I've got one of those one of those guns I know is a one hole shooter.

Thanks NCG, I should know more about this stuff, I haven't read or watched enough. Here's one that I still have a hard time with.

If I take a shot at that 1" square, and I'm trying to hit dead center, if I'm high and right as I mentioned before, I usually try and hold the POA exactly where I was aiming, and then move the cross-hairs via the turrets TO the POI. It's usually trial and error, 2 clicks at a time, or 1 at a time, until I start hitting within a 1/4 inch of where I intended.

What I still can't understand, is why the turrets move in opposite directions. Like down is actually up, and left is right. A few times I've accidentally move the turrets the opposite way, and then I'm too left, or too right, and then I have to dial it back in, 1 click at a time, and if you miss at 100 yards, it's not always easy to tell exactly how far off you were.

Case in point: https://s31.postimg.cc/75wg5oryx/22_Mag_at_50_yards.jpg See the top line, the right most circular target with the 4 shots in it?

I placed the first 2 just outside the bullseye, the range officer tried 2 shots with my rifle when he was walking by the bench I was on. He placed the next 2 shots high, and couldn't for the life of him figure out why. He said, "Oh god, I'm a MUCH better shot than that". He shoots out to 400-600 yards with creedmore, so this was awful to him.

But this also happens to me regularly. I dial the scope in, exactly where I want it, then it changes, slightly, or sometimes more. It's never predictable or repeatable. The 3 targets on the bottom line, left, were intentional. I was trying to shoot a group for reference, in case the bullet didn't impact where I wanted, I'd at least be able to see WHERE and how FAR it went from where I was aiming, and still have room on the target to take a few more shots to refine the group.

Do you see the first TOP LEFT bullseye? The one in the red was intentional, — after I had dialed the scope in by 1 click, then another. It'll shoot that way for awhile, but then you'll get ones that are high and right for no apparent reason. When this happens, I'll usually stick a few potatoes onto the target board, knowing that if I hold bottom and left, at about 7 o' clock, I'll get every single one. Then it changes, sometimes low, sometimes a higher and right shot - ammo, or me, or both? I'm learning how crucial trigger squeeze is, and stillness — absolute stillness.

Having said that, I could PULL the trigger in some cases with this new Deadshot front rest, the support under the fore-end is amazing, and you don't even really need a rear rest, you can just shoulder it.

Despite it not being a tack driver, I absolutely love shooting this Henry, and I love 22 mag. God it's fun.

My first rifle is about 50 yrs old. My Dad bought it for me when entering NRA sanctioned training and competetive shooting. It is a Savage/ Anschutz model Mark 10 A 22lr. I believe it is considered a youth model. Has always been a tack driver and I still love it. ( mint condition ). Certainly does not feel like a youth model as it fits me perfectly. Has high peep sites and front sight with inserts in spring loaded cylinder. I had bought a Nikon 3-9 x 40 scope for my BB 357 but opted for a different scope. Have not yet returned the Nikon yet so was thinking about putting it on the S/A 22 lr. Any thoughts or info on this old rifle would be appreciated. Will try to post pics later, but my tablet is going dead at the moment.

The Mark 10s came in a variety of actions and, therefore, triggers. If yours has an adjustment on the trigger, it's likely a 64 action and, therefore, a real keeper. The best Anschutz action is the 54, but the 64 actions and triggers aren't far behind. My Anschutz Exemplar pistol, for instance, is built on a 64 action. I like to joke that it's my most accurate 'rifle", but it's really not that much of an exaggeration. Anyway, hang on to your S/A. You'd pay a hefty price replacing it with a current production Anschutz. Note I said Anschutz, not Savage. The only thing Savage about those old Savage/Anschutz rimfires was that Savage was the importer.

As always, thank you NCG. Yes, mine does have an adjustable trigger. Wish I could get a close pic, but there is a thin screw going from front to rear with a small nut behind the trigger. Sorry, don't know why pics are upside down.

.
Details on why here: http://henryrifleforums.com/viewtopic.p ... =20#p64075

Hold your phone with the camera lens to the left and the home button to the right when taking a picture. The picture should then post right side up. Using your phone camera in any other orientation, the pictures may be rotated or upside down.

To fix photos, you'll need to down load them to a computer and use the photo editing software to rotate them into the correct orientation. Then repost them.

markiver54 wrote:.... Sorry, don't know why pics are upside down.

Looks good on that S/A. Those sights are actually worth quite a bit, now. The open sights on my Exemplar bring an easy $100 when you can find them, but that's not often. Hang on to those sights.

First off, thank you Mags. I use my Galaxy tablet to take my pic so that they are already there for me to post. I hold it horizontally for most of my pics. Maybe I just need to rotate 180 degrees next time. NCG, thank you again as well. WILL hang on to those sights! In the meantime, what are your thoughts on that Nikon 3-9 x 40 scope that I still have in the box?. It's the Buckmaster II model. Can still return it if need be. Thought it might be ok for the rim fire.

.
Please do that. We can then include that information in the photo testing topic.

markiver54 wrote:... I hold it horizontally for most of my pics. Maybe I just need to rotate 180 degrees next time.

You're welcome.

The issue with using standard big game scopes for rimfire work is parallax, the apparent movement of the crosshair off the target when you move your head. This happens anytime you use a non adjustable objective/side focus scope at a distance other than the factory set perfect focus distance. This factory set perfect focus at a particular distance for the sake of minimizing parallax is what distinguishes a rimfire scope from a big game scope. Rimfire scopes are focused at the factory to be parallax free at 50 or 60 yards (some rare exceptions a touch beyond), depending on make and model. Big game scopes are set to be parallax free anywhere from 100 to 150 yards, depending on the make and model.

This does not mean you can't use a scope like your Buckmaster for rimfire work. It just means you'll have to deal with the parallax issue. Note that, although it may seem counter-intuitive, parallax is going to be more serious at close distances rather than way out there. For a big game scope with a parallax setting of 150 yards, the error due to parallax is negligible for big game hunting way out there at 500 yards. On the other hand, that same scope will have a significant amount of parallax error at 10 yards.

A fun way to demonstrate this is to close one eye, then hold your thumb up about 6 inches from your face. Then open that eye and close the other one. Repeat rapidly, switching eyes. Note the apparent distance the thumb seems to move. Then repeat the procedure with your arm fully extended. Even with such a minimal change in distance, you'll see your thumb appears to move more when it's closer to your eye.

You can also check parallax error easily with your gun at the range. Place your gun solidly on a rest, with the crosshairs centered on the target. Then move your head right and left and note how far the crosshairs move off that target. That's your parallax error potential. It's also the proper way to focus you AO or SF scope to eliminate parallax, because the marking on an AO scope for yardage are an approximation, not a perfect indicator of focus.

With your Nikon on a rimfire, then, all depends on the distance you'll be shooting. At 50 yards, won't be much of an issue, unless you're shooting for the absolute smallest possible group. On the other hand, parallax on such a scope will be a serious issue at 25 yards and especially at 16 yards. Note that parallax can be eliminated as an issue on any scope and gun combo IF you can place your eye in EXACTLY the same spot for each and every shot. This, of course, is easier said than done. Pretty much all but impossible to do on a stock that does not allow for a solid cheek rest, as per most lever guns.

Some types of scopes offer parallax adjustments for the sake of their intended use. Varmint scopes typically have parallax adjustments via an adjustable objective or side focus because the targets will be very small and even a small amount of parallax can cause a miss. Air guns scope almost universally have AOs or SFs, too, because they are used at such close ranges.

Hope this helps.

Helps very much. Your detailed and educated... ( never in question ) answers and descriptions actually answerd a few questions I might have asked in the future especially re: parallax which I admittedly have not quite understood up to now. We should all be thankful for you sharing your wealth of info NCG. Now that I'm retired I have time to be seeking info that I did not try as much to focus on because of long work hours. AHAAA! time for me now. Your profile shoes retired ,yet you keep teaching...CUDOS!!