I’ve been thinking about getting a Golden Boy, just because they’re pretty, and supposed to be fine rifles. The intended purpose is simply plinking. I don’t have a rifle in .22 Mag, and I was thinking that’s what I’d get. But I love the idea of loading a boatload of shorts in the magazine. I have a nice 10/22, and a nice 77/22, with which I intend to hunt squirrels at some point with shorts, CB caps, etc. That rifle will be scoped. I don’t plan on scoping the Henry.

So, that’s my dilemma. I don’t need .22 Mag just for plinking, but I don’t have a .22 Mag. But I like the idea of the capacity with shorts. What do y’all think? Any arguments for or against either? Anything I’m missing that the Mag might be useful for? Thanks for any opinions.

If it's just plinking, don't buy a 22 mag, it's expensive.

I dislike the 22 mag for edible small game as it's unnecessarily destructive.

While I own 22 mags, I rarely use them.. A Ruger Single six convertible that I fired one box of 22mag through back in 1981 and none since. And a Savage 24 22mag over 20ga that I've spent the last 34 years wishing was a 22LR.
Starting from scratch, the ONLY reason I would buy one was if I wanted slightly more power, for a place where it wasn't legal to use a centerfire.

22lr, is where i would go, unless you are going after snapping turtle.

I know that accurate .22 mag systems exist, but they are not common. Ammo is often loaded with second-rate bullets (for accuracy) and some chambers/barrels don't seem to have the greatest attention to detail.

.22 cal bullets aren't known for their flight capabilities while transitioning from supersonic to subsonic speeds. This is a primary reason why accurate .22lr ammo starts out subsonic. All .22 mag ammo starts out supersonic.

I don't know if you're considering the .22lr version, then shooting it with both .22lr ammo and .22 shorts. I will not use anything other than .22lr ammo in a .22lr chamber. Read up on this. Shorts foul the chamber in ways that just aren't good when you switch back to .22lr.

If I were buying a Golden Boy, I would consider .22lr (using only .22lr ammo) or .17 HMR -- if I wanted a little more oomph in the cartridge.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
...
I don't know if you're considering the .22lr version, then shooting it with both .22lr ammo and .22 shorts. I will not use anything other than .22lr ammo in a .22lr chamber. Read up on this. Shorts foul the chamber in ways that just aren't good when you switch back to .22lr.
...

I've read a little on that, but I notice that Henry specifically labels their chambers ".22 S/L/LR". But I don't see how a chamber can be made differently, if it accepts LR it's going to be longer than ideal for L or S.

I need to look at the various "quiet" ammo, as my primary reason for the shorts is the quiet report. More capacity is a bonus, but not the primary reason. A "quiet" load, with longer dimensions, would seem to solve the problem to the extent it exists.

unless you have a specific identifiable need .22mag is a really odd expensive duck. I have several of them since they can be reliably used to put down certain farm animals that I have and .22lr is iffy. Its not possible to make .22mag quiet with ammo choice like you can with .22lr.
I would have no fear of running shorts in a .22lr chamber. But finding that ammo is problematic so I just use quiet .22lr normally.
I've been happy with the henry for what it is (in .22lr), my .22mag lever is a win9422 but good luck finding one of those.

I wouldn't want .22 mag. Far too expensive for the rounds from what it is, a lot louder than .22 LR and a lot more muzzle flash without much benefit. I'd rather have .22 LR......or for the money in ammo a rifle in .17 over the mag.

I have both Henry's, but not the brass receiver "Golden Boys".

The .22 Mag is perfect for mid-sized varmits like foxes, but as noted a tad expensive to shoot just for gits and shiggles.

The s/l/lr is about as much fun as it's possible to have with your clothes on. Especially with shorts: pop.....sssssssssssssssssss....tink!

Both are fine rifles, especially for the price. Do the standard SigForum thing: One of each!

I wouldn't go with the .22 mag unless you are intending to hunt larger small game. As PHPaul indicates, foxes etc. Around here, they are used for short range feral hog elimination.

More power than you need for raccoon, possum, rabbit or squirrel, and much more expensive. Think $.20/round instead of $.04-$.07/round. If I wanted the performance of .22 mag, I'd go .17hmr and get a faster, flatter bullet in the same price range.

Ditto on 22 mag.

If I went that way it would be the CZ 512 anyway.

Check out the Henry Evil Roy Frontier Carbine. We have one and it is just outstanding. Darned near perfect imo. It has everything we want out of a lever action .22 LR.

https://www.henryusa.com/rifle...ne-evil-roy-edition/

Oh, sure, .22LR is more accurate, cost efficient, available, etc, etc.

Get that Golden Boy!

.22 Magnum ammo is as available and cheap as its ever going to be, right now.

I say, go for it, and try out a bunch of different manufacturers and loads for grouping and for terminal ballistics ...
especially, if you have access to a shooting range where you can 'splode soap bars, overripe melons, dented cans of beans, gallon jugs of food-color dyed water, etc., versus .22LR loads from your other rifles.

Enjoy it, and give us range reports.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RichardC,

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou: I don’t need .22 Mag just for plinking, but I don’t have a .22 Mag. But I like the idea of the capacity with shorts. What do y’all think? Any arguments for or against either? Anything I’m missing that the Mag might be useful for? Thanks for any opinions.

I have a couple of .22 mag rifles; one is a Henry Mare's Leg. It works and cycles rounds with the usual Henry reliability. That said, I don't shoot them very often. If I want to plink I usually grab any one of my .22LR auto-loaders.

Mrs. 'Hook has a Henry H001 that's also very reliable and puts a smile on her face every time. If you want to simply plink I'd recommend getting the Golden Boy in .22LR. After you determine what you really want to do with a .22 Mag you can purchase the appropriate rifle that fits that need.

I have the 22lr Golden Boy. 22mag too expensive. Nice looking rifle. Heavy but shoots accurately.

I will vote for the .22 LR...back in the 70s I bought a .22 magnum Winchester 9422...great, handsome and slick little rifle, I would still have it today if I had opted for the .22 LR model (IIRC $20 cheaper at JC Penny at the time)...it was expensive to feed (especially back then 8-10X as much compared to cheaper .22 LR ammo per 50 rd. box) as well as overly destructive on game with no advantage on accuracy (from what I could tell from shooting with friends)...maybe a scope would have made things better but it didn't seem to "fit" on that rifle...I just can't see a Golden Boy wearing a scope (but that's just me) Lever Action .22s like the GB are for fun...if I were going to opp for a magnum I would go for a bolt gun (again, that's just me).

Imo, I'd go with the .22LR. .22 mag is expensive...expensive enough that it's not really ideal for plinking. I have a single-six convertible, and I've used the .22 mag cylinder twice in 9 years. The two primary uses for the gun are range plinking and putting down small animals that I've trapped. The magnum is too expensive for the range, and too loud for shooting in the back yard (we have neighbors)... especially when the .22LR is in itself adequate for both tasks.

I have a lever-action in .357 that I handload for. I can load light .38 specials for less than I can buy .22 mag ammo for, and the recoil and downrange impact is pretty similar to a .22 mag (albeit with a bigger hole). The same gun loaded with hot .357 mag ammo will take down a deer.