PDA

View Full Version : Mossberg 464 lever-action?


Vergeltung
December 1, 2008, 02:07 PM
anyone out there have one of these by chance? one is on the cover of the Mossberg 2008 Gun Annual mag, and it is really putting the hook in me. I can see all the episodes of the Rifleman running through my head. ;)

seriously though, I'd appreciate any thoughts about this weapon. Thanks in advance! I already (recently) purchased a home defense and range shotgun, and this intrigues me as a nice rifle. love the nostalgia attached to the idea.

j.chappell
December 1, 2008, 02:11 PM
My local shop has gotten in a few and they look terrible. Fit, finish, and overall qualitiy seem poor.

J.

Vergeltung
December 1, 2008, 02:14 PM
oh! that's not good news. thanks for the quick reply.

ChicagoTex
December 1, 2008, 02:28 PM
Fit, finish, and overall qualitiy seem poor.

Unfortunately that seems to be the consensus anytime Mossberg deviates from their Shotgun stock-and-trade.

Vergeltung
December 1, 2008, 04:25 PM
ah, that's too bad. oh well....

dgludwig
December 1, 2008, 05:12 PM
I had the occasion to inspect two of them recently and found the fit, finish and general workmanship to be at least as good as any Marlin. Don't own one, don't care to, just thought I'd report my observations. Maybe the ones I examined were flukes or maybe the ones j.chappell looked at were flukes or maybe Mossberg's production of these rifles is fraught with inconsistencies-don't know, but the rifles I looked at were nice specimens.

h2oskikrazy
December 1, 2008, 05:14 PM
I was lucky enough to stumble on a used one at about $100 off the new price. So, I picked it up. It didn't look like it had been shot. There were no scratches on the loader until I loaded and shot it. The fit and finish issues mentioned are noticeable compared to a higher priced gun. But, they don't bother me. This gun was made to carry and shoot. Not, necessarily to look great. It cycles and shoots well. I mounted a 3-9 Scope on it so I could see where I was hitting the target at the 100 yard range that I shoot at.

SPUSCG
December 1, 2008, 05:19 PM
heard of them shipping with parts missing, that they fte, all kinds of problems. a 336 is like 325 with a scope buy that

jmr40
December 1, 2008, 05:25 PM
The ones I have handled did not impress me at all. As long as I can get a real Marlin or Winchester off the used racks (for less money I might add) that is the route I will be taking.

j.chappell
December 1, 2008, 10:09 PM
dgludwig,

Wow, maybe I looked at some bad ones but I think you may have just seen a few good ones.

The wood on the ones that I looked at was horrible, lightly colored, metal to wood fit was terrible with gaps and uneven, and the metal finishing was less than desirable.

I compared the Mossberg to the Henry (I do not like either). I am not a Henry fan but in comparing the 2 the Mossberg would be the Pinto and the Henry the Cadillac.

I just dont think you are going to see any consistency in the Mossberg rifles.

J.

SPUSCG
December 1, 2008, 10:12 PM
yeah i dont really like any mossberg products, the 702 is okay but so much more on the market

Vergeltung
December 2, 2008, 09:07 AM
well, I guess I will have to get out and do some personal inspection. :) the Mossberg 590 SP (# 50665) shotgun I purchased last month is a fine armament. I am more than completely satisfied with it, so, I don't think I will be dismissing the company's products out of hand in any context.

Sometimes, alot of the discussion here reminds me of a Ford vs. Chevy truck debate. However, I do certainly appreciate the feedback, and will do some "field work" in the next few weeks.

thanks everyone. :)

hogdogs
December 2, 2008, 09:18 AM
Verg, I am a rabid Mossberg shotgun man and think everything else is either a lesser beast or a foo-foo poddle rendition of a pitbull...:D I know this will get a chuckle from many and some may actually spit their coffee on the monitor but that is me.
I will not own anything they import including their rimfire and O/U shotguns as well as the SA line of auto loaders. I am leaning towards a Mossberg bolt action so long as it will shoot minute of bowling pin. But In these times I am confused why they would try to get into the lever market... If they are well built and accurate they are still a "winchester knockoff" I have not even handled one but intend to maybe even today...
I love the family run concept of mossberg and their CS is excellent for me.
Brent

Vergeltung
December 2, 2008, 11:30 AM
yeah, same here re Mossberg. Frankly, if Winchester was still making firearms I'd buy one from them. I was sad to hear they went out of business (except for ammo production, I guess).

good question as to why they went into the lever-action segment at this time. it does hit a twinge of nostalgia for me, especially as regards my love of that 1950s-60s TV Western, The Rifleman. :)

:)

j.chappell
December 2, 2008, 12:30 PM
Thats the best thing to do is to get out and look at them firsthand.

J.

Don H
December 2, 2008, 12:58 PM
Frankly, if Winchester was still making firearms I'd buy one from them.

Arguably, "Winchester" hasn't made a firearm since December 1980 when Olin sold the Winchester Repeating Arms Company to the U.S. Repeating Arms Company and USRA made Winchester guns under license from Olin (Winchester went bankrupt in the early '30s and was bought by Olin (Western Cartridge)). USRA went belly-up in early 2006 and later in the year Olin licensed FN Herstal to manufacture "Winchester" brand rifles and shotguns. Olin continues to manufacture Winchester-brand ammunition.

One could debate whether a "Winchester" manufactured under license is a "real" Winchester, especially when the manufacturer is a foreign company. Is a Winchester manufactured by Miroku in Japan really a Winchester?

Vergeltung
December 2, 2008, 01:00 PM
One could debate whether a "Winchester" manufactured under license is a "real" Winchester, especially when the manufacturer is a foreign company. Is a Winchester manufactured by Miroku in Japan really a Winchester?

gak! :barf: Chuck Connors would roll over in his grave!! I could never soil his memory in such a manner. :D

dgludwig
December 2, 2008, 03:22 PM
yeah, same here re Mossberg. Frankly, if Winchester was still making firearms I'd buy one from them. I was sad to hear they went out of business (except for ammo production, I guess).

good question as to why they went into the lever-action segment at this time.

I think maybe you answered your own question.

hogdogs
December 2, 2008, 04:14 PM
Well my local gun shop hasn't got any, hasn't had any and his reason was "They would have to really be a sharp rifle to steal any of my Marlin customers from the Marlin offerings..." He agreed he has heard both good and bad on them though.
Brent

ursavus.elemensis
December 2, 2008, 08:30 PM
During WW1, Winchester expanded significantly to make rifles for the British and the American armies. They borrowed heavily to expand. The Winchester Repeating Arms Co. went bankrupt in 1931 and has not made a rifle since then. The company was sold by the bankruptcy court to Olin in 1931, which combined Winchester with Western Cartridge. Rifles made after the sale were made by Olin's company, using the name "Winchester Repeating Arms" but it was not the genuine, original Winchester company (originally called Volcanic Repeating Arms Co., later called New Haven Repeating Arms Co. -- Oliver Winchester was the major stockholder and later re-named the company Winchester Repeating Arms Co.) Quoting from the Internet, "Labor costs continued to rise, and a prolonged and bitter strike in 1979-80 convinced Olin that firearms could no longer be produced profitably in New Haven. Therefore in December 1980 the plant was sold to its employees, incorporated as the U.S. Repeating Arms Company, together with a licence to make Winchester arms. Olin retained the Winchester ammunition business." Quoting further: "From 1981 until 2006, Winchester guns were made by the U.S. Repeating Arms Company. When U.S. Repeating Arms went bankrupt it was acquired by a French holding company, then sold to an arms making cartel sponsored by the Belgian province of Herstal, which also owns famous gun makers Fabrique National (FN) and Browning. ... On August 15, 2006, Olin Corporation, owner of the Winchester trademarks, announced that it had entered into a new license agreement with Browning to make Winchester brand rifles and shotguns, though not at the closed Winchester plant in New Haven. Browning, based in Morgan, Utah, and the former licensee, U.S. Repeating Arms Company, are both subsidiaries of FN Herstal. In 2008 FN Herstal announced that it would produce Model 70 rifles at its plant in Columbia, SC." Since 1931, the rifles have ALL been made by other companies that simply owned or leased the winchester trademark, but none of them were the original Winchester company.

goredsox
March 1, 2009, 11:16 PM
I picked up one of these before the hunting seasons this past fall. I hear the complaints about the fit&finish, but I think fit is solid and finish is commensurate with the price.

As for performance:

I bought it too late to mount a decent sling so I ended up carrying it slingless around the mountains of Vermont for a weeklong moose hunt. The weight was outstanding compared with any bolt-action I'd have carried instead.

I did not mount a scope...but I was very impressed with the consistent iron-sights accuracy I got at the range with Hornady LEVERevolution. And so much fun, that I actually went through a box of this ammo just at the range (also an endorsement of the ammo).

Our moose was taken with my loaned out ruger 30-06, but I did later take two deer with the mossberg and same ammo (hornady) as above.

I spent nearly 3 weeks afield with only this firearm this year and in the end, here's what I'll say...it was my first time hunting with a lever-action and first time hunting just via iron sights. My deer kills were proof to me that I definitely don't need a scope here in the mountains/brush of vermont. The gun was light and short enough that all shots felt reflexive and solid. I now don't see myself deer or eastern black bear hunting in my home of vermont with anything but a lever/iron sight combo. I'll probably pick up a 444marlin or 45-70 for the next moose hunt. As for whether I regret not spending the extra do for a Marlin or Winchester? Not a bit.

dgludwig
March 2, 2009, 04:20 PM
Good report, goredsox. Hard to beat a handy little carbine with irons in the woods- no matter who makes it.

L_Killkenny
March 2, 2009, 06:24 PM
First off......Chuck Conners played an arrogant A$$. Couldn't stand that man. Can't think of another TV western lead man that wouldn't take that rifle away and stick it where the sun don't shine! Enough of that.....

I think Mossberg got into the lever gun market due to the gapping hole left by demise of the Winchester brand name. Let's face it, Marlin guns tend to run a little heavier and are more "full sized". They have only made limited runs of 30/30's that have a straight stock. I personally like the looks and feel of the Winchester 94's. Many do.

That being said, there is no way I'm gonna pay more for a Mossbeerg knock-off than I would for a Marlin 336. Just ain't gonna happen. If I'm gonna spend the price of a 464 (because I wanted the look and feel), I'd fork out the couple extra dollars for a Marlin 94 in .357. Last I checked the Marlin 94's run less than $50 more than a new Mossberg.

Mossberg has priced them out of the market. They should sell em cheap for now and build a following like they did with their shotguns. No way can the compete with Marlin right off the bat.

ursavus.elemensis
March 2, 2009, 09:31 PM
Mossberg has made lever rifles in the past, too. They make them for a while, sell what they can. then drop it from the line. Then they bring them back another decade or two later. No doubt they thought this was a good time to bring out a rifle that resembles a Winchester 94. They'll sell however many of these they can. and then drop the rifle from their line up. I think these rifles are selling well for now.

goredsox
March 2, 2009, 10:23 PM
Unlike the times of our fathers and grandfathers, we're actually looking at a much weaker and less dynamic industry. R&D budgets have been slashed, the barriers to entry for new manufacturers are high (nearly impossible to start a new venture and be able to pay the salaries of a half dozen attorneys on day 1 of operation), and consumer demand has weakend with the decline in participation in shooting sports.

I think the remaining U.S. firearms manufacturers are simply trying to diversify their product set with "tried and true" options as means of long-term survival. Even the healthiest of them (financially) are at risk with the volatile fluctuations that occur with every new piece of legislation and our legal system.

Mossberg is smart to branch out beyond shotguns (as are S&W and Ruger with their recent product line expansions). The balancing act is how to do it without hurting your reputation, as overextending yourself will show in product quality and lower customer satisfaction. While also paying very close attention to ROI.

Thus, whether from Mossberg or anyone else...the most logical place to launch the product lines that will keep their companies afloat is in the broadest possible segments at the lowest possible price-point. Did Remington launch a new&improved 700? No, they've launched 710, 770, 700 SPS. Ruger trims it's stock and changes out the trigger assembly and it's a big party and new product line. Even this 464 wouldn't have grabbed my attention were it not for the added value of the new Hornady LEVERevolution ammo.

Ultimately, look at it this way...the 464 gives us something slightly more interesting to debate on these boards other than all of the other sameness about "latest and greatest plastic-stocked, tack drivers initially offered only in 270 and 30-06, blah blah (yeah, I know Mossberg did it too)" :-)

Blue Duck
March 2, 2009, 11:24 PM
I looked at one of these, and it was terrible. A piece of cheap junk, just like most other Mossburgs.

There are way too many good Winchesters and Marlins still around, to consider lowering myself to this level.

musicmatty
October 2, 2009, 11:06 PM
The pictures and reports all seemed to be very favorable..but chat on the boards seem to echo something else.

I have a Win Ranger model 94 chambered in 30-30 that I bought new in 1990 I think..and this lever is fast and hard hitting within a 170yrds.

I would like to get one more, but at this time, Winchester in not making them since they have been sold to someone else..but they are offering the model 70...Im sure the famed model '94' wearing the name Winchester on the barrel will make a triumphant return soon to their line up...lets hope :cool:

CraigC
October 3, 2009, 09:41 AM
That being said, there is no way I'm gonna pay more for a Mossbeerg knock-off than I would for a Marlin 336.
I have to agree. I looked at one this week and was wholeheartedly unimpressed. I just couldn't pay more for one than a decent used Marlin or Winchester would cost me.

jsr76
October 3, 2009, 09:51 AM
I don't want to start a fight. However, I have read and heard of MANY accounts stating that the Marlin lever action was and is THE lever action. For quality and accuracy. I agree. And since the previous posts tell the folly of Winchester arms, I can see why Marlin is THE leader. No offense to any diehard Winchester fans, but the 94 did die off.;) However, they did look good. I do and always will prefer the Marlin for toughness and accuracy. With respect to all.:)

CraigC
October 3, 2009, 10:15 AM
I have no issue with personal preference but let's be straight. Winchester died off, which had nothing to do with the model 94. For right at the end, they had revamped the model 94 with a new tang safety, several new configurations and new cartridge offerings. The 94 was going through a revival or rebirth of sorts and was ALWAYS a strong seller. It was all the short, fat, super duper, extra short & fat magnum foolishness and poor management that sank Winchester. The model 94 just went down with the ship.

OJ
October 3, 2009, 11:19 AM
This was extensively discussed on a levergun forum with 99% bad experiences and, even the one enthusiast eventually had to admit the rest of us were correct.

I bought one (having read good reviews in Shooting times and the NRA Rifleman0 and the extractor failed before the first magazine (6 rounds) was fired. Sent it back to repair facility (not where the factory is) at my expense and, after a month, got it back. Started loading it when the screw holding the forend broke before I even shot it. It was odd sized and no local gunsmith could replace it - Mossberg at first required me to send it back to the repair facility but, I convinced them I had a screwdriver and could replace it if I could get the screw.

Got the screw and replaced it and found I couldn't get through the six rounds in the magazine without a malfunction.

Now, I'm stuck with a rifle I wouldn't sell or even give away because i wouldn't want the recipient to think what he would of me every time he looked at the rifle.

Only too late, I looked in past Gun Digests and found Mossberg had produced some half dozen lever model 30-30 rifles - I assume the reason they aren't still around says something of their quality - or lack of.

:barf:

badlander
October 3, 2009, 11:21 AM
Why buy A knockoff when you can buy A Marlin 336 for $300. and change?
Dicks Has the 336 SS for $519. A bit more money but the fit and finnish on mine is beautiful.

musicmatty
October 3, 2009, 03:29 PM
I have no issue with personal preference but let's be straight. Winchester died off, which had nothing to do with the model 94. For right at the end, they had revamped the model 94 with a new tang safety, several new configurations and new cartridge offerings. The 94 was going through a revival or rebirth of sorts and was ALWAYS a strong seller. It was all the short, fat, super duper, extra short & fat magnum foolishness and poor management that sank Winchester. The model 94 just went down with the ship

**********************************************************

I agree 100% with the above. I don't believe there should be any question about the quality of the Model 94 from the last 20yrs...arguably the best ever made. With it's side ejection from the bolt allowing for a low mount scope, this gun was up to date for what it was..light, fast and extreamly well balanced. Winchester will alway's be King of the Lever action rifle regardless of the die hard Marlin owners who don't prefer a legend rifle that went out at the top of it's game. ;)

dgludwig
October 3, 2009, 05:14 PM
Winchester will alway's be King of the Lever action rifle regardless of the die hard Marlin owners who don't prefer a legend rifle that went out at the top of it's game.

Amen! Right on! Winchesters are the lever-actions everyone else wishes they had made first. From the Model 94 (and earlier) to the Model 88-Winchester knew how to make a lever-action look right. My personal favorite is the Model 71-talk about a classic. Put the 71 next to a 336 chambered in .444, 45-70 or whatever and you'll see the difference.

Of course, I like Savage 99s too...:o

Scout
October 4, 2009, 05:12 PM
I believe we'll see the Model 94 resurrected again soon. A lot of folks say that Winchester moved out of Connecticut to thwart the Union which was throttling the company. Then, in accordance with contracts, the company had to lay off production for a period of time. Now they're set up in a right to work state.

musicmatty
October 4, 2009, 06:07 PM
Very cool...thanks for the update and I hope they start soon with O'l model 94. :)

jsr76
October 5, 2009, 05:31 PM
I wouldn't mind a new high quality model 94. However, pick one up, they are not the Marlin 336. Shoot groups and you will see. Wimpy feeling and less accurate. Don't kid yourselves, Winchester hasn't really been Winchester for a lifetime.

musicmatty
October 9, 2009, 04:19 AM
JSR76...couldn't disagree more with you. My Model 94 Ranger was extreamly accurate at 100yds in the bull..very very tight groups. You may be partial to a Marlin, but calling the Winchester model 94 a wimpy gun..and especially the later models that were even better designed for more accuracy is not being well informed on your part.:o

moosemike
October 9, 2009, 10:44 AM
I picked a new Mossberg lever action off the shelf at Gander Mountain the other day. My first thought was where did they hide the brick! Those things are heavy. It made me wish Winny 94's were still being made.

OJ
October 9, 2009, 11:21 AM
Having posted my bad experience with Mossberg, and seeing Winchesters discussed, here is my Winchester 94 in 30-30 I bought in 1968 - it's not "wimpy"

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/kmastf/RIFLES/AWINCHESTER942.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/kmastf/RIFLES/BUFFALOBILL94A.jpg

However, it did cost me $90.00 so, in a way I guess some Winchester 94s could be regarded as "cheap" - :rolleyes:

That same day and same dealer charged my $100.00 for a BL22 lever rimfire rifle. Also, IMNSHO - the Winchester 95 (30-06 here ) is "king of the hill"

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/kmastf/RIFLES/AWINCHESTER95-1.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/kmastf/RIFLES/IMG_1494_edited-1.jpg

:D

Huntergirl
October 9, 2009, 11:32 AM
I don't think that Mossberg will steal any customers from Marlin. There may be a niche for the cheaply made Mossberg levergun now. When that dries up, Mossberg will quit making them. And that will be the problem for Mossberg lever owners, since their guns will probably not hold up over the years like Marlins and Winchesters. They will need parts. If you look at the cheaper clones of other fine rifles and shotguns, that some companies went out of their league to make, just for the dollar, they had a rather short run, with few parts available, after the guns were discontinued. I'm not saying that all clones ended this way, but enough historical data exists for many, to support scepticism.

musicmatty
October 9, 2009, 10:15 PM
Still waiting for 'Winchester' (which is owned by someother superb maker' to unvail the new model 94..I have a feeling it is just around the corner. :)

bdturner
October 11, 2009, 10:58 PM
For the price of a Mossberg I would rather have a Winchester.

jsr76
October 12, 2009, 05:21 AM
Perhaps I say things that sound different than what I mean. I do respect the 94. It is slender and good looking. What I meant to say, is that the 336's seem to me, tobe a bit heavier duty and are reported to be more accurate on the average. Doesn't really matter at this point. They are both classics and I don't believe the 494 ever will be. I have always had a thing for the 94 trapper. What a little whip that would be. Doubt I'll ever get one now. Anyone know how much you would lose with that short little barrel, from the 30-30 power level?

moosemike
October 12, 2009, 09:47 AM
You don't lose very much from a 30-30 in a 16" barrel. I don't remember the numbers but I've seen them posted on other sites and it just wasn't that much of a loss.

CraigC
October 12, 2009, 10:55 AM
Velocity is overrated. ;)

goredsox
November 22, 2009, 10:45 PM
Hearing a bunch of "saw one...didn't like it" and "I hear they suck cuz..." Well folks, let me offer something sorely missing from this thread. FIRST HAND and INDEPTH/EXTENDED observation. Here's the data:

Date Purchased: Sep '08
Rounds fired: 35 (all same as below)
Ammo: Hornaday LEVERevolution 160gr.
Days in Field '08 Seasons: 17
Days in Field '09 Seasons: 8 (and counting)

Season 1 Report:

Bought a few weeks before moose season last year. Wanted to try it without sling & scope, as my heroes of the yesteryear did. As such, I spent all 17 days afield in '08 without scope or sling. I didn't even check boresighting that year... just took it to my local 100yd range and made sure I could consistently hit 6" diameter targets at 100yds. No problems on range, and no misses or 2nd shots needed during the season. I always sight/train with the same ammo I hunt.

Season 2 Report (mid-season):

This year, I added a sling and a Bushnell Trophy 3-9x40 scope. It comes tapped for weaver (h3) mounts and rings...so that was much easier than most lever's around. With the scope I bore sighted and then took it to the range for tuning. The bore sighting (laserlyte) was set to 3in low at 20yds. With live ammo at 100 yds, I was still about an inch low. but no windage changes needed. After tuning elevation I saw 1.1 to 1.9 inch groups the rest of the session.

Thusfar, I've had no problems with feeding/cycling. 25d afield in the rocky/brushy slopes of vermont and it's held up very well. The blueing is actually better than most rifles I've owned. I oiled the wood after last season and it looks great. I'm not so happy with my scope mounts/scope (too bulky and overkill in function). So after the season, I'm going to swap the scope for a 4x32 with decent eye-relief and the detachable see-thru mounts, so that I retain the irons sights as optional.

In fact, I've had so much fun with this lil' bugger that my m77 mkII .308 hasn't been out at all in 2yrs. One of the things I've come to really appreciate (thinking ahead about my growing fast-growing boys)... are the redundant safeties. Tang safety, hammer and the lever-pressure safety are not at all cumbersome in the field (I thought the lever-pressure safety would affect my trigger squeeze but it hasn't noticeably).

Ultimately, this is not a junk gun at all. It may not yet have the collector's value of the winchester's or marlins, but it's just as solid, reliable, accurate and a surprisingly fun rifle to take afield and will likely have a home in my gunsafe for many years to come.

L_Killkenny
November 22, 2009, 11:01 PM
35 rounds? And you really feel that's enough to rate a gun? While it's better than a "I heard this" or "I heard that" it's only marginally so.

Let us know how it's does after a couple 1000. Of coarse at your current rate that will be in 30-40 years.

I'll say this, most guns, even very lame ones like the Remington 770, will do fine for the occasional hunter who goes out once a year to bag a buck and then hangs the gun up. Doesn't mean it's quality though.

I'll also go in with any camp that say's it's not gonna pay more for a Mossberg knockoff than they would for a Marlin or a used Winchester.

LK

goredsox
November 23, 2009, 09:48 AM
LK - I'm not knocking the winchester or marlin at all...In fact, I'm darn near decided on getting a marlin 336 in .338 Marlin Express, as a "Big Brother" to the 464. Also, I was not suggesting that I've put the gun through any sort of torture test (I'm not a gun writer, tester or anyone else associated with the industry and I would rather spend such a personal ammo budget on other things, like a new stove for my hunting camp :-) )... I was just trying to give feedback on my personal observations during the two years of normal use that I've owned it (which happen to correspond with the rifle's two years on the market). Since there's not been much feedback from "in the field" users on this board.

Ultimately, my own declarations are:

1. My mossberg 464 has given me no indication of it being "junk" with this practical experience.
2. Would I recommend it over a winchester or marlin? I dunno, I would probably mention the features I like about it (the accuracy I've witnessed, the extractor works well with scope, lever-pressure safety, tapped for weaver and oddly the little orange cap that lets me know when the magazine tube is empty) -- then I would suggest that the marlin has better chamberings and the winchester has more collector's value (but we can't be as certain of the future of winchester).
3. We should all be excited about a renewal of attention on lever-guns and Hornady, Marlin & Mossberg are largely responsible for the new tide.

556A2
November 23, 2009, 10:09 PM
Winchester will alway's be King of the Lever action rifle regardless of the die hard Marlin owners who don't prefer a legend rifle that went out at the top of it's game.

I don't want a rattle-trap that has a weaker action, PITA to scope (1894-1983) cast receiver (64-83), and commands a premium price because Winchester failed (even though it wasn't due to the 94).

Sorry, I don't buy things because of "legend" status or was used in more Hollywood movies.

Huntergirl
November 24, 2009, 08:43 AM
Mossberg went out of its league to manufacture this levergun, and did a mediocre job of it. I agree that 35 rounds out of a rifle really says nothing, outside of assessing fit and finish and general initial function. Others here CAN eyeball a rifle and give a generally accurate report of what they saw and handled. They have the experience, and DON'T have to buy it. Additionally, the Mossberg Levergun has now been around long enough to get a bigger survey, and as mentioned, it wasn't good.
Don't know what to say. There aren't many companies that can introduce a different pattern from their production line, and do it well. Thompson Center Icon comes to mind as an exception. They're owned by Marlin. And Marlin XL7, nice entry level bolt action. Hmmm, see a trend? Interestingly, I saw a Wnchester pre65, model 94 for $400. listed. It looked pretty darn good. Function listed as excellent. I don't doubt it. That makes it how old?

OJ
November 24, 2009, 12:22 PM
Hearing a bunch of "saw one...didn't like it" and "I hear they suck cuz..." Well folks, let me offer something sorely missing from this thread. FIRST HAND and INDEPTH/EXTENDED observation. Here's the data:



It might be a good idea to read previous posts before writing such -

I make no claim to being an expert but, I got my first rifle for my 6th birthday in 1932 and, being a retired surgeon, am able to shoot at the range every week now so I think I have had enough experience to judge rifles like the 464.

As I stated in my post on this thread, there were several threads on the Levergun.com forum with 99% reporting failures in the first few rounds fired and not just speculation as you allege. The only one reporting otherwise eventually came to the conclusion he was wrong in his conclusion the 464 wasn't as bad as described by other users-shooters.

Here's what a search there produced:Search found 345 matches

Search term used: mossberg 464


Most gun manufacturers test fire their guns before putting them on the market. The fact the Mossberg 464 has failed in as little as only one shot suggests there was no test fire program at Mossberg for the 464. As I reported on my previous post on this thread, I haven't even gone through a box of 20 rounds and nave had two part failures. If it were an automobile, there would have been a massive recall - even Ruger has experienced that - and it was done at the manufacturer's expense.

Not so here - I'm certain Mossberg is well aware of the problems with 464 parts failing - costing customers money to get their guns fixed - but they seem to be turning a deaf ear and ignoring customers - which they have done in the past. Mossberg has no conscience and is ignoring potential injury and lawsuits from injured customers.

My concern is, if there are so many early failures of parts, what are the odds the next part to fail could be the locking mechanism of the bolt or even the bolt which could produce a devastating injury to the shooter??

Personally, I'm not willing to take that chance. So now I have a gun I'm afraid to shoot and certainly won't take the chance of selling - or even giving it away.

As was mentioned above, 45 rounds doesn't prove anything except you got a gun that happened to make it. I put more than that through rifles each weekly trip to the range. The fact you got a 464 that hasn't failed only proves what we all know - no one is perfect - even perfectly bad.

:barf:

musicmatty
November 24, 2009, 06:58 PM
I saw the pictures and read an article on the NEW 464, and it was all positive at first. But after reading all the real reviews from actual owners, it's not so good for the NEW 464.

After careful consideration, I decided to pick up another Authentic model 94 in addition to the one I already own. There are so many Excelent USED model 94s to be had ...especially in these times of great financial difficulties. Seems that many people are having to part with their guns for extra cash.

I recently found a mint condition Commorative model 94, it's the 1869-1969 Golden Spike for the Union Pacific Railroad completion. $400. for this Winchester and it shoots like a dream..very accurate indeed. Between new Marlins and plenty of used Winchesters, theres really no need to go fishing for something new in the Lever gun field. I come to the conclusion, that the best New gun, is a proven used one from a gun shop that comes with a 90 day warranty. :cool:

OJ
November 25, 2009, 01:01 AM
I also meant to mention I looked back at old Gun Digests and, in the 1980s, Mossberg produced some half dozen models of 30-30 lever rifles so the present 464 is not totally strange grounds for them and they don't have that excuse.

Of interest, none of those rifles lasted for sale more than a couple of years. Looks to me like Mossberg is just counting on us having short memories - but, I can say for certain I can make an elephant look like an absent minded professor when a company screws me like Mossberg did.

Wouldn't even take any kind of Mossberg as a gift now -

:barf:

goredsox
November 25, 2009, 08:09 AM
Huntergirl - I'm not sure what "trend" you're trying to illuminate. Thompson Center is owned by Smith&Wesson, not Marlin. And Marlin is owned by Remington, which is in-turn owned by Cerberus (an investment company...the same one that also bought Chrysler and is losing their arse). Winchester (and Browning) is owned by FNH and is nothing but trademarks for sale now. Now here's a point worth considering: As good as the Winchester and Marlin lever-guns are... Mossberg is the only PROFITABLE large US firearmsmaker producing a lever-gun today. In '06, when Winchester closed their New Haven, CT plant (which made their model 94 btw)... many of those workers went to Mossberg (also in New Haven, CT).

Again, the winchester's and marlins are great guns. But as you say, with the number of people reporting negative experiences (of use) with the 464, and the number of people asking about 464's, I thought it was worth noting my own 2yr experience, without discounting the experiences of others. Anyone making a purchasing decision today is fortunate enough to have the benefit of reviews on the internet and that's all we're doing.

L_Killkenny
November 25, 2009, 01:20 PM
Mossberg is the only PROFITABLE large US firearmsmaker producing a lever-gun today

Someone forget about Henry?

Profitable or not, US or not, large or not, all companies can and will lay an egg.

If Mossberg can last out the original issues with the 464 it may turn into a great firearm. But just like they do with restaurants, customers usually only give a gun one shot and don't forget their initial experience.

LK

zombieslayer
November 25, 2009, 01:57 PM
I like mossberg products, but I'd rather have a marlin or winchester lever ANY day. I own lots of mossbergs, and I rushed out to see the 464 when they came out, but it just looked and felt, well, cheap to me. Just one mans opinion, though

goredsox
November 25, 2009, 04:24 PM
LK - You're right, I forgot about Henry...my bust, sorry. Especially since I will certainly concur that the action on mossberg can't hold a candle in smoothness to the Henry.

moosemike
November 25, 2009, 07:50 PM
To me both the Mossberg and the Henry are too heavy.

The Happy kaboomer
November 25, 2009, 08:40 PM
My take on this. I won't own a Mossberg for all the reasons stated above. On the Win. 94. Over the latest years they had cheapened it to the point it was only a shell of its former self. I.E> compare a pre-64 to anything that came later. I own and shoot a lot of lever guns from .22 to 45/70. I was died in the wool Win. fan until they cheapened them to the point the wouldn't hold up to a lot of sustained shooting. The last 3 I bought, a pack rifle in 30/30 and 2 Win. bigbore 444's basically self destructed under sustained fire. I still have some Wins. but they are older and made better. I have switched to Marlin for my lever needs now. My 2 ea. 444p's have digested 1000's of rounds and are no worse for the wear.
If the Win 94 ever comes back I hope its made with the quality of old. What they did during the last years of production was count on their earlier reputation as Colt did to sell an inferior product and the market didn't go for it. My $0,02 is that Marlin still makes the best all steel and walnut lever gun available today.

moosemike
November 26, 2009, 09:50 AM
Good post THK.

OJ
November 26, 2009, 12:03 PM
Profitable or not, US or not, large or not, all companies can and will lay an egg.

If Mossberg can last out the original issues with the 464 it may turn into a great firearm. But just like they do with restaurants, customers usually only give a gun one shot and don't forget their initial experience.

LK



Well, as I noted, producing lever gun 30-30 rifles isn't strange ground they haven't trod before and the ones they made in the 1980s obviously were duds and were discontinued and it probably wasn't Mossberg's choice.

If Mossberg is concerned and has customer satisfaction in mind, they've kept it a secret. As far as I can see, it's just another Mossberg scam.

They could take a lesson from Toyota who is replacing millions of defective gas pedals but, I don't see any evidence Mossberg's caring in the slightest.

Maybe a large court judgment would be what it would take.

:barf:

dgludwig
December 2, 2009, 03:33 AM
cast receiver (64-83),

I'd appreciate seeing the evidence for this claim...

L_Killkenny
December 2, 2009, 09:47 AM
I don't know about cast or not and I thought they changed to the AE models a couple years before but......

The receivers on the '65 to early 80's were definetly what is often refered to as "mystery metal". They were complete crap and rusted bad. They rusted under a plateing and then fell away. It did not change how they functioned in the least. The biggest problem with the post '64 Win 94's "function wise" were the stamped lifters used on post '64 models up to the early 70's. Some lasted only a couple shots, some lasted longer.

Now as far as post '64 quality IMO the early model AE's (angle eject) are pretty good. The biggest issue most shooters have is with the rebounding hammer and the 7-8lbs trigger pull. But it took me less than $20 and 1 hour to get it down to 4 lbs. The fit and finish of the early AE's were pretty good even with the birch wood on the Rangers.

LK

LK

Inspector3711
December 2, 2009, 05:52 PM
Yes Mossberg has dabbled in the lever gun market before. My dad bought one of my older brothers one in 30-30 for christmas back in 1977 complete with a Tasco zoom scope. He hunted with it for about 10 years and did manage to take a buck or two. He only used it for brush hunting west of the cascades in Oregon. They don't call it "subtropical rain forest" for nothing. I think he finally got tired of fighting rust and bought a higher quality bolt action after that.

The old Marlin (circa 1950's) 30-30 I hunted with in the early eighties didn't seem to ever have rust problems no matter where I hunted until dad enherited it from my grandad and left it wrapped in newspaper in the garage for five years. We discovered the rust last year. I hope he got around to trying to clean it up, I'd like to have that old rifle some day.

If it were me I'd buy I used Marlin before I bothered with a new Mossberg.

dgludwig
December 2, 2009, 10:44 PM
I don't know about cast or not

Well, that's my point. To my knowledge, Model 94 receivers were never cast and always forged. When people make blanket assertions that have no basis in fact, it tends to discredit, or at least bring into question, their other claims that pretend to be facts.

musicmatty
December 4, 2009, 10:13 AM
I've owned my model 94 Ranger that features the angle eject, for about 20yrs now. The Birch wood on this model is exceptional..everyone comments how gorgeous the wood looks in the light color.

This gun has put through several thousand rounds and numerous hunting trips in the rain and Snow. No failure ever and it is as solid today as when new. Yes..it gets cleaned after every shooting and is placed back in the gun cabinet..but my point..this gun is no cheap wanna be.

Perhaps other 94 that havent held up, may have been neglected?? I wouldn't trade or ever sell my Post model 94 30.30 for anyother rifle..never ever. :cool:

CraigC
December 4, 2009, 10:54 AM
To my knowledge, Model 94 receivers were never cast and always forged.
Winchester did indeed cast the receivers of the 94 in that timeframe. I thought this was rather common knowledge. Ever notice that they were not actually blued but plated?

olyinaz
December 4, 2009, 11:15 AM
The Birch wood on this model is exceptional..everyone comments how gorgeous the wood looks in the light color.

Wow, that amazes me. I have two 94s, one about 25 years old and the other made just before Winchester got out of the 94 business and they both work just fine. Dandy rifles. But that said, the birch on one of mine is simply horrendous - looks like something off of a cheap $99 Wal-Mart special.

Oh well, glad to hear that yours are nice!

Oly

dgludwig
December 5, 2009, 12:40 AM
Regarding the question (at least in my mind) as to whether 94 receivers were ever made as a casting, I'd still like to see the evidence.

dgludwig
December 6, 2009, 09:16 PM
Winchester did indeed cast the receivers of the 94 in that timeframe. I thought this was rather common knowledge. Ever notice that they were not actually blued but plated?

Still looking forward to seeing the evidence that Winchester Model 94 receivers were cast instead of forged during the time period in question (1964 through 1983). Nobody argues that Winchester didn't "cheapen up" some of their firearms during this period of time (the loading gates/carriers of 94s during this period of time, for instance, were reportedly stamped instead of machined or forged) but to claim that the receivers of 94s were cast instead of forged is an allegation I would appreciate seeing the proof thereof.

My 1981 Winchester catalog states: "Matched chamber and rifling are cold-forged in one operation for precise alignment and accuracy.High-strength receiver and major components are of machined steel..."
My 1982 Winchester catalog states: "All these Model 94 carbines are chambered for 30-30 Winchester. Major components are of machined steel...The high-strength forged receiver is beefed up with reinforcing side panels to handle the powerful .375 cartridge..."
My 1983 Winchester catalog states: "Modern Model 94 carbines have been developed and refined through almost a century of sporting use and technological advancement. Major components are of machined steel..."
I am not trying to prove an argument, just trying to ascertain the truth of the question at hand. Until proven otherwise, it's my continued opinion that Model 94 receivers were always forged/machined-never cast, no matter the "common knowledge" of others. I stand ready to be corrected in the face of verifiable evidence to the contrary.
And it should be noted that Model 94s were always available with a blued finish as opposed (or in addition to) to a "plated" one.

darkstar57
February 1, 2010, 06:41 PM
just acquired a mossberg 464.. wally world, 350. i expected to leave the store in handcuffs, the female sales staff was so alarmed by selling a RIFLE omg.
action was balky and loose. dry cycled 6 rounds several times.. has to be done quickly and smoothly or it will hang up at 1/4 swing or just before the shell lines up with the chamber, jamming in the loader.
fit and finish seem ok.
one alarming outcome, there were several shells with tiny dimples in the primer.
from banging the bolt home, i am sure, safety was on. and i put the hammer down manually every time.
the instruction book makes you want to puke, fully half the verbaige is lawyer written warnings they might as well instruct, bang 30 caliber steel plugs in both ends of the barrel before touching the trigger.
sighting down the barrel, the iron sights look good. I need the weaver 48107 #403 mounts to put on my scope. shells dribble out to the right, wont likely impinge the scope.

Abel
February 1, 2010, 08:13 PM
Hit the gun shops & pawn shops to get a real model 94 or 336 for 350-400.

Jack O'Conner
February 3, 2010, 07:50 PM
Mossberg has been building solid firearms for as long as I can remember. I handled a new 464 at Gander Mt. last summer and it appeared well made. But please don't compare it to rifles costing a lot more.

This is a photo of Mossberg's model 472 that was produced for only a few years in the 1970's.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c146/rushmoreman/mossberg2.jpg

Jack

jmr40
February 3, 2010, 07:59 PM
The older Mossberg leverguns were decently made rifles. Nothing to compare them to the junk being made by them now.

The Winchester 94 has never had a cast receiver. The only centerfire levergun that I know of to ever have cast receiver is the now discontinued Ruger.

Abel
February 3, 2010, 08:18 PM
If you compare a used 336, that can easily be had for 350 or less if you search, to one of these new Mossbergs, you'll realize quickly that there is no comparison. The Mossberg is junkie, on all levels.

olyinaz
February 4, 2010, 02:07 AM
I'd still like to hear more from those who actually HAVE one of these rifles.

Oly

shaken1204
April 2, 2010, 09:05 AM
I just bought a Mossberg 472 from a retired couple yesterday. These were only made from '72 to '78. Talk about a well made gun. This thing is tighter than the marlin 336 sitting in the rack at academy sports. My buddy has a 336 with scope and sling and after he took a look at my 472 without anything on it, he wanted to trade his full package for my 472. NO WAY! This baby is made the way guns USED TO be made. Great walnut stock and solid action. You won't find many of these out there.

dgludwig
April 21, 2010, 05:01 PM
Sounds like the ones I was looking at (see post no.6). I'm glad you like yours.

ohen cepel
April 21, 2010, 05:26 PM
I have handled a few of the Mossbergs and liked them just fine except for the safety design. It's not a bad design, I just didn't like it.

Fit and finish were good for the money. I would consider buying one if I was in the market and the price was right.

cje1980
April 21, 2010, 06:13 PM
Boy is this an old thread.

goredsox
May 6, 2010, 10:20 PM
true dat... I happened by and was floored to see recent posts to the thread... meanwhile, my 464 is still doing fine :-)

Noah Zark
May 18, 2010, 06:21 PM
Regarding the question of the Winchester 94 receiver metal from 1964 to the early 80s, Model 94 receivers were not cast, but made from sintered compacted powdered metal. These receivers cannot be successfully reblued via conventional methods, as the sintered P/M receivers are porous -- they have approximately 10% to 14% porosity due to the interstitial space between adjacent iron powder particles. The receiver acts like a sponge and absorbs blueing bath chemicals which later leach out of the porous receiver and ruin the finish. Winchester would seal the porosity with sodium silicate and then electroplate the sealed receiver with iron in order to take the Winchester factory finish of the time period.

The sodium silicate sealing process was inconsistent and of varying effectiveness. If any residual porosity was left in the sintered P/M receiver, then the blueing bath would be absorbed and later leach out. It was not uncommon to unpack a new Win 94 from the 60s and 70s and find gray streaks or rusty streaks or spots in the blueing on the receiver. Gunsmiths went nuts trying to get their hot blue to "take" on a 1964-1982 Win 94 receiver, and most 'smiths gave up and refused to refinish W94s. A few 'smiths took to using oven-cured or anerobically-cured methacrylate resin to seal residual porosity, and this process was fairly successful at holding out blueing chemicals.

Winchester abandoned the sintered powdered metal receiver in 1982 (or maybe 1981 for the 1982 model year, I can't recall) about the time the 1894 Big Bore was introduced, and went back to forged receivers.

Source? Direct experience in the P/M industry and two personal friends who were "present at the creation" for the P/M W94 receiver in the early 1960s.

Noah

OJ
May 18, 2010, 06:54 PM
olyinaz I'd still like to hear more from those who actually HAVE one of these rifles.

Oly

It might be a good idea to read previous posts before writing such -

I make no claim to being an expert but, I got my first rifle for my 6th birthday in 1932 and, being a retired surgeon, am able to shoot at the range every week now so I think I have had enough experience to judge rifles like the 464.

As I stated in my post on this thread, there were several threads on the Levergun.com forum with 99% reporting failures in the first few rounds fired and not just speculation as you allege. The only one reporting otherwise eventually came to the conclusion he was wrong in his conclusion the 464 wasn't as bad as described by other users-shooters.

Here's what a search there produced:Search found 345 matches

Search term used: mossberg 464


Most gun manufacturers test fire their guns before putting them on the market. The fact the Mossberg 464 has failed in as little as only one shot suggests there was no test fire program at Mossberg for the 464. As I reported on my previous post on this thread, I haven't even gone through a box of 20 rounds and nave had two part failures. If it were an automobile, there would have been a massive recall - even Ruger has experienced that - and it was done at the manufacturer's expense.

Not so here - I'm certain Mossberg is well aware of the problems with 464 parts failing - costing customers money to get their guns fixed - but they seem to be turning a deaf ear and ignoring customers - which they have done in the past. Mossberg has no conscience and is ignoring potential injury and lawsuits from injured customers.

My concern is, if there are so many early failures of parts, what are the odds the next part to fail could be the locking mechanism of the bolt or even the bolt which could produce a devastating injury to the shooter??

Personally, I'm not willing to take that chance. So now I have a gun I'm afraid to shoot and certainly won't take the chance of selling - or even giving it away.


Read previous posts - there's no shortage of either experienced shooters with the 464 - as well as threads on lever gun forums - should be enough owners to satisfy anyone.

moosemike
May 18, 2010, 09:42 PM
Personally, I'm not willing to take that chance. So now I have a gun I'm afraid to shoot and certainly won't take the chance of selling - or even giving it away.



Please reconsider and give it to me. I'll even pay the shipping.:D

OJ
May 19, 2010, 11:42 PM
moosemike
Senior Member


Join Date: July 4, 2009
Location: Lebanon PA
Posts: 230 Quote:
Personally, I'm not willing to take that chance. So now I have a gun I'm afraid to shoot and certainly won't take the chance of selling - or even giving it away.



Please reconsider and give it to me. I'll even pay the shipping.
__________________
et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos

I know that sounds tempting but, I know what I'd think of someone who sold or even gave me that rotten piece of junk and I don't want any one thinking that about me every time he looked at or tried to shoot that gun - a man's gotta draw the line somewhere and have his pride, you know - :rolleyes:

goredsox
September 27, 2012, 09:06 PM
I'd not bump this thread, except that it involved catalog of firsthand experience with the 464. I've now had my 464 for 2yrs beyond the last post. Another couple hundred rounds in both range and field use and I've still not experienced a failure of any variety. In fact, I asked my local gun store (where I purchased) and he's sold plenty with no returns per defects or malfunction.

I've since moved beyond the Hornady Leverevolution ammo and currently fire Winchester Supreme Silver (Round Nose) Ballistic Tip. I made the switch because the terminal performance of the LeverEvolution was not conclusive as I've had with the CT bullets.

Cary
September 29, 2012, 10:01 AM
Thanks for the update on your Mossberg 464. I like lever guns and the fact that another company is manufacturing one after the demise of the M94. I know Winchester is offering them again but the price is quite high for them.
Cary

rallyhound
October 2, 2012, 08:35 PM
I've got a short review here

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=619321

wicat3
October 4, 2012, 08:35 PM
I have a 464 with a gray laminate stock and found it to be a good gun. I like the saftey on top of the stock as well as the grip safty that is on the lever. It shoots well and for 20 bucks I was able to order a scope off of mossberg for a 3x40 scope.

I have liked mossberg products for so many reasons. I know everyone has an opion and some people think a cheap gun is a bad gun but for me I cant afford all the big priced guns out there so I work with what I can afford. My 464 is my second brand new gun and has not dissappointed me yet.

gaseousclay
October 4, 2012, 09:50 PM
does Mossberg make the 464 in a .22 caliber?

tahunua001
October 4, 2012, 11:19 PM
yes they do, I'm not sure if the standard 646 does or not but I know that ugly tacticool 646 with M4 stock does.