Mossberg 464 lever-action?

[Huntergirl]

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]

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]

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.

[OJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

To me both the Mossberg and the Henry are too heavy.

[The Happy kaboomer]

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]

Good post THK.

[OJ]

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]

cast receiver (64-83),

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

[L_Killkenny]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[CraigC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hit the gun shops & pawn shops to get a real model 94 or 336 for 350-400.

[Jack O'Conner]

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.



Jack

[jmr40]

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.