Boy, people take it personally if someone says something that could be considered detrimental about their firearms. Don't hate me because I may disagree with you.
We all know there is a difference in quality between a Winchester 9422, or a Colt 1911A1, or a Browning .22 Auto, and the corresponding Norinco clone, a difference that is quickly evident when comparing the products. That difference lies in the quality of the workmanship and materials. It is up to the individual to decide whether the difference in quality is worth the difference in price. If the prices were equivalent, Norinco would not be able to compete in the marketplace.
My reasons for not buying Norincos, and for urging others not to, is based primarily on ideological grounds, and I came to this position after selling Norinco products for a couple of years and then learning more about the company and its practices. I don't like buying from people who don't like me, who don't compete fairly on trade with my country, who use slave labor to keep their costs down (and thus don't compete fairly), and who use the profits to strengthen a military that has recently attacked my country and that we will probably be fighting. YMMV.
Yes, Wilson's has made custom .45s from Norinco slides and frames... but when you consider that you can buy a Caspian slide and frame for $50 more, why would any sensible person want to save $50 on a $2,000 handgun? I think the Norinco thing was a stunt, done by Wilson to make a point (that his gunsmithing operation could even turn a Norinco into a beautiful handgun). I can tell you that about the only Norinco parts left in that gun were the slide and frame, and they were 'gunsmithed' to tighten the slide-to-frame fit.
Re the chances of an all-steel gun being tighter than an alloy gun after extensive use... not only does it stand to reason but it has been proven true in my limited experience. I have seen Ithaca 49s (the single-shot, Erma-made, lever action-styled, Martini-based .22 rifle) that were made in the 1970s and had been fired tens of thousands of rounds... and there was considerable slop in the action. I also own a couple of Winchester 67A single-shot bolt action .22s that were made in the 1950s, and even though they had seen extensive use and some neglect before I obtained them, the steel bolt is still as tight in the steel receiver as the day it left the factory, and they are among my favorite .22s for plinking. The Henry does have a steel bolt and a steel barrel, and that's good. However, that bolt travels in an alloy receiver, and the lever pin goes through that alloy receiver, and eventually with use the bolt raceway and the lever pin hole will wear more than steel because it's softer. And, unlike a semiauto like the 10/22, the forces exerted by the shooter of a lever action are more stressful on the gun. We work the lever until it comes to a stop so there is always extra force exerted on the lever pin even if the breechblock has reached the limit of travel and these forces will slowly wear the lever pin hole on any lever action.
Will the guy who shoots several boxes of ammo a year ever notice it? Probably not. Will the guy who shoots a brick of ammo a month notice it? Most likely within a decade. Will the guy who puts one up as a rental gun at an indoor range notice? Definitely, and fairly quickly. Does that make the Henry a "bad" gun? No. It makes the Henry a good choice for someone who isn't going to shoot a lot and who wants a nice-looking gun at a good price. The Henry advantage is that they built a rifle that functions and fires smoothly, is pleasing to the eye, that sells at a substantial discount from the current sea of .22 lever actions, and that will suffice for casual shooters.
I would sell, and have sold, Henry rifles. It is a decent product sold by a decent company. I also realize that it is a product made at a price point for a segment of the market that I do not fall in. Norinco products are also made at a price point for a segment of the market that I do not fall in... but I don't believe Norinco is a decent company.
Ideologically, I would much rather a person buy a Henry rifle than a Norinco rifle, for the reasons listed above. Pragmatically, I still favor the Winchester, Browning, and Marlin lever actions. I found that the majority of the latter went to the more experienced shooters who had wanted one for a while and who were willing to spend the extra money because they felt they were making a long-term investment, while a lot of newbies bought the Henrys because of the price. Generally, both types of shooters were satisfied.
BTW, I also like CZ, Ruger, Savage, Mossberg, and other manufacturers who make less-expensive guns, even though I might or might not personally choose their products, because the expected level of quality for price is there and these companies support their customers. (Actually I think that CZ offers some outstanding values.)
