Brass Or Steel Henry .327?

I saw a picture in an old gunzine of an 1860 Henry with a foreend and a slip tube magazine very like the current crop. Nobody knew where it came from, no claim that it was a prototype or done by a famous gunsmith for a famous frontiersman; just there it was.
 
I would buy a Henry rimfire if it were steel but I am sorry I will have to pass on the Zakmat or whatever it is. The tube loading, chunky centerfires, no thanks. But I would prefer steel if I were to settle my eyes on one.

3C
 
I would buy a Henry rimfire if it were steel but I am sorry I will have to pass on the Zakmat or whatever it is.
Click to expand...

I've got a Golden Boy that I've had for over 12 years. No problems out of it at all. You couldn't give me a Marlin 39A or a Winchester 9422 for it.
 
There are a lot of .22 LR firearms out there that use Zamak as the receiver in rifles or slide in handguns and they function fine and last a long time. .22 is not a high stress cartridge on firearms.

Out of all the .22 guns I have, were I to buy a Golden Boy, it would probably be the highest quality .22 in my possession.
 
Once the initial re-design was done & integrated into production processes, it wouldn't cost much more at all to incorporate a side gate into the guns.

Maybe one of these days we'll be able to compare pricing side by side. :)
Then you'll know.

And on the Zamak 5- my GB has over 28,000 load & shoot as-fast-as-I-could rounds through it.

It was two STEEL parts that had to be replaced.
The Zamak is holding up fine, and the gold coating is still even intact.

There is NO reason to turn up your nose at that material.
Denis
 
For the design applications used, the material is more than adequate.
It's way past time for snobs to stop avoiding a Henry rimfire simply because it's not all steel. :)
Denis
 
Denis, the way you word things and the insider knowledge you have along with pm's we've exchanged has me wondering about a great... many... things.
 
It's way past time for snobs to stop avoiding a Henry rimfire simply because it's not all steel.
Click to expand...
I'll hold my nose high while grabbing the Marlin 39a.


...And secretly sneaking the Henry H001 out, too.


Steel is better. ;)
 
Hawg said:
The 1866 was never chambered in 44-40. It was originally chambered for the .44 Henry Flat rimfire that the 1860 Henry was chambered for. Towards the end of production it was chambered for the same cartridge but centerfire.
Click to expand...
My mistakes, you are correct. I'm thinking of the 1873 Winchester (I've got one of those also.) which introduced the 44-40.

I don't have anything against the Henrys, I've had an H001 carbine for years and it's a nice light fun 22lr that the kids in our NRA training classes love to shoot. It, along with the matched 10/22s my wife and I got back in 1973 shortly after we got married are nice but I'm not into shooting 22lr much anymore.
 
Ok...
I can definitely see how it could seem like lugging a Subaru around after hefting it for an extended period of time, but danged if she ain't pretty! Hubba hubba!! :D

I understand that the shiny brass wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, (may not be mine if I were to buy a second Henry), but it is absolutely beautiful and I'm very happy with my choice.
Thank you all for the input.

I may yet get a blued barrel band, we'll see... now to get some range time in!

Added: Interestingly I did not wind up with the rifle that I chose, the woman doing the shipping actually shipped the wrong rifle out. I had a 'media moment' with seeing something shiny just as the proceed came through on the 4473 and I wound up with the 20" brass in my name.
When I phoned my guy about it, he credited me back a buck fifty to avoid the hassle of doing the return... that helped in making me happy with me 'choice'!

Just gives me an excuse to some day maybe make the second one a steel carbine and then my sons won't argue when I'm gone over who gets the lever in .327!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top