You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Henry is the new Ruger
- Thread starter kcub
- Start date
Cheapshooter
New member
Well they did, up until a few years ago as far as I know.Would love to see Stevens (Savage made them about 30 years) Favorite resurrected in .22 rf. Perfect single shot for kids to learn and adults to have fun with plinking.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/stevens_favorite.htm
I was hoping for a 17 Mach 2 chambering, but the model went away from Steven's lineup, and the round isn't far behind.
I'd also like to see a well designed reliable centerfire pump rifle.
When I posted this I was unaware they made a pump rimfire and with a hammer no less. One model in 22 short, long, and long rifle, and CB caps and another in 22 mag/WRF. So maybe they will follow up with a pump 357/38 and/or 44 mag and/or 45 Colt. That would be hard to resist.
I have a Henry pump (several years now), and the only issue I have with it, is the forearm stock needs some slimming down. One of those things I'll get to, one of these years!
Rifle cycles nice, and through repeated firing, the action is working in nicely. Would love to see Henry do one in a few centerfire calibers, such as .357.
Rifle cycles nice, and through repeated firing, the action is working in nicely. Would love to see Henry do one in a few centerfire calibers, such as .357.
Well, here's a question for you regarding a company that makes guns, since this thread is talking about one company expanding their line, or wishing they would.
The question is, what does it take to make a successful gun company? Or more accurately, what does it take to make a good gun and a modern one at that?
The question going through my mind is, do you really need "gunsmiths" to do either of those things? I do think you have to have a certain corporate culture to produce a good product and that's not always a given. In fact, as was alluded to, sometimes it's lost after a takeover. These are problems that exist all around the world, too.
I'd suggest that you have to have a good design, which follows that you have to have a talented designer, which are few and far between, although amateurs with no engineering background are encouraged. Browning (no amateur) and Kalashnikov (no engineer) are names that come to mind but there are several others, some fairly well known, some forgotten. One object of the designer is to create a design that is easy enough to produce and without lots of handwork needed. That's why Colt dropped their DA revolvers.
Otherwise, a firearm is just a basic metal (and plastic) product that calls for some machining, perhaps some casting or forging. That's not to say it's a simple product, although there have been some very simple guns produced in my lifetime. Everything else is just marketing.
However, if what you want made, because you think it will sell, is merely a copy of a gun designed when Custer was still alive, that's another story. A neat trick, though, would be to come up with something that was merely inspired by something that old and I think that Ruger has done that better than any other company. Their line of single action revolvers and the Ruger No. 1 are the best examples. Not copies but clearly of a different age. The Ruger No. 3, however, was closer to what was being made and sold when my grandmother was born and you may note that hasn't been available for quite a while.
Was there ever a Ruger No. 2?
The question is, what does it take to make a successful gun company? Or more accurately, what does it take to make a good gun and a modern one at that?
The question going through my mind is, do you really need "gunsmiths" to do either of those things? I do think you have to have a certain corporate culture to produce a good product and that's not always a given. In fact, as was alluded to, sometimes it's lost after a takeover. These are problems that exist all around the world, too.
I'd suggest that you have to have a good design, which follows that you have to have a talented designer, which are few and far between, although amateurs with no engineering background are encouraged. Browning (no amateur) and Kalashnikov (no engineer) are names that come to mind but there are several others, some fairly well known, some forgotten. One object of the designer is to create a design that is easy enough to produce and without lots of handwork needed. That's why Colt dropped their DA revolvers.
Otherwise, a firearm is just a basic metal (and plastic) product that calls for some machining, perhaps some casting or forging. That's not to say it's a simple product, although there have been some very simple guns produced in my lifetime. Everything else is just marketing.
However, if what you want made, because you think it will sell, is merely a copy of a gun designed when Custer was still alive, that's another story. A neat trick, though, would be to come up with something that was merely inspired by something that old and I think that Ruger has done that better than any other company. Their line of single action revolvers and the Ruger No. 1 are the best examples. Not copies but clearly of a different age. The Ruger No. 3, however, was closer to what was being made and sold when my grandmother was born and you may note that hasn't been available for quite a while.
Was there ever a Ruger No. 2?
I think for a gun company to be successful you have to start with a good bread-and-butter model that sells well, is well thought of, and makes money.
For Ruger it was the little 22 auto pistol that was cheap, rugged and reliable.
I don't recall if the Single Six was next or the 10 22.but both were quality rimfires at a good price point for the time. Center fire single action sixguns were in there next somewhere with the Blackhawk. I still prize my old model 3 screw Rugers.
Henry's bread-and-butter is rimfire lever rifles. They have expanded into center fire lever rifles and I love them. Some dislike the tube mags, I happen to prefer this to avoid the pinched fingers but to each their own.
I would buy a hammer pump centerfire. I would also buy a (dare I say it) hammer pump shotgun like the Winchester model 97. I'd be all over that like a duck on a junebug. I know there is a Chinese copy but I looked at one and the recoil pad was wobbly and held on to the butt by 2 undersized screws I think IIRC it was a Cimarron.
Anyway, bravo Henry! Ride on!
For Ruger it was the little 22 auto pistol that was cheap, rugged and reliable.
I don't recall if the Single Six was next or the 10 22.but both were quality rimfires at a good price point for the time. Center fire single action sixguns were in there next somewhere with the Blackhawk. I still prize my old model 3 screw Rugers.
Henry's bread-and-butter is rimfire lever rifles. They have expanded into center fire lever rifles and I love them. Some dislike the tube mags, I happen to prefer this to avoid the pinched fingers but to each their own.
I would buy a hammer pump centerfire. I would also buy a (dare I say it) hammer pump shotgun like the Winchester model 97. I'd be all over that like a duck on a junebug. I know there is a Chinese copy but I looked at one and the recoil pad was wobbly and held on to the butt by 2 undersized screws I think IIRC it was a Cimarron.
Anyway, bravo Henry! Ride on!
For what it's worth, there were other companies trying to make a go of it after WWII with new guns. Probably the most memorable was Great Western, which arrived on the scene when western movies and TV shows were popular, along with the fast draw craze that followed along. But their line was pretty limited. Maybe the market wasn't all that big after all. Not long afterwards, however, the Civil War centennial probably caused an upsurge in the market for black powder firearms. I suppose Navy Arms appeared around then.
There's always a market for inexpensive products and guns are no exception. We like to imagine everyone in the West owning a Colt single action army, with the deviants being satisfied with Remingtons but in truth, far more revolvers were sold in .22, .32 and .38 than the larger calibers and most of them were inexpensive makes of varying quality, although Colt and S&W made their share, too. Some were of good quality, like Iver Johnson and H&R. The little revolvers appear to have continued to be available until WWII, too.
There's always someone interested in bringing back some old design like Merwin Hulbert but apparently it's extremely difficult to reproduce some of the early revolvers and Merwin Hulbert were considered good quality revolvers. Sharps rifles seem to have a steady market, as an example. I believe someone is attempting to reintroduce the Indian motorcycle, too.
Maybe Henry could reintroduce--the Henry! No, wait; they already have!
There's always a market for inexpensive products and guns are no exception. We like to imagine everyone in the West owning a Colt single action army, with the deviants being satisfied with Remingtons but in truth, far more revolvers were sold in .22, .32 and .38 than the larger calibers and most of them were inexpensive makes of varying quality, although Colt and S&W made their share, too. Some were of good quality, like Iver Johnson and H&R. The little revolvers appear to have continued to be available until WWII, too.
There's always someone interested in bringing back some old design like Merwin Hulbert but apparently it's extremely difficult to reproduce some of the early revolvers and Merwin Hulbert were considered good quality revolvers. Sharps rifles seem to have a steady market, as an example. I believe someone is attempting to reintroduce the Indian motorcycle, too.
Maybe Henry could reintroduce--the Henry! No, wait; they already have!