Henry Rifles

Copy of one of the Winchesters. I'm thinking the .35 Rem and .38-55 may sell better than the .30-30. Bit heavier and a bit less(~ $100 US MSRP) over priced than a Win M94.
Really couldn't see paying a grand for either one of 'em myself. Had a 94 when I was new. Sold it and never missed the excessive recoil for the power of the cartridge and mediocre accuracy.
 
Side gate and tube load? Minus the brass finish, if I didn’t already have a 92 and 94 this is the one I would be looking at.
 
In the e-mail I received, they mention that more offerings will be coming. Handgun rounds, blued steel etc. Load thru the gate[if desired], un-load via the tube. Win-win. Also the three introduced, all have round barrels. These are 1.5lb lighter than octagon barrel rifles. Another plus.
 
gate and tube?

I'm glad to see Henry offering a side/port loaded lever rifle (I'm glad to see their box mag rifle too!). Their centerfire rifles have gotten pricey, but I suppose everything has increased in price.....bamaboy says I'm stuck in the 1990's!

Side/port loading was the chronological improvement of the original Henry lever rifle and the natural progression for the new rifles as well. I would think that a side load rifle mag assembly would be a tad lighter than a pure tube feed, due to the lack of need external and internal tubes, but that is speculation. Most all the Henry centerfires I've handled seemed heavier than a lever carbine should.

However, if the new side loading rifles do indeed have a port AND and a tube, that seems redundant, adding additional parts and labor, increasing cost, and doing nothing to shave weight. If the new rifles are indeed a copy of one of the Winchester/Browning designs, or a near clone, why retain the tube loading???
 
If/when .357 Mag becomes an option, I might have to jump on one. Already have it for my Taurus 65 and don't really shoot it much, a .357 lever would be fun. Never liked the loading process for the Henry, the Rossis never seem to be in stock, and the Winchesters just seem overpriced for what they are.
 
Thats a sharp looking lever. Me thinks they kept the tube option because it was cheaper to keep it than delete it in manufacturing. BUT, not a deal breaker for me. Looking forward to other calibers.
 
That was the only gripe with the Henry's (no side load configuration) . I have the 30-30 brass and i'm ok with the tube load only. You can port load a Henry, but you need skinny fingers (which I have, LOL ) to do it sucessfully.
 
excessive recoil for the power of the cartridge and mediocre accuracy.
_________
Click to expand...

Surely you jest. They're not target rifles but they are definitely good enough to kill a deer at 100 + yds. and I really don't notice much recoil.
 
bamaranger said:
I'm glad to see Henry offering a side/port loaded lever rifle (I'm glad to see their box mag rifle too!). Their centerfire rifles have gotten pricey, but I suppose everything has increased in price.....bamaboy says I'm stuck in the 1990's!

Side/port loading was the chronological improvement of the original Henry lever rifle and the natural progression for the new rifles as well. I would think that a side load rifle mag assembly would be a tad lighter than a pure tube feed, due to the lack of need external and internal tubes, but that is speculation. Most all the Henry centerfires I've handled seemed heavier than a lever carbine should.

However, if the new side loading rifles do indeed have a port AND and a tube, that seems redundant, adding additional parts and labor, increasing cost, and doing nothing to shave weight. If the new rifles are indeed a copy of one of the Winchester/Browning designs, or a near clone, why retain the tube loading???
Click to expand...
Not really, it gives you the option of emptying the magazine faster when done shooting and also gives potential use of a tubular magazine speedloader.

That wouldn't be much use with longer centerfire rifles, but for .357 or .44 Magnums that can hold 7 or 10 or 12 rounds depending on barrel length, it's a lot faster to pull the tube out and dump the rounds in vs going through the gate.

I'll say this: I'd rather have options that have to choose between the two because this gives the best of both worlds and I don't see how a fixed tube magazine would cost significantly less vs having the ability to remove the tube.
 
BigBL87 said:
If/when .357 Mag becomes an option, I might have to jump on one. Already have it for my Taurus 65 and don't really shoot it much, a .357 lever would be fun. Never liked the loading process for the Henry, the Rossis never seem to be in stock, and the Winchesters just seem overpriced for what they are.
Click to expand...
Yeah, until Rossi gets it together and starts making lever actions again, I'd get the Henry, I trust the company implicitly.

So, I guess what I'm saying is when it comes to lever actions, I get Rossi for the price, but if they're not available, I would go Henry over any other lever action rifle manufacturer be it Winchester/Miroku, Browning, Taylor's, or Uberti.

I may have made some off handed remarks about them in the past, but Henry has proven themselves to me time and again and so long as Anthony Imperato is in charge, I will never question them.
 
"pull the tube out"

As in, all the way out? Now what do you do with it?

If only so far as to expose the loading port, the rifle still will need to be inclined muzzle upwards, or nearly so. I'd rather load from a position I choose, rather than one dictated by the design of the rifle.

Tube loaders, as in similar to that used in the Spencer back in the day, do seem an advantage, certainly was in 1860. But I don't see the need to speed load my 10 shot lever carbine carbine these days.

What I do see is it may be easier (and less prone to lead to an AD) to UNLOAD the full tube mag by pulling the tube (all the way, but again, now what?) and dumping the many rounds out the front of the rifle. This would avoid having to cycle each individual round up and through the action and theoretically be "safer". I could see a tort lawyer persuading Henry to design and produce in that manner to avoid suit. Similar to the button safeties on Marlins and Winchesters and others.
 
bamaranger said:
As in, all the way out? Now what do you do with it?

If only so far as to expose the loading port, the rifle still will need to be inclined muzzle upwards, or nearly so. I'd rather load from a position I choose, rather than one dictated by the design of the rifle.

Tube loaders, as in similar to that used in the Spencer back in the day, do seem an advantage, certainly was in 1860. But I don't see the need to speed load my 10 shot lever carbine carbine these days.

What I do see is it may be easier (and less prone to lead to an AD) to UNLOAD the full tube mag by pulling the tube (all the way, but again, now what?) and dumping the many rounds out the front of the rifle. This would avoid having to cycle each individual round up and through the action and theoretically be "safer". I could see a tort lawyer persuading Henry to design and produce in that manner to avoid suit. Similar to the button safeties on Marlins and Winchesters and others.
Click to expand...
Yes, all the way out. What you do with it is up to you, but it gives you the ability for a rapid reload.
 
I have about six Henry's in my accumulation and I see that number rising, as soon as the blued models are released. As an aside, I picked up one of the Henry single shots, in .308, last summer. The short length, with a ghost ring rear sight, makes it one of my funnest and handiest rifles.

Side gate or port means little to me, since I have pretty much given up hunting, but still do much target and plinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top