What's the reason for the Henry lever rifle loading from the front of the tube?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is simple...cost. It is cheaper that is it no other reason at all. End of story nothing else to say.

As soon as they get some real challenge from other makers...go buy another 357 lever rifle and see what you get....you can buy a henry all day, but anything else...yea order it or you might get lucky.

But if one of the other players steps up we will not see any changes to henry...it is just not cost effective.....they are sitting there going....ok just spend X more on a Japanese "winchester" or order a Uberti...or find a used Marlin that the seller is asking twice its new in box cost. If I was to do it I would just buy a taylor and be done with it....at least it will be dang pretty.
 
Tommygunn said:
:scrutiny:

I can load both my tube fed .22 rifles without putting my hand over the muzzle.
Click to expand...

Really....you must really think about it....and now you will....fingers around the exit hole in generally not the most safe way of doing it.

Lets put it this way....it is just not the most safe, efficient what ever way of loading a lever rifle....if it was why did it change 100+ years ago....because it was cheaper to cut a hole in the side, put some spring steel in there and pay some dude a ton of money for the pleasure of making it more difficult to load the stupid gun.....ahh nope.

To do it now requires additional machine steps...more parts and more money....that is the one reason they don't do it....to _____ with what customers want...you don't want to load your center fire lever gun like a 22 go buy something else....oh wait you really can't....sucks to be you.
 
fpgt72 said:
Really....you must really think about it....and now you will....fingers around the exit hole in generally not the most safe way of doing it.

Lets put it this way....it is just not the most safe, efficient what ever way of loading a lever rifle....if it was why did it change 100+ years ago....because it was cheaper to cut a hole in the side, put some spring steel in there and pay some dude a ton of money for the pleasure of making it more difficult to load the stupid gun.....ahh nope.

To do it now requires additional machine steps...more parts and more money....that is the one reason they don't do it....to _____ with what customers want...you don't want to load your center fire lever gun like a 22 go buy something else....oh wait you really can't....sucks to be you.
Click to expand...
Uh, yeah. Have you ever looked at an 1860 Henry? The barrel and magazine are integral. Extremely time consuming to machine. Not only that but it was intended as a fighting rifle. Much easier to top off a magazine from a loading port than to expose more of yourself loading from the front. You're talking as if this was not in the age of the rifled musket, where everything was loaded from the front and people avoiding shooting themselves by engaging their brains.

Is there any documented case where someone shot themselves in the hand while loading a tube-fed .22 rifle? I don't like the way the Henry's load from the front but seriously, let's get past the safety-Nazi rhetoric and be realistic.
 
I get that its never ideal to be putting your fingers in front of a muzzle but unless your a total dolt your going to put the gun in a safe condition such as hammer half cocked or lever open before you take the tube out. Kids have been loading tube fed 22's forever and even they don't manage to shoot themselves. I regularly put the muzzle of a loaded gun in my front pocket in a pocket holster and that one doesn't even have a safety.

As for a cost savings, I guess I don't really understand how a tube loaded gun is supposed to be a meaningful cost savings over making a loading gate. Its not exactly a complex mechanism to mass produce and the tube feed adds some parts and machining as well. Marlin and Rossi don't seem to have an issue making a loading gate for cheaper than a henry though I will admit the wood and finish on a henry is better.
 
someguy2800 said:
I get that its never ideal to be putting your fingers in front of a muzzle but unless your a total dolt your going to put the gun in a safe condition such as hammer half cocked or lever open before you take the tube out. Kids have been loading tube fed 22's forever and even they don't manage to shoot themselves. I regularly put the muzzle of a loaded gun in my front pocket in a pocket holster and that one doesn't even have a safety.

As for a cost savings, I guess I don't really understand how a tube loaded gun is supposed to be a meaningful cost savings over making a loading gate. Its not exactly a complex mechanism to mass produce and the tube feed adds some parts and machining as well. Marlin and Rossi don't seem to have an issue making a loading gate for cheaper than a henry though I will admit the wood and finish on a henry is better.
Click to expand...

And the action smoother and the trigger way better.
 
The reason for the tube feed is simple and you can find it right on their website if you take the time to look.

ABOUT THE PRODUCTS

Henry Repeating Arms offers a very broad line of lever action rifles in calibers ranging from .22 Long Rifle to .308, in both round and octagon barrels, and in a variety of finishes including blue, brass, silver, color case and All Weather. Henrys lever actions are most famous for being the smoothest action of any lever action on the market (pick up a Henry and cycle the action, then compare to any other brand and you will notice the difference). They also feature genuine American walnut stocks, adjustable sights and all are either grooved or drilled and tapped for easy scope mounting. All Henry lever actions are tubular feed design in honor of the original Henry rifle, except the new Henry Long Ranger which is box fed magazine.
Click to expand...

There is the answer straight from the Henry website. I have a Marlin 32 Mag CB with a tube loading set up and the tube loading doesn't bother me one bit. I kind of like it and that set up would not stop me from Buying a Henry. The price and the weight of some of their guns might stop me from buying one. But they are nice rifles and you get what you pay for.

I would like a box magazine fed lever gun that takes cheap surplus M-16 or M-14 mags.
Click to expand...

That would be pretty much an impossible design since the lever is directly below the bolt where the mag would need to go.
 
Have had a Big boy 44 magnum for several years. I never have put my had in front of the muzzle. Be loading my Marlin model 60 22LR since the mid 60's. Haven't shot myself yet. Tube feed works just fine for me.
 
All Henry lever actions are tubular feed design in honor of the original Henry rifle
Click to expand...

There is the answer straight from the Henry website.
Click to expand...

Despite what it says, I really don't think that's the actual reason they designed the gun one way vs. another. It's just typical HRA advertising/marketing stuff that always sounds to me like it was written by some guy on Madison avenue that was once forced to watch a few cowboy western movies so he could write some Henry ads. I think what they might be trying to say here is that the Henry Big Boy uses a traditional tube mag unlike box mag lever guns like the Browning BLR or their new Long Ranger. Besides, if you think about it Winchesters and Marlins are actually "tubular feed design" as well as the Henry Big Boy despite the fact that you load the tube from the rear vs the front.
 
It's all about money, but in all fairness I have handled 2 of their .45/70's and was impressed with the smoothness of their actions & the crispness of their triggers. I can live with the mag tube.
 
fpgt72 said:
Really....you must really think about it....and now you will....fingers around the exit hole in generally not the most safe way of doing it.

Lets put it this way....it is just not the most safe, efficient what ever way of loading a lever rifle....if it was why did it change 100+ years ago....because it was cheaper to cut a hole in the side, put some spring steel in there and pay some dude a ton of money for the pleasure of making it more difficult to load the stupid gun.....ahh nope.

To do it now requires additional machine steps...more parts and more money....that is the one reason they don't do it....to _____ with what customers want...you don't want to load your center fire lever gun like a 22 go buy something else....oh wait you really can't....sucks to be you.
Click to expand...


Keep in mind my .22s have the loading open a couple inches down from the muzzle. At no time is it necessary to put a hand or fingers over the muzzle in any way. I hold the rifles upside down in my left hand and insert the rounds through the loading port on the underside of the mag tube, then push down the follower and lock it.
An original Henry, yeah, you're a little closer to the muzzle ... maybe (I haven't measured the section on the hinge, in which the compressed spring & follower are housed) but it's still fairly easy to keep your hands away.
If you maintain good safety standards, you assure the condition of your weapon first thing upon picking it up....and know when it is empty (because you've examined the breech). Later loading systems might be better....a little "safer"....maybe.
I have always maintained there is no such thing as an idiot proof firearm. SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY. If you will not be safe, you WILL eventually kill yourself, someone or something else, or destroy something you didn't want to even with the safest firearm ever designed, and I can't begin to guess exactly what gun THAT would be....
 
I'm rather annoyed with the monotony of these threads that go nowhere. The feigned concerns about safety, the complaints about cost cutting measures from those who accept Monday morning fit, finish, and function from other brands.

How badly do some people feel the need to bash what they do not own for the sake of validating what they do have? It's nothing more than off-topic rubbish but if it suffices as your best guess that Henry chose the front load tube for cost savings I shall submit they invested a greater share in ensuring that every machining, blueing, and stock fitting operation was light years ahead of any other lever gun within spittin range of its price tag.

To the OP, they did it that way on purpose and because. That's about all you can be sure of despite conjecture. Now can we get back to arguing with Glock owners about whether a reliable firearm was invented before or since? I'd even support a protracted argument over the FLGR vs GI rod.
 
Elkins45 said:
I'm not much of a traditionalist. I would like a box magazine fed lever gun that takes cheap surplus M-16 or M-14 mags.
Click to expand...

Ratshooter said:
That would be pretty much an impossible design since the lever is directly below the bolt where the mag would need to go.
Click to expand...

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you think about that....

cq5dam.web.835.835.jpg
 
So they are honoring a non existent heritage? Why have a wood forearm if they want authenticity? There's a reason a Winchester employee invented a side loading feature and Winchester went with it.

I'm sure Henry makes nice guns, but enough with the ad speak BS.
 
If you have never shot a Henry don't bad mouth them. I haven't shot a Winchester and I don't bad mouth them. Had a Marlin Model 336 for years in 35 Remington for years and I liked it. They are all good. If you like lever guns. Which I do. But I also like bolt guns. Lever guns are fun to carry when walking in the woods when most shots are within 50-75 yards.
 
Bushpilot said:
Despite what it says, I really don't think that's the actual reason they designed the gun one way vs. another. It's just typical HRA advertising/marketing stuff that always sounds to me like it was written by some guy on Madison avenue that was once forced to watch a few cowboy western movies so he could write some Henry ads. I think what they might be trying to say here is that the Henry Big Boy uses a traditional tube mag unlike box mag lever guns like the Browning BLR or their new Long Ranger. Besides, if you think about it Winchesters and Marlins are actually "tubular feed design" as well as the Henry Big Boy despite the fact that you load the tube from the rear vs the front.
Click to expand...
I agree but it's nothing like the original guns. It's marketing fluff.


fpgt72 said:
....because it sucked.....
Click to expand...
BECAUSE IT WAS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE TO MANUFACTURE! Not to mention that it wasn't compatible with a forend.


Skylerbone said:
How badly do some people feel the need to bash what they do not own for the sake of validating what they do have?
Click to expand...
Gimmea break. You can't be critical of something you don't own? Or you're only critical of something you don't own to validate what you do? If you buy product "A" because you prefer its features, quality and/or price point over product "B", you're not ever supposed to share the reasons why you didn't choose product "B" because you didn't buy it?

I find it comical but also sad that people never want to hear anything negative about a firearm they own, yet all the same folks complain that they never see a negative review in a magazine.


Skylerbone said:
...I shall submit they invested a greater share in ensuring that every machining, blueing, and stock fitting operation was light years ahead of any other lever gun within spittin range of its price tag.
Click to expand...
When did this happen? IMHO, Henry has never strayed far from it's cheap pot metal .22 origins. Before my opinion is arbitrarily dismissed, yes, I do own one. :confused:


Jack B. said:
If you have never shot a Henry don't bad mouth them. I haven't shot a Winchester and I don't bad mouth them. Had a Marlin Model 336 for years in 35 Remington for years and I liked it. They are all good. If you like lever guns. Which I do. But I also like bolt guns. Lever guns are fun to carry when walking in the woods when most shots are within 50-75 yards.
Click to expand...
Oh please, I have to own and shoot something for my assessment of the rifle IN HAND to be valid? Nonsense.
 
I agree but it's nothing like the original guns. It's marketing fluff.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, that was the point I was trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully...

I find it comical but also sad that people never want to hear anything negative about a firearm they own, yet all the same folks complain that they never see a negative review in a magazine.
Click to expand...

Right on point.....
 
Last edited:
CraigC said:
I find it comical but also sad that people never want to hear anything negative about a firearm they own, yet all the same folks complain that they never see a negative review in a magazine.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to hear negatives Craig, but that isn't what's being posted. "It sucks because I'm a 'traditionalist'" is hardly the case for Henry being a lesser rifle. Are they cheaply made? Sure. Could they also do better? Heck yeah, but I'm not hearing about cockeyed iron sights, mismatched bark wood, poor blueing, rough actions needing to be slicked up, or abysmal accuracy.

We all deserve to hear about REAL gripes, not preferences that seem to ONLY stem from a "safety concern" or from "traditionalists" who no doubt are fine with other types of long arms. I spent a fair amount of time with a cheap Henry .22 and have run 100 rounds now through a .357 Carbine model. Neither has given me any reason for performance related complaints.

My contention is as before, that we may only ever suspicion the why of Henry's decision, and it has been noted time and again by the same posters in this and other threads of late what their opinion is. It goes well beyond the OP's question to trash the design when the best reason for doing so is "you'll shoot your eye out".

Traditionalists, how often do you suspect I flag my own hand when loading my 3 muzzleloaders? It gun. It dangerous. Use brain. THAT is my point, not to defend some company as the best there is or claim a front tube loader is in any way better (because I agree it isn't and they ain't).
 
Last edited:
CraigC said:
I agree but it's nothing like the original guns. It's marketing fluff.



BECAUSE IT WAS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE TO MANUFACTURE! Not to mention that it wasn't compatible with a forend.



Gimmea break. You can't be critical of something you don't own? Or you're only critical of something you don't own to validate what you do? If you buy product "A" because you prefer its features, quality and/or price point over product "B", you're not ever supposed to share the reasons why you didn't choose product "B" because you didn't buy it?

I find it comical but also sad that people never want to hear anything negative about a firearm they own, yet all the same folks complain that they never see a negative review in a magazine.



When did this happen? IMHO, Henry has never strayed far from it's cheap pot metal .22 origins. Before my opinion is arbitrarily dismissed, yes, I do own one. :confused:



Oh please, I have to own and shoot something for my assessment of the rifle IN HAND to be valid? Nonsense.
Click to expand...
If you haven't shot it how can you judge it .Just because you dislike it
PLEASE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Rossi 92 or Henry Steel ?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
16K
CraigC
CraigC
M
  • Locked
Henry Lever Guns Experience
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
cat_IT_guy
cat_IT_guy
C
  • Locked
Henry Big Boy steel vs Marlin 1894
Replies
16
Views
3K
Big_Al
B
Mr. Mosin
  • Locked
.357 Magnum Lever Gun (Henry vs Marlin)
2 3
Replies
58
Views
14K
Billy Balls
B
Zaydok Allen
  • Locked
Henry .357 Lever Action
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top