The New Henry rifle.

I have a henry in .357 magnum. I like it very much. The reciever is solid brass. It shoots great.

If the Henry is lighter, is it because the receiver is something other than steel?

Click to expand...

On the rimfire Henrys the receiver is alloy with a steel bolt. Side covers are used to cover the cast alloy.

This is a big source of bother for some. But those folks have formed this opinion despite never having owned and shot one. To those of us with the rimfire Henrys we know that it's simply not an issue. And in fact the choice of material allows for a design which works slick as warm butter.

So it's going to wear out? Apparently not. There's reports of the early rifles made by Henry with up to around 50K and 80K worth of rounds sent downrange and the rifles are still as tight or not noticeably loose in that amount and they are still shooting well.

I tore down my own after around 5K to 6K for a deep clean more due to feeling guilty than any need. What I found was the slightest amount of burnishing on the rails that the bolt runs on and no wear or marking at all anywhere else in the receiver. Given this I don't at all doubt that I'll easily be able to match the reports of 80K and still more after that.

Henry center fire rifles use regular steel or bronze for the receivers as obviously the cast alloys won't take the punishment of the higher pressures.

Yes, the current Henry company simply bought the rights to the name. Other than that there is no direct connection. Some have taken them to task for this and won't buy their products as a result. When I see that I wonder about how many of them moan about cheap foreign imports stealing jobs from America in the next breath.

The alloy cover on the cheap .22 Henry's is a pain, but at the same time once it get's a few scratches you can make it work.

Mine got a bad scratch in the paint on the way home from the range one night so I stripped the rest off to repaint. Once I got it off though, kinda liked the way it looked

http://i.imgur.com/zJVKio4.jpg

Tried to link it in, but image makes the page too big

Henry didn't buy the rights to the name, there was nobody to buy the "rights" from.
They just formed a company named Henry Repeating Arms in the early '90s & went on from there.

There are apparently no plans to produce the 1860 in any caliber but .44-40.

Watch for other variations of some of their conventional centerfire brass line coming up.
Denis

Henry receiver

No, the receiver is steel. I don't remember how it's constructed; but it's a bit different. I believe the receiver is more a 'frame' with a cover instead of a one piece construction. And, if I remember correctly, if the receiver cover gets scratched, discolored, dented, etc., it can be replaced instead of having to do a lot of sanding and rebluing. Overall, the entire rifle is lighter and a bit smaller than the 39AS. As I stated, I really like the way it handles.

Sorry texasred but you're mistaken. Only the bolt itself is steel. The receiver and elevator are alloy on all the Henry rimfire rifles. I've got the basic H001 and a Golden Boy and both are alloy with pressed sheet metal covers.

At least I assume you're referring to the rimfires. The mention of the side covers and comparing it to your 39 suggests that.

Lots of companies have done what Henry has and have named themselves after famous arms manufacturers from the past which they actually have no connection to... Armalite, Inc. and Springfield Armory, Inc. are the most well-known. Many of the well-known brands that have been around over 100 years are technically still the same companies, but most have actually been bought out by larger holding companies like the Freedom Group/Cerberus. I don't consider Marlin, Remington, or Smith & Wesson to be any better in that regard, as far as being the "same" as the original companies who made the classics we all love. As long as you recognize what all is marketing hype and buy based on the actual quality of the product, it's all good in my book. And this new Henry looks very good indeed. I'm not such a big history buff that I would spend that kind of money on one myself, though.

henschman said:

Lots of companies have done what Henry has and have named themselves after famous arms manufacturers from the past which they actually have no connection to... Armalite, Inc. and Springfield Armory, Inc. are the most well-known. Many of the well-known brands that have been around over 100 years are technically still the same companies, but most have actually been bought out by larger holding companies like the Freedom Group/Cerberus. I don't consider Marlin, Remington, or Smith & Wesson to be any better in that regard, as far as being the "same" as the original companies who made the classics we all love. As long as you recognize what all is marketing hype and buy based on the actual quality of the product, it's all good in my book. And this new Henry looks very good indeed. I'm not such a big history buff that I would spend that kind of money on one myself, though.

Click to expand...

Even though a conglomerate may own them, there is still a history if they continue operating in the same location, which some of them are, and still using workers who have been with the original company for decades.

I think those factors differ significantly from a start up using a name.

Neither ArmaLite nor Springfield have ANYTHING whatever to do with the original companies.

Not the same location, facilities, employees, or anything else.

Denis

At least Armalite details their entire history on their web page, and tells how they attained the name. Springfield Armory also says on their page, that they just revived the name.

Henry lists Benjamin Tyler Henry as part of their history and doesn't even state when the current company started operations...

I do agree the stated association with BT Henry is unfortunate, but if you can get past that, the products are well done.
Denis

DPris said:

I do agree the stated association with BT Henry is unfortunate, but if you can get past that, the products are well done.
Denis

Click to expand...

It wouldn't stop me from buying from them...
Being priced higher than something of equal or greater quality would though.

I've worked with at least 10 of their rifles in various calibers & configurations over the years.
With the sole exception of a pump .22 a LONG time ago, quality has not been a question.
Denis

Winchester in Japan? I have a Remington shotgun made in Russia...it's my Russington.
I have two Henry .22LR...very nice, well made guns.

I have absolutely no interest in buying one, but I sure can appreciate nice things when I see them and that rifle is a good looking rifle.

I own a Henry Big Boy .357 (shares ammo with my Ruger NMV) and will tell you it is absolutely THE smoothest lever action rifle you will ever find straight out of the box. I know a couple people with the .22lr models and they are fantastic rifles too.

I like the fact it's made in the USA. However, I like the fact it's just extremely WELL MADE even more. The new reproductions are most likely going to be the best version on the market based on my experience with their other rifles.

As far as being misleading about the history of the company (not the original company for the 1800s), I will agree they do lead people a little bit in that direction. However, so does Springfield Armory and several other companies. This is a practice found not just within the firearms industry. (Look at the auto industry for a prime example.)

Personally, I like people keeping (otherwise defunct) legendary company names alive by making new products. Just my two cents.