A new revolver maker enters... Henry

Not a fan of smokeless .45 Colt though. I'd rather use .45 Cowboy .45 Schofield, .44 Russian, or .357 magnum.

If you don't like Smokeless, and want to shoot Black Powder in an Uberti reproduction Top Break you will be disappointed. Because they changed the design of the collar on the front of the cylinder, they tend to bind up fairly quickly when shot with Black Powder.
 
Strangely, Ive seen more old Smith and Wessons with bent ejector rods than Colts, even though they were usually exposed.

A small point but a point nonetheless: If you per chance happen to bend the ejector rod even slightly on a revolver having a barrel shroud, closing the cylinder with it is not going to happen. Slightly bend the ejector rod on a revolver having no shroud and it's likely the cylinder will still close. Like I said, a small point.
 
Also, S&W Triple lock is another beautiful design. However, it's complex and requires a lot of hand fitting, so no wander last one was made more than hundred years ago. If I am not mistaken, somebody (Numrich!?) was selling triple lock crane about 40 years ago. At least, I had seen add for it. If I am in S&W top management, I would seriously consider making triple lock again. With todays' CNC machines, manufacturing cost should be reasonable. Of course MRSP will go up 25-30%, but I bet those revolver will go like hot cakes! Just no MIM parts in mechanism.

That is not going to happen.

The 44 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, also known as the New Century, but affectionately known to collectors as the Triple Lock, was introduced in 1908. It was the first revolver built on the new, large N frame, and the 44 Special cartridge was introduced with it.

pnEBbVXfj.jpg




Up until this time the K frame Double Action 38 caliber revolvers (the 38 Military and Police Models) had latched the cylinder to the frame at the rear and the front (actually the very first 38 M&P, the model of 1899 only latched the cylinder at the rear). The rear of the extractor rod was latched to the frame, and the front of the extractor rod latched into a small spring loaded lug on the underside of the barrel. The Triple Lock latched the ejector rod at the rear, but there was a new arrangement at the front of the ejector rod. In addition to the front of the extractor rod being captured, there was a spring loaded plunger that popped into a hole in a hardened part mounted in the cylinder yoke. This photo shows the two spring loaded plungers. Actually, they are one U shaped part. The lower plunger rides up the ramp in the insert in the yoke shown below. This causes the upper part of the plungers to retract. When the lower plunger pops into the hole, the upper plunger pops into a hollow at the front of the extractor rod. Hence the three latches of the Triple Lock.

pmbmgCJhj.jpg



pnNGyIROj.jpg




The Triple Lock was produced until 1915. The most common chambering was 44 Special, but they were also chambered for 44 Russian, 44-40, 455 Mark II, 450 Ely, and 38-40. It is rumored that 23 were chambered for 45 Colt. Smith and Wesson touted the maximum tightness and positive alignment of the cylinder afforded by the three latches, but most collectors suspect S&W merely wanted to show off their fancy machining know how. In any event, the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model appeared in 1915, lacking the fancy Triple Lock latching mechanism, reverting to the earlier system of simply latching the cylinder at the front and the back. This allowed S&W to drop the price of the revolver from $21 for the Triple Lock to $19 for the second model. Anybody who has access to an inflation calculator can do the math for 2023 dollars.

Smith and Wesson never built another revolver with the three latches of the Triple Lock, two has been sufficient for over 100 years. I sincerely doubt the top brass at S&W would seriously consider reintroducing the Triple Lock today, most of their efforts seem to be directed at making semi-automatic pistols and rifles.
 
OK, with more than 250 postings about a gun no one seems
to like (or comments about many other guns not remotely
related to the Henry), it's time for this:

The new Henry Big Boy revolver is the freshest iteration
of a revolver in nearly a century with a promise to create
such a demand that the auto pistol will be obliterated from
the memories of all shooters.
 


The first review I have seen. The guy does an OK job of the review except his double action shooting is pretty awful but many shooter are not good at that.

The interesting thing I saw when he was unboxing the revolver the manual the cover states it's for two models the 22LR, 22 WMR or the 38 SPL/357 Mag. (with model numbers for each) so it seems we will be seeing a change cylinder 22LR, 22 WMR version in the future and no doubt why that knurled nub is in the front of the trigger guard for easy cylinder change.

If there are plans to make this in .22 rimfire it better have the best double action trigger of any .22 revolver ever made otherwise what's the point? Another $900 large frame .22 with a 15lb trigger doesn't appeal to me.
 
I really do think they messed up the name. I don’t think they should have called them Big Boy revolvers, that name is already associated with their pistol caliber lever guns. Instead I think they should have named these Good Boy revolvers. Because every big boy needs a trusty good boy by his side.

Such a shame they missed this naming opportunity, especially if they prove to be of good quality.
 
I really do think they messed up the name. I don’t think they should have called them Big Boy revolvers, that name is already associated with their pistol caliber lever guns. Instead I think they should have named these Good Boy revolvers. Because every big boy needs a trusty good boy by his side.

Such a shame they missed this naming opportunity, especially if they prove to be of good quality.
they should name it like Smith guns! The Model 1-0
 
Not much to look at in my view...but Henry has a good rep for sturdy, accurate guns. That said, I stick with my Smiths for DA/SA work, and Rugers for SA only. I understand, YMMv, Rod
 
Thats pretty much how they do the rifles. H001, H015, etc.
Not much to look at in my view...but Henry has a good rep for sturdy, accurate guns. That said, I stick with my Smiths for DA/SA work, and Rugers for SA only. I understand, YMMv, Rod
I’ll get one after I finish paying off the Colt, 66-2, 60-15, and whatever else my impulsive butt runs into! might have it laser engraved with Mark Model 0-1
 
Well Olde English Outfitters mentions that the .22wmr version is going to have a 10 round capacity. That is a very interesting option as far as I am concerned. I will happily pay a grand for a high quality DA/SA 10 SHOT!!! .22 wmr revolver. Thats been my dream rimfire pistol since I got into all this.

 
OK, with more than 250 postings about a gun no one seems
to like (or comments about many other guns not remotely
related to the Henry), it's time for this:

The new Henry Big Boy revolver is the freshest iteration
of a revolver in nearly a century with a promise to create
such a demand that the auto pistol will be obliterated from
the memories of all shooters.

Okay, admit it. You’re a political campaign manager, right? :rofl:
 
Well Olde English Outfitters mentions that the .22wmr version is going to have a 10 round capacity. That is a very interesting option as far as I am concerned. I will happily pay a grand for a high quality DA/SA 10 SHOT!!! .22 wmr revolver. Thats been my dream rimfire pistol since I got into all this.


Id be down for a 10-shot .22LR. Probably more so than the .357 version.
 
decent move by Henry, good to have options. I bet they will get a good bit of market share out of brand loyalty and customers who like other Henry products.
 
Id be down for a 10-shot .22LR. Probably more so than the .357 version.

Sounds like the .22lr will be a 10 shot option as well. Although the way the video addresses this it makes it sound like these will be separate revolvers which is a bit odd since Henry makes the cylinders so easy to remove. Maybe getting a plow handle in lr and a birds head in .wmr would get you both and you could swap them around? I have no idea but I am crazy curious.
 
To me it's not so much the looks but their choice of model itself. There are already many high quality full sized 38/357 in the market and adding another would only make sense if it was comparable to the best ones but at a lower price. I don't think that at $800 to $900 this one will accomplish that. On the other hand if it was offered in 44 Magnum for the same price I would feel very different about it.
 
To me it's not so much the looks but their choice of model itself. There are already many high quality full sized 38/357 in the market and adding another would only make sense if it was comparable to the best ones but at a lower price. I don't think that at $800 to $900 this one will accomplish that. On the other hand if it was offered in 44 Magnum for the same price I would feel very different about it.
If they are smart at all, a 2" barrel, round aluminum butt "Carry" model would be on the menu soon. The 4 inch .357s are only going to appeal to a small collector demo, and a fixed-sight .22 to plinkers. Target shooters are going to want adjustable sights and 6" barrel options.
Colt made a smart play by reintroducing their revolvers starting with a carry gun, the new Cobra. It provided a volume leader to launch the larger guns, although of course a voracious demand already existed for anything called "Python."
Henry doesn't have the luxury of that built in name recognition.
 
Last edited:
A "Big Boy" with a 2-3 inch barrel in 5 shot .44 spec and / or .45 Colt would sell well as long as the quality was there or priced lower.

Very little competition for that combo in production.
 
Back
Top