Lever action Henrys comparisons.

[Crawdad1]

Seen the new Henry rifle from Henry and noted that the fit and finish were superb and the action real smooth.

http://www.henryrifles.com/rifles/the-henry-original/

My problem is they are only chambered for the 44-40 cartridge while the Uberti built Henry is chambered for a lot more cartridges and most of these are adapted by Hornady for the leverevoltion shaped bullet. The Uberti's fit and finish and action were also very smooth.

http://www.hornady.com/store/leverevolution/

What I'm asking is have you guys found that the leverevolution bullets are more or less accurate in your lever guns? Do they make a difference or do the old round nosed bullets work just as well when loaded for your rifle?

Price is not a concern.

 

[DPris]

I did not fire any of the LeveRevolution through the US Henry 1860 in .44-40 when I had it here, but I did through a new 16-inch Big Boy in .357 & best 100-yard 3-shot group with that Hornady load was 5/8 of an inch.

I dunno what I did to pull that off, but that was that gun's best on that day.
Everything came together just right on that one, I couldn't repeat it.

In other guns, I've not noticed the Hornady LeveRevolution to be substantially better than more conventional ammunition.
Sometimes a bit more accurate, sometimes not.


They ARE a much better hunting round.
Denis

 

[Crawdad1]

I can figure out why he settled on the 44-40 for his new Henry but I can't for the life of me figure out why Hornady doesn't offer it in their leverevoltion bullets. It seems everything else under the sun but not the 44-40.

 

[DPris]

The .44-40 was chosen for that US 1860 because it was the closest "classic" caliber to the original rimfire .44 Henry round still available today.

Hornady probably just figures not enough market in the .44-40 for a modern hunting bullet.

Couple new Henrys coming out this year, keep an eye open.
Denis

 

[22-rimfire]

The LeverRevolution ammo was meant to extend the practical hunting range of the traditional calibers and yet be safe in the tubular magazines common with lever action rifles.

 

[Crawdad1]

I guess I have three options, first, buy the Henry in 44-40 and wait for Hornady to produce their leverevolution in 44-40. Second, wait for Henry to chamber their rifle in additional calibers. And third, just buy the Uberti Henry in a caliber already being made by Hornady in their leverevolution bullet.

 

[DPris]

Henry has no plans of chambering their 1860 Original in any other caliber, unless that's changed since last Fall.
Denis

 

[Crawdad1]

Now I'm down to two options.

I know people that have the Uberti Henry but I don't know anyone that has the new 1860 Original from Henry so I really can't compare the two side by side.

 

[VA27]

I've seen and handled two Henry Henrys. Both were awful looking compaired to the Uberti Henry. I would only purchase a H/H that was 'in stock' so I could examine it first.

 

[Crawdad1]

I've seen and handled two Henry Henrys. Both were awful looking compaired to the Uberti Henry. I would only purchase a H/H that was 'in stock' so I could examine it first.

That's good information. I've cycled that Uberti Henry and I have never felt anything so smooth its like lifting air. I was hoping that the Henry built by Henry Rifle would be the same. The Uberti is an easy solution chamber for most Leverevolution rounds and priced below its competitor.

 

[DPris]

The Henry Henry IS as smooth as the Uberti Henry.
I've fired both.
Denis

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

....while the Uberti built Henry is chambered for a lot more cartridges and most of these are adapted by Hornady for the leverevoltion shaped bullet.

Howdy

A few things. The Uberti Henry is only available chambered for 45 Colt and 44-40. Occasionally you can find one chambered for 44 Special, but they are rare as hen's teeth. So you are limited to 44-40 and 45 Colt, that's all.

I have a 44-40 Uberti Iron Frame Henry that is my CAS Main Match rifle. I shoot nothing but Black Powder through it, and I am very happy with traditional Round Nosed Flat Point bullets.

I know nothing about the LeverRevolution bullets and really don't care. If you are interested in them for hunting, I have to ask are you aware of how much the Henry weighs? It is a very heavy rifle due to the one piece construction of the barrel and magazine. A full pound heavier than a similarly proportioned '73. So if you want to lug it around through the woods, be prepared. On the other hand, I am convinced that the barrel construction with the barrel and magazine machined from one solid bar of steel contributes to the stiffness of the barrel. They are very accurate no matter what bullet you use.

I have had a chance to handle two different American Henry Henries. Frankly, I thought they were way overpolished to the point of softening some edges that should be left sharp. They were so shiny I was blinded by the glare from across the room. Did not like the effect.

 

[RevGeo]

I just bought a new Henry 45-70 and it is a fine piece.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I believe the OP is talking about the 1860 Henry rifles made by Henry Repeating Arms and by Uberti.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Just a few things, the Henry rifle chambered in 44-40 is a close replica of the Original Henry rifle and that's what they are calling it, the Original Henry. Why it's in 44-40 has already been covered. Henry has also made their Big Boy levergun for a long time in 44 Magnum, 45 Colt and .357 Magnum. They are also very nice rifles and cost less because they don't require special manufacturing like the Original Henry does.
http://www.henryrifles.com/rifles/big-boy/

 

[Crawdad1]

Thanks guys for the great information. And Mr. Johnson is dead on as usual in that I'm only interested in the Original Henry rifle and not the other models.

The only other choice I have is the 45 Colt. I may have to rethink this.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The .44-40 was chosen for that US 1860 because it was the closest "classic" caliber to the original rimfire .44 Henry round still available today.

That is somewhat debatable. In this photo, the original 44 Henry Rimfire round is the copper cased round third from the right. 44-40 is all the way on the left and 45 Colt is all the way on the right.



Notice how much shorter the 44 Henry round is than both 44-40 and 45 Colt. Because of this, the modern Henry reproductions, produced by Henry Repeating Arms Company and Uberti have longer carriers to accommodate the longer cartridges than the originals did. And because of the longer carrier, both 'modern' rifles have frames that are slightly longer in the carrier area than the originals were. It is always interesting to examine an original and notice how short the carriers were.

Personally, I am perfectly happy with a Henry chambered for 44-40. Because of the increased powder capacity, about 35 grains of FFg compared to about 28 grains of FFg, modern Henry replicas are more powerful than the originals were. But there is a vocal minority in the cowboy shooting world that would like to see a Henry reproduction chambered for 44 Russian, third from the left in the photo. 44 Russian is closer in length and powder capacity to the original 44 Henry round, brass is available from Starline and loaded ammo is available from a couple of sources. And a shorter round would mean more magazine capacity. But when Uberti first started making Henry reproductions, 44 Russian ammo was not commercially available, so 44-40 and 45 Colt were chosen. In the early days Uberti actually made some Henry rifles chambered for the 44 Henry round, but commercial ammo had not been made for years, and rimfires cannot be reloaded, so not many were made in this configuration.

 

[Crawdad1]

I have had a chance to handle two different American Henry Henries. Frankly, I thought they were way overpolished to the point of softening some edges that should be left sharp. They were so shiny I was blinded by the glare from across the room. Did not like the effect.

I take it Mr. Johnson you are recommending the Henry rifle built by Uberti?


http://www.uberti.com/1860-henry-rifle

 

[DPris]

DJ,
I can tweak that comment a bit.
Anthony told me the .44-40 was selected for his 1860 because it's the closest CURRENTLY & EASILY & READILY AVAILABLE classic .44-caliber load commercially made in large quantities that shooters can find today, in keeping with the classic .44-caliber nature of the rifle.

He wants it to be fired, and if ammo is too esoteric or hard to find, people won't.
Denis

 

[Tommygunn]

..... the modern Henry reproductions, produced by Henry Repeating Arms Company and Uberti have longer carriers to accommodate the longer cartridges than the originals did. And because of the longer carrier, both 'modern' rifles have frames that are slightly longer in the carrier area than the originals were. It is always interesting to examine an original and notice how short the carriers were.

Yup.
Have you ever seen a "Volcanic" rifle? They were the "origin" of the Henry Rifle and actually, they were a commercial failure. They used a type of "caseless" ammo. The bullet itself had a hollow base which was filled with powder, and a tin or cardboard disc that had primer on it was then inserted to keep the powder in.
The idea worked OK so far as shooting and repeating, but the round was so weak as a result of the necessarily small BP charge that no one really liked it. Getting shot with one might be really annoying if you were to discover you'd been shot.
The cartridge elevators on those were REALLY short -- there was no brass case to deal with.

 

[BCRider]

I know that this is second guessing Henry but it would appear that a closer center fire cartridge to the original would be a .44Russian. Or perhaps the .44 Schoefield. Both are shorter cases that would be closer in overall length to the original .44 rimfire Henry cartridge than the .44-40. And thanks to cowboy action shooting I don't feel that these two options are any more rare than .44-40.

But then I wasn't the person looking at all the options at Henry.

 

[DPris]

The .44 Russian is nowhere near as easy to find for most people than the .44-40, and most potential buyers today are not going to be interested in a gun firing a round they've never even heard of.

.44 Schofield?
You mean .45 Schofield?

The CAS market no longer drives the makers like it did at its peak, and a local gunshop (or even a WalMart) is much more likely to have the .44-40 in stock than either the .44 Russian or the .45 Schofield.

I've never seen either caliber on the shelves anywhere, and that's WalMart, Big 5, the busiest gunshop in my state's biggest city, a local "ranch" store, or Cabela's, all of which move large amounts of ammunition in my area.
Denis

 

[paintballdude902]

Dpris, saw a box of .45 Schofield once.......... once


that was about 8years ago at a huge gunstore an

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I take it Mr. Johnson you are recommending the Henry rifle built by Uberti?

As I said earlier, my Henry is the 'iron frame' version made by Uberti, chambered for 44-40. I shoot nothing but Black Powder in it. HRAC had not brought out their version of the 'original Henry' yet when I bought mine. But that's besides the fact, I would never buy anything made by HRAC for reasons that don't need to be discussed here. Not recommending one over the other, my choice is a personal choice.

Yup.
Have you ever seen a "Volcanic" rifle? They were the "origin" of the Henry Rifle and actually, they were a commercial failure. They used a type of "caseless" ammo. The bullet itself had a hollow base which was filled with powder, and a tin or cardboard disc that had primer on it was then inserted to keep the powder in.
The idea worked OK so far as shooting and repeating, but the round was so weak as a result of the necessarily small BP charge that no one really liked it. Getting shot with one might be really annoying if you were to discover you'd been shot.
The cartridge elevators on those were REALLY short -- there was no brass case to deal with.

Yes, I am very familiar with the Volcanic firearms. I have handled at least one Volcanic rifle and several handguns. Almost bought a Volcanic lever pistol recently because the price was reasonable. Just as a collector's item of course, there is no ammunition available for them. Yes, the carrier on the Volcanics is tiny, because many of them were 38 caliber, and the Rocketball ammo had no cartridge case. In fact, the Volcanic rifle I was privileged to examine was so small it felt more like a boy's rifle than a full sized rifle. When Oliver Winchester took the helm at the New Haven Arms Company, his first directive to B. F. Tyler was to come up with a 44 caliber cartridge that would perform better than the anemic Volcanic Rocketball ammo. Henry came up with the 44 Rimfire, then designed his rifle around it. The Henry rifle is bigger than the Volcanic was partially because the ammo was bigger.

As for availability of 44 Russian, I buy my brass direct from Starline. Just as easily available from them as 44-40 or 45 Schofield. However I will agree that 44 Russian or 45 Schofield ammo or brass is not very easily available to the general shooting public unless you go direct to the manufacturer. For that matter, I can't recall seeing much 44-40 ammo recently. I have seldom seen 44-40 brass available in a store. I used to buy Winchester brand 44-40 brass at gun shows, but recently it has gotten hard to find. That's why I buy all my brass, 45 Colt, 45 Schofield, 44-40, 44 Russian, 38-40, direct from Starline now.

 

[DPris]

Also consider that not everybody who'll be buying that 1860 will be reloading for it.
Denis