sheepdog

...is an original old Henry rifle...noone has one??? I hear a lot about old Winchesters and fairly old Marlins...but Henry was big back then, too...I've read a lot about the .44 Henry...

Machinist

Way underpowered, fragile, magazine hard to load and wide open to dirt and dust. The 1866 fixed the last but the other two remained drawbacks until the 1873.

In the words of Buck Henry,
"That's what's wrong with those old Henrys, they take too long to kill." (well, sort of)

(Winchester '73)

sheepdog

...now that clip came through fine...gotta see that again someday soon...if you'd told all that to a bunch of Johnny Rebs and charged them $20 each...you'd be a millionaire...back then, they were the best killing machines available...and killed many just fine...in real life...the stats at the end of the article seem to put the .44 Henry round close to the .44 Special...may not be like the moderns but that heavy a bullet at 1100+ fps would get your attention...

Bountyhunter

I didn't realize that the 44 Henry was actually a different round. I guess I should have since, it was around a little bit before the 44 mag. was that always a BP load, or did it ever get loaded with smokeless powder?

sheepdog

...this doesn't say it ever changed over...rimfire only...though some made in brass casings...dropped the cartridge in the 30s... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44_Henry...had to be better than a single shot for man-to-man battles...

Machinist

The Henry and 1866 used a rimfire cartridge. It was less powerful than the .44-40 used in the 1873, though the numbers look closer than I thought. It was always black powder I think. The Spenser lever action cartridges or the different single shots had more powerful cartridges and the rifled muskets also were more powerful. The Henry and the 1866 offered firepower over power and range.

Machinist

Sheepdog,
The adoption of the Minie ball made the rifled muzzle loader a practical military arm and this radically changed battlefield tactics by extending effective small arms range out to 600 yards. In Napoleon's time the main killer on the battlefield was artillery with over 60% of the casualties. Edged weapons came next with small arms third.

The rifled musket in the Civil War turned this on it's head. Small arms took over as the main killer with artillery and edged weapons sharing the leftovers. The smooth bores lost effectiveness beyond 100 yards while the bronze smooth bore cannon would typically open fire at 400 yards. The rifled muskets could kill the gunners out to 600 yards, forcing the guns to move back or take cover. Although linear formations remained official doctrine through the war the deadly musket fire forced commanders in the field to adopt dispersal and cover to avoid fearsome casualties. It was the most radical change in battlefield arms since the bayonet.

I think the Henry was not very effective at those ranges compared to the single shot rifles in use. That it why most armies did not adopt it.

Machinist

The firepower of the Henry was useful to settlers as it gave a great advantage against the more numerous but poorly armed Indians. The lack of power was less important in the close range defensive fighting they faced. It was also useful to the Indians later in their light cavalry role as they depended on speed and shock rather than long range accuracy. In the open the more powerful single shots and repeaters had an advantage at range.

I think they were more popular with cavalry or dragoons in the war. Did many infantry units buy them?

sheepdog

...I don't know...mostly Yankees bought them and Johnny Reb only got captured ones...it was designed for old farts like me who don't even know there IS a 600 yards...or 200 yards...but get in my face and I'll getcha...

Machinist

I don't think many were used. They were bought by individual units or a few militias. The Army issued the more powerful Spencer in .56 rimfire.

Machinist

The lack of a loading gate meant the magazine tube had a slot along the bottom the whole length. This made it quite fragile and open to dirt, dust, and mud. It was easy to dent and jam the feed. Loading took too long and pulled it out of action. The Winchester 1866 with it's loading gate was a big improvement.

sheepdog

...that loading tube is why I like the looks of the new Henrys...even in the .44, it's the way I want to load...haven't seen the new .30-30 to see how they do it in that one...yup, it's tube-loaded, too.... http://www.henryrepeating.com/h009_3030.cfm I like that...safer to load/unload without fighting that gate or dinging up the softpoints...

Machinist

Those load like a tube feed .22 so when the loading tube is closed it is solid and sealed. The Henry was different. There was a slot down the full length on the tube magazine on the bottom. A handle from the follower stuck out through this. The last few inches of the magazine at the muzzle was a separate piece that could pivot around the barrel when the follower and it's spring were compressed in it, holding them in and clearing the magazine tube to drop cartridges down into it. The end was then swung back so the spring could push the follower after the cartridges. This was why there was no fore end on the Henry, the tube had to be exposed for the follower handle all the way from the receiver to the muzzle end. That slot was open all the time letting dirt, dust, and water in on the cartridges. The open slot made it easy to dent or distort the tube as well, and your hand had to allow the follower to move past it as you worked the lever for the later shots or the follower might not feed the cartridges. The system sucked and I don't think anyone has ever used it again. The modern telescoping tubes are still slow but the ammo is well protected and sealed off, plus the double tube is strong.

I think this is why the 1866 was so much more popular than the Henry, though the action and cartridge were the same.

sheepdog

...yeah, I got that difference...I'm talking about the closed tube...my favorite style being as Winchester did with their .22s and put the opening right next to the barrel, where you could line several rounds up in the pit between tube and barrel and they could be slid into the opening, instead of fumbled in one at a time from the bottom opening that Remington and others used...

Machinist

Sorry.

I do like tubular magazines but I like loading gates so the rifle can be topped up or a couple of quick rounds loaded without taking the gun out of action. This does not apply with a .22 and the system you describe sounds very good. Too bad more did not do this.

sheepdog

...I love the Marlins, but I hate jacking the shells through the action or trying to coax them out of the loading gate....you can top off a tube feed but you'd better remember to keep the barrel towards the sky...I've fished for shells in the leaves......often....

tx gun runner

The Henry was state of art gun till the 66 came out , which is a improved Henry and the 73 made the Henry and 66 obsolete . The 92 action was stronger and shorter then the 73 , the 94 is a long 92 action for the longer 30-30 .

The correct and safest way to empty tube mag with a loading gate is to point it at something safe and jack them threw the action .

sheepdog

...sez you...doing it through the loading gate's just as safe...just harder...correct is a matter of opinion!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCn3fxRhmB8

The Model 1892 incorporates a much stronger Browning action based on the larger M1886 action just scaled down.it is stronger than the win 94 action .
pete

sheepdog

...progress always isn't...always...