Henry Repeating Arms' H011- Original Henry Rifle 1860

[Griff]

I too have a Uberti "Steel-framed" Henry. Mine's in .45 Colt... only because I was offered the opportunity to acquire the last 45Colt rifle that EMF imported from Uberti, since I happen to have the 1st, a 1873 rifle made in 1986.

The 45Colt is not an ideal round, but it works... The 44Flat is a far inferior round. Ground-breaking when introduced... but even then, less than ideal. I won't be tradin' one less-than-ideal round for its weak sister.

[DPris]

The Henry Henry here looks about 8.5 on the bathroom scale, which could be off a fraction.
Denis

[Griff]

The Henry Henry here looks about 8.5 on the bathroom scale, which could be off a fraction.
Denis

Denis,

My Uberti Steel-framed Henry is also right at 8.5 lbs on the old time doctors scale (balance beam) in the kitchen. The 24" Uberti 1873 is right at 7-¾lbs. Both guns in 45Colt.

[DPris]

So, I think a definite conclusion is called for.
Denis

[KWK]

Sorry, I just think it is ridiculous to be shooting such a light round out of such a massive gun.

I agree, but it would keep one a bit more in synch with the gents of the 1860s. The Henry's great weight for what it does kept me from acquiring one; even the 16" version didn't handle as nicely as my 30" rolling block!

[Griff]

So, I think a definite conclusion is called for.
Denis

So, do you think Driftwood weighed his before he unloaded it?

[DPris]

With all three loads I ran through this one, recoil felt about the same as my lighter .22s.

The thing about the Henry is not its efficiency, it's having a ground-breaking pivotal design in firearms evolutionary history that you can actually afford, and SHOOT!
That even carries over into the not-entirely-exactly-precise replicas.
May not be the same total experience the originals gave, but it comes darned close, and the first time I held one I was severely impressed with what it represented.
They still impress me.
Denis

[Buck Elliott]

I reckon the primary target for an 'original-length' Henry would be CAS shooters, who happen to shoot upwards of THOUSANDS of rounds each year, in practice and in matches.. Firing that many, relatively-expensive, NON-RELOADABLE rounds would quickly become cost-prohibitive..

As has been mentioned, the original Henry concept was refined, in steps, with the addition of the King's Patent loading gate in the 'Improved Henry of 1866, then ultimately, the .44 WCF cartridge and the justly-revered Model 1873.. Old Timers were quick to appreciate the reloadable cartridges, and many made sacrifices to buy the new rifle and ammo, as soon as they could..

I hate to pop anyone's bubble, but thoughts of inexpensive rimfire ammo and guns to go with it are the definitions of Pipe Dream...

[KWK]

... CAS shooters, who happen to shoot upwards of THOUSANDS of rounds each year...

... thoughts of inexpensive rimfire ammo and guns to go with it are the definitions of Pipe Dream

I wasn't thinking $35/box was exactly inexpensive. It's half again as much as cheapie .45 ACP at Midway. Combined with a $1200+ rifle, inexpensive is not part of the equation. Yes, I can't see the CAS crowd buying in, but a '66 with such ammo would be of (some) interest to me. That $35/box is likely a pipe dream, of course, for the volumes involved won't allow for the investments given to centerfire production.

For reference, Midway offers a box of Brazilian .45 ACP FMJ for $21 per box of 50. Surely, if demand warranted it, .44 Henry flat could be made for less than this, say $19/box; but such demand dried up in the 1800s, never to return again. To display the effects of economy of scale: The same company's .44-40 is $37/box at Midway.

[Driftwood Johnson]

I reckon the primary target for an 'original-length' Henry would be CAS shooters, who happen to shoot upwards of THOUSANDS of rounds each year, in practice and in matches.. Firing that many, relatively-expensive, NON-RELOADABLE rounds would quickly become cost-prohibitive..

Yup

I cast my own bullets and load a few thousand 44-40s a year. I ain't done the math recently, but it costs me a whole lot less than $35 a box. Not gonna catch me buying a rifle (or revolver) that I can't reload my ammo for. I ain't bought any factory 44-40 or 45 Colt in years, so I don't keep track of what it costs these days. Looks like between $35 - $50 at Midway, but they are out of stock on just about everything. These cartridges cost around $18.50 - $22 for 50 back around ten years ago when I decided to start reloading them. That was a lot of money for ammo then, so I decided to start loading them myself.

Of course if one were chambered for 44 Russian, I only put about 20 grains of FFg in those, that would be cheaper. But I really like the boom of 35 grains.

As far as cost of the rifle, I bought my Henry when it was on sale at Dixie Gun Works a few years ago. Marked down from around $1000 to $800 at that time. I always thought it was quite a good deal.

[DunRanull]

Interesting thread for a guy like myself who likes the lever rifles, old and later models. I tend to be a pragmatist.. the cartridge has to be useful and reloadable, not to say, commonly available either as rifle or pistol.
Unlike some, I have no use for non-reloadable large caliber rimfires or an odd-ball center-fire, but I'm not a re-enactor. Generally available .44 Special or .44 Mag in revolver and lever carbine work well for plinking, camp defence and close-in hunting, such as Missouri deer and hog hunting at my bro-in-law's place.

[Griff]

Almost all of the cowboy action shooters I know, reload. The economies of reloading are about the only way many shooters can compete with the regularity so many do. I started reloading in the 1970s, just to have "better" ammo than what was available from the factory. Competing in shotgun (skeet), rifle (hi-power) and pistol (various), the only thing that saved my budget was reloading. So, when I started into CAS in the mid '80s, it was a no-brainer. And when the wife & son started shooting, it was the ONLY way to feed the habit!

Now, even tho' I don't shoot CAS as much as I used to, other shooting has increased. Cost of ammo for rifle, pistol and shotgun can get onerous. Spent a part of an absolutely beautiful day for shooting yesterday, reloading instead! 800 rounds of .223; started with clean brass, and while the son started swaging primer pockets, chamfering case mouths, loading primer tubes, kept me busy loading! Recv'd a second set of dies, so between bouts of the above, he decapped and sized even more .223; so now I'll have HELP!

After 20+ years of doin' all his loading... life is suddenly fulfilling!

Non-reloadable ammo. No WAY!

[Ji in Hawaii]

44 Russian looks pretty close to the 44 Henry size wise.

[Winnetou]

The fact remains that long-obsolete rifles in long-obsolete calibres have been successfully brought back to the market. At the very least, short-frame Henry and 1866 rifles, chambered for the .44 Henry centre-fire, would likely find as welcoming a market as the Spencer and 1876 replicas. At that point, it would be almost nothing to offer rim-fire conversion parts, should an enterprising ammunition manufacturer bring back the .44 Henry rim-fire.

Because increasing charges of black powder is a case of diminishing returns, the standard .44 Henry RF is only about 150FPS slower, out of a full length rifle, than the .44-40, and that with a 216-grain bullet, as compared to the 200-grain bullet of the .44-40 (a wonderful calibre, I hasten to add). In the early days, a 31-grain loading of the .44RF was available, and it would have been slightly faster. I don’t think it is fair to label the .44RF a “pip-squeak”, unless one is also prepared to give the same appellation to the .44-40.

It is my understanding that aluminium has been tried for .22RF cartridges, but that some problems were encountered, which may have to do with the small size of the case. However, aluminium might be practical for larger low-pressure rounds that will not be used in semi-automatic arms. CCI’s Blazer line of centre-fire ammunition has aluminium cases that are not re-loadable.

I don’t participate in CAS, but I have heard that some participants don’t reload. There are certainly many CAS loads on the market, and some-one must be buying them.

According to a spring scale, my Uberti iron-frame .44 Henry weighs slightly under nine pounds—still a heavy rifle, but not close to the 10 pounds, 6 ounces that Driftwood mentioned. Perhaps that measurement was made with the rifle fully loaded.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

No, it was not loaded. I hung it from a digital fishing scale. Perhaps the scale is out of whack. I can tell you though that weighed on the exact same scale, whether or not it is in whack, the Henry weighs a full pound more than a similarly barreled Uberti '73 or Winchester '73, which still means it is a heavy rifle.

Rimfire cartridges need a stronger hammer blow than centerfire cartridges in order to reliably ignite the primer material. This is because it takes more energy to deform the rim of a rimfire cartridge than it does to deform the cup of a center fire primer. The cup can be made of thinner material, than a rim can without fear of rupture. Has to do with the nature of how much pressure can make it through the flash hole of a centerfire cartridge. All other things being equal the primer cup does not see the same pressure as the rim of a rimfire cartridge does.

Rimfire cartridges were originally made of copper (as were many early centerfire cartridges), look at the Henry round in my photo. I have some 32 and 38 caliber rimfire ammo in my collection, they are all copper cased too. The reason being that copper is soft and deforms better under the blow of a firing pin than cartridge brass does. Even so, the Henry and Model 1866 Winchesters had a split firing pin to dent the rim in two places simultaneously to better assure ignition.

The Achilles's heel of large caliber rimfire ammo was that it could not be loaded to the same pressures as centerfire ammo without fear of blowing out the rim. (The early Benet primed copper cased 45-70 ammo often saw head separation or extractors ripping through the rim, jamming the Trapdoor rifles it was developed for.) Higher pressure is one reason that centerfire ammo took the front seat over rimfire ammo, as well as being reloadable. That is why Winchester felt comfortable increasing the powder charge of the 44-40 to 40 grains over the 28 grains that were going into the 44 Henry round. The aluminum Blazer ammo was not rimfire, it was Berdan primed. The case construction was plenty strong enough for the pressures developed. However if one was to try to make rimfire ammo from aluminum, I suspect that getting the rim soft enough to reliably deform would result in blown case heads. Aluminum is not as malleable as copper. If somebody were to attempt making large caliber rimfire ammo today, I suspect it would have to be copper cased.

I know lots and lots of Cowboy shooters. The only ones who do not reload their ammo are the ones who have not gotten set up to reload yet. I assure you, very few cowboy action shooters can afford to shoot regularly buying cowboy ammo at $35 - $50 for a box of ammo. The typical six stage cowboy match will call for 10 pistol rounds and 10 rifle rounds and 4 shotgun rounds per stage. That is slightly over two boxes of pistol and rifle ammo for one match, and a box of shotgun ammo. Do the math, not many can afford to spend $75 - $100 in ammo every time they attend a match. And that does not include practice ammo. As a matter of fact, the trend recently has been for most CAS shooters to be shooting 38s rather than the large calibers, because it recoils less and is cheaper to shoot.

I just went through the math. Casting my own bullets and figuring 10 reloads from my brass, it costs me $12.70 for a box of 44-40, $14.61 for a box of 45 Colt, and $10.89 for a box of 44 Russians. Haven't done the math for 45 Schofield yet. That is expensive because it takes a lot of Black Powder to fill a case. Smokeless shooters will spend considerably less for powder, but more for their bullets if they buy therm.

Yes, by modern standards, 44-40 is a pipsqueak round too. And 44 Henry is more so.

Do not be deceived by the similar OAL of the 44 Henry Rimfire round and the 44 Russian round. Internal case capacity is significantly different. Any rimfire round is by definition a very thin shell. The old balloon head ammo always had less case capacity than any similar rimfire ammo. Modern solid head case construction has even less. The traditional amount of powder in the 44 Henry round was 26 to 28 grains of powder. I reload 44 Russian with modern Starline brass all the time. I only get about 19.5 grains of FFg under the bullet.

[KWK]

At $12/box for reloaded CF, a .44 RF even at the most optimistic price of $19/box isn't going to win over the CAS crowd, and without their volumes, I can't see enough demand to warrant even $35/box. The '73 is a fine rifle, so no worries.

One small company in the Czech Republic has shown Henry and '66 rifles of the proper receiver dimensions, firing .45 ACP. Unfortunately, they seem to be having trouble getting them out the door. You can follow it in the Henry forums at CAScity.com.

[Winnetou]

Well, of course copper or brass cases and black powder would be ideal for large calibre rim-fire cartridges. Yet copper, which is the principal constituent of cartridge brass, has become costly, which is one reason that ammunition has become so expensive. Thus, the idea of employing far less costly aluminium for single-use rounds is appealing.

.25 and .32 rim-fire cartridges are occasionally produced, and always sell out, despite the fact that no new rifles have been produced for those calibres in decades. Obsolete rifles in obsolete calibres are currently on the market, and enjoying sales. I think that if correctly dimensioned Henry and 1866 rifles were put on the market, they would sell. And if a rim-fire option were available, and the ammunition placed on the market, there would also be sales, perhaps sufficient to make the enterprise a success.

I agree that the Henry is a heavy rifle. It is indeed about a pound heavier than a Winchester 1873 sporting rifle, or similar repeaters. That pound makes a big difference in carrying and handling a rifle.

The .44-40 is a superb cartridge. I agree that a cartridge that can be reloaded is advantageous. The Winchester 1873 is one of the most elegant and mechanically excellent rifles ever conceived. But many shooters also like the older models, and would like to experience them as they were originally. There are many other shooters who own rim-fire rifles, in calibres larger than .22, who would like to shoot them, and who would purchase cartridges if they were on the market.

I think that the market can cater to “fringe” tastes. That is, I think that money could be made in marketing the rifles and cartridges we have discussed.

I’ve followed the story of the family operation in the Czech Republic, on CAS City (my name on those forums is Wes Tancred). I hope they can succeed, but it doesn’t seem likely. Apparently the key figure has suffered serious health reversals.

[Ji in Hawaii]

Howdy Again

Do not be deceived by the similar OAL of the 44 Henry Rimfire round and the 44 Russian round. Internal case capacity is significantly different. Any rimfire round is by definition a very thin shell. The old balloon head ammo always had less case capacity than any similar rimfire ammo. Modern solid head case construction has even less. The traditional amount of powder in the 44 Henry round was 26 to 28 grains of powder. I reload 44 Russian with modern Starline brass all the time. I only get about 19.5 grains of FFg under the bullet.

Easy enough to get 44 Henry Rimfire performance from a 44 Russian case using smokeless powder which most CAS shooters prefer. This shorter (than 44/40) cartridge is reloadable, still being loaded commercially, and would allow the Henry rifle receiver to be proportioned correct to the original. This would apply to the 1866 Winchester as well which was also originally chambered in 44 Henry Rimfire, and a design I prefer over the "forestockless" Henry rifle. Personally not a fan of black powder in cartridges.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Easy enough to get 44 Henry Rimfire performance from a 44 Russian case using smokeless powder which most CAS shooters prefer. This shorter (than 44/40) cartridge is reloadable, still being loaded commercially, and would allow the Henry rifle receiver to be proportioned correct to the original. This would apply to the 1866 Winchester as well which was also originally chambered in 44 Henry Rimfire, and a design I prefer over the "forestockless" Henry rifle. Personally not a fan of black powder in cartridges.

Yeah, if I wanted to use the heathen Smokeless powder I could get the 44 Russian to perform like the 44 Henry, but what fun would that be? Besides, I mostly shoot 44 Russian in antique S&W revolvers and I am not about to stress the 130 or more year old steel (and iron) with Smokeless powder. Despite what you may hear, it is a bad idea to shoot these old revolvers with Smokeless, no matter how light the load. Yes, some of the old cartridges are being loaded commercially, but they are not 'still' being loaded. Commercial production of 44 Russian and 45 Schofield ended many years ago. These cartridges have been resurrected, they have not been in continuous production, mostly because of the demand generated by CAS shooters. As it is, the only company making 44 Russian or 45 Schofield brass any more is Starline. And all the companies, about three if I remember correctly, that load those two cartridges use Starline brass. Same with 44 Colt, 38 Long Colt, and a few others.

Well, of course copper or brass cases and black powder would be ideal for large calibre rim-fire cartridges. Yet copper, which is the principal constituent of cartridge brass, has become costly, which is one reason that ammunition has become so expensive. Thus, the idea of employing far less costly aluminium for single-use rounds is appealing.

Despite it's cost appeal, I do not think aluminum would work for large caliber rimfire cartridges for the reasons I have already stated. Too stiff, unless you get it thin enough that you risk blowing out the rim. I would be mildly interested in 32 rimfire ammmo for two of my old Tip Up Smiths, but I still could not load it myself. I am actually looking into the brass shells sold by Dixie that use a 22 blank as a primer. I could reload those all I wanted.

[Ji in Hawaii]

Yeah, if I wanted to use the heathen Smokeless powder I could get the 44 Russian to perform like the 44 Henry, but what fun would that be? Besides, I mostly shoot 44 Russian in antique S&W revolvers and I am not about to stress the 130 or more year old steel (and iron) with Smokeless powder. Despite what you may hear, it is a bad idea to shoot these old revolvers with Smokeless, no matter how light the load. Yes, some of the old cartridges are being loaded commercially, but they are not 'still' being loaded. Commercial production of 44 Russian and 45 Schofield ended many years ago. These cartridges have been resurrected, they have not been in continuous production, mostly because of the demand generated by CAS shooters. As it is, the only company making 44 Russian or 45 Schofield brass any more is Starline. And all the companies, about three if I remember correctly, that load those two cartridges use Starline brass. Same with 44 Colt, 38 Long Colt, and a few others.

We're talking modern reproduction firearms so old steel argument a mute point. Been reloading for 40 years so no problem getting and reloading 44 Russian brass or even making own brass from 44 special or magnum. Black powder also impossible to get shipped here, and I'd rather not deal with it anyways. Mild safe 44 Henry matching loads from smokeless no problemo.