Henry .357 Lever Action

[jim in Anchorage]

The current Henry Repeating Arms company can trace it's linage back to the original Henry plant in New Haven, CT.

Do you have a link for that or any evidence to prove it? If true it would require me to revise Every thing I thought I knew about the history of Winchester.

 

[george d dennis]

Henry Rifles

Did a search, Looks like New Haven ct. Typed in Henry Rifles

 

[jim in Anchorage]

george d dennis Did a search, Looks like New Haven ct. Typed in Henry Rifles

Is that directed to me? what are you getting at?

 

[george d dennis]

Henry Rifle

Not you Jim, Liked to look up the history myself as i was reading through
the topics. I didnt live far from Winchester a few years ago , But never was inside. Theres alot of Firearms history in Connecticut , But im afraid its
mostly all gone now.

 

[Milkmaster]

Why not buy the newly released Winchester 1873 that comes in 1873? I am hopeful to see one soon. I have not been able to find a specimen yet. The list price is a bit steep, but I would bet the fit and finish will be nice. Miroku tends to build a nice rifle if my Browning firearms are any indication.

BTW... I don't mind the tube magazine on the Henry. My 22WMR Golden Boy loads really fast with my speedloader. I can pull the tube and dump the full dozen rounds in less than a minute.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Not you Jim, Liked to look up the history myself as i was reading through
the topics. I didnt live far from Winchester a few years ago , But never was inside. Theres alot of Firearms history in Connecticut , But im afraid its
mostly all gone now.

You should go to the Connecticut library museum then. fantastic collection. I would far rather go there than Disney world.

 

[conrad427]

I bought a Henry for my dad a while back to match the one my mother won in a raffle. I have no complaints with either. I could care less what others think about the marketing, I like the company.
I would love to find a Henry Big Boy in any caliber. I like the front load feature. A person can shoot something different than the Marlin or Rossi, both of which I like.

 

[2fewdaysafield]

I own both a Henry .357 and a brass receiver LSI/Rossi Puma .357. Both are good guns.

The Henry is Made in the USA....I like that.

The Henry is heavy at 8.75 lbs with a 20" barrel. It's certainly not a lightweight carry all day gun, but that weight does make it a kitten in the recoil department. Action is super-smooth and the trigger was a crisp 3.25 lbs right out of the box. The lack of loading gate doesn't mean anything to me one way or the other. All HRA Henry rifles come with a lifetime warranty whether you are the 1st or 21st owner. They have the best customer service in the firearms business.

The Rossi has a 24" barrel (as opposed to the Henry 20" barrel) and weighs a bit less. Haven't actually weighed it on a proper scale. The trigger and action on this gun were at best heavy and rough out of the box. An action job fixed that and brought the price of the gun to about the same as the Henry. The action is not as slick as the Henry, but it's close. The trigger is now darn near as good as the Henry.

The Rossi has that annoying safety. Just out of place on a levergun. It can be replaced with a peep sight for about $60. Well worth it if your eyes are getting a little older. Helps the esthetics too.

To summarize my feelings on both guns.....

New out of the box, the Henry has a better action and trigger. And it is more expensive. The Rossi is less expensive, but to get it to run as nice as the Henry will make them about the same price.

The loading gate/no loading gate thing means a lot to some. It means nothing to me.

Some people get their panties all in a twist about HRA using the Henry name without proving that they have some sort of connection to the original Henry rifle. I say WHO CARES? It's a rifle, not a "collectors item".

I use both very happily. If I had to pick only one, I'd probably go with the Henry because they are Made in the USA and for their excellent customer service. But as far as I am concerned they are both good rifles.

 

[CaliCoastie]

actually i have no objections to them using the Henry name, the fact they deliberately mislead people on their history.
that they mislead is easy to prove, look up Benjamin Tyler Henry, you will find he ended up working for Winchester.
that being said they seen to make quality guns if a bit heavy.

 

[2fewdaysafield]

And who is to know that the Imperato family is not somehow related to Benjamin T Henry or for that matter Oliver Winchester? Has anybody done a DNA test?

And yeah....they do make good rifles.

Marketing is marketing. If the Imperato family were direct descendents of Benjamin T Henry and made crappy rifles I'd say they were junk and that the connection didn't matter. Instead they may or may not be somehow related to Benjamin T Henry and they make good rifles and the connection or lack thereof still doesn't matter.

They make excellent rimfire rifles also.

 

[shafter]

Some people get their panties all in a twist about HRA using the Henry name without proving that they have some sort of connection to the original Henry rifle. I say WHO CARES? It's a rifle, not a "collectors item".

They can use the name all they like, doesn't bother me a bit. What does bother me is blatant lies. They know lots of people associate the name Henry with that cool old Civil War repeater and now they're trying to cash in on it by lying.

 

[2fewdaysafield]

As I said above....

1) Who knows if they are actually related to Benjamin T. Henry? Have you seen the results of a DNA test to prove it one way or the other?

2) It's marketing. If you get all upset about marketing that is less than 100% true you will have a very pained life.

3) The rifles they make are good so who gives a hoot about the marketing? A quality rifle is a quality rifle. The rest is all BS.

I mean He!!.....Todays Winchester has NOTHING to do with the real Winchester. All Browning did was buy the name out of bankruptcy court. Does that mean we should have nothing to do with the current Winchester rifles.

All I give a ship about is whether a company makes good rifles or not. Henry does.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Actually Smith and Wesson [yes that S&W of handgun fame] had far more to do with the henry rifle than Henry did. The modern Henry rifle company has no more claim to the original Then I would if I started making glass bodied cars with tube frames and OHV V-8s and called them Packard's

I find it entertaining that people complain the Henry repo's have no side loading gate. THATS why it's a Henry and not a Kings improvement Model 1866..

 

[skeptical_in_Ohio]

Hi all-

I just picked up a Henry chambered in 22 Mag used this weekend. The Henry I bought is a very pretty rifle; the wood finish is gorgeous, the wood/metal fit is amazing, the bluing is deep and rich, and the octagonal barrel is well-finished. The receiver is coated with some sort of pretty durable-looking black finish. It also shoots very well and the action is butter-smooth.

To the point of lineage, I see the branding/history thing this way (if anybody is interested). A few years ago I was in Seattle for work and went to the Boeing Museum. I was stunned by one thing - the Gemini Spacecraft (which were built by McDonnell-Douglas) were listed as the "Boeing" Gemini Spacecraft. Also, the F15 (again built by McDonnell-Douglas) is now identified as the "Boeing" F15. After my initial confusion, it made sense - since Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas (and its name and associated intellectual property), it's now Boeing if that's what the owner wants.

In this light, I see Henry as equivalent to (as one example) the current Springfield Armory. The current Henry Repeating Arms bought the Henry name in 1996 as noted in this article from American Rifleman. Still, it is very clear that the name behind the current "Henry" is Imperato. I see no evidence that the company is trying to hide that. Does it have a "straight-line relationship" to the original Henry? Not so much save perhaps that the owners apparently like working in this line of business and they do make good products (and one should add made in the US, unlike a lot of Springfield's offerings).

The originators of the modern "Henry" company found stuff that they were interested in doing that has a market, and created value that customers would pay for. When a name (and associated intellectual property) with significant cache' came available the company bought it and built around it. Hence, what we know now as "Henry Repeating Arms" owns the Henry name and associated intellectual property such as past designs. Henry Repeating Arms is apparently now building something very much like the original Henry rifle (save chambering from what I can read), and given the ownership of the name and intellectual property the company has that right.

Hence, at the end of the day, the current Henry Repeating Arms owns the Henry name and the patents, so they're just as much "Henry" as the current Springfield Armory is "Springfield" and the current F15 is "Boeing", or the current Marlin (owned by Remington) is "Marlin".

More relevant to what I think is the point that matters, Henry makes well-built, good-looking and functional products and from what I can tell stands behind them.

 

[2fewdaysafield]

VERY nicely said Sir.

Some will get their knickers in a twist about "lineage" and marketing. Others will simply enjoy a high quality rifle.

An HRA Henry is every bit as much a "Henry" as is a new production Winchester.

 

[CaliCoastie]

simple?
Henry
pros: solid, dependable, great customer service.
cons: weight(typically 2-2lbs heavier)

rossi
pros: cheaper, side loading gate
cons: customer service spotty, lawyer safety, sometimes needs work to action.

depends on what your looking for. sorry for any that read my original post, trying to get this topic back on track.

 

[2fewdaysafield]

That pretty much covers it.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

The current Henry Repeating Arms bought the Henry name in 1996

Your link no work. Who pray tell owned the henry name in 1996? 130 years after the fact? Only Winchester would have a claim to that, Henry was a sub contractor and all his patents where assigned to Winchester.

 

[2fewdaysafield]

Jim,

This is just a guess, but not a bad one I think....By 1996 Winchester was already in financial trouble and had been for quite a while. If they (Winchester) actually owned the Henry name it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they sold the name to generate some cash. Much as Pan Am sold the Pan Am building in NYC and many other assets to try to keep afloat.

The Imperato family has been in the firearms business for many years (they built guns for Colt for a while long before they started HRA) so it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the Imperato family approached Winchester about buying the Henry name. Keep in mind that Imperato Sr. was involved with Ithica (I think it was) which in conjunction with Erma in Germany (I think it was) sold the original rimfire rifles that are the basis for all the HRA rimfires which are their core business.

Pity the link that was posted does not work, but I find the idea that the Imperato family bought the Henry name from Winchester very plausible. Imperato had been in the firearms industry for quite a while, had connections and were sharp. If they saw a chance to buy the Henry name from Winchester at a firesale price it is the kind of thing they would have done.

Like them or hate them, the Imperato family are a bunch of smart businessmen.

 

[Nighteyes]

Dear God in Heaven.

IMO, this thread has devolved so far from the OP (original premise) that I see no way back. The current Henry Big Boy has about as much of a relationship with the original 1860 Henry Rifle as a Twinkie does with a Johnny-Cake.

-- Nighteyes

 

[skeptical_in_Ohio]

Your link no work.

Sorry about that; fixed it.

Who pray tell owned the henry name in 1996? 130 years after the fact? Only Winchester would have a claim to that, Henry was a sub contractor and all his patents where assigned to Winchester.

One may take that up with the nice publishers at NRA (American Rifleman), who stated this in the above-referenced article, "...Imperato acquired the Henry Repeating Arms brand in 1996...".

I had read that that statement to mean that something was purchased from somebody, but it seems a more precise statement (than the one in American Rifleman) may be found in the Wikipedia entry for Henry Repeating Arms, which states "...the company resurrected the Henry name in 1996...", which doesn't seem to suggest a purchase from anybody, but a new construct intended to evoke a certain tradition.

If this is the case, it would appear that there was no transfer of intellectual property (such as in the McDonnell-Douglas or Marlin examples I provided in the earlier post). I drew this inference (perhaps too hastily) from the statement in American Rifleman, which now appears questionable.

This said, given that Henry Repeating Arms is invoking the legacy of the original Henry (which is strongly suggested by the company's history page), if somebody else did own the rights to that name, then it's plausible that somebody would assert that right at some point. Hence, it's reasonable to suggest that the new "Henry" is indeed a new construct.

As to patents, they are not an area of expertise for me, but I don't think that they would last for 130 years (e.g. that Rossi makes a clone of the Winchester suggests that something's lapsed).

All of the above stated, I return to my previous statement, to wit: "More relevant to what I think is the point that matters, Henry makes well-built, good-looking and functional products and from what I can tell stands behind them."

Still more importantly in the end - I intend to be out later this week shooting the Henry I own (and a few other things as well) with my kids.

Sorry for the rambling and the thread hijack, and for my part in taking us into the weeds .

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Sorry for the rambling and the thread hijack, and for my part in taking us into the weeds .

No need to be sorry Ohio. It's plain you've done research on this. I just do not like people blindly stating as fact the modern Henry rifle company can "trace it's lineage to the original" The toggle link lever action Winchester [henry, models 1866, 1873, 1876] was designed and patented by Smith and Wesson. Those patents where sold to the company that would become Winchester [new haven arms I believe-I don't have access to my Winchester books at the moment] The S&W design was the basis for the volcanic rifles/pistols that used a caseless bullet that had the powder charge in a hollow base.
Henrys main contribution to the rifle that would bear his name was designing and producing a .44 rimfire cartridge [the .44 Henry-who would guess he would call it that?] and adapting the S&W/volcanic design to handle it. The "Henry" name on the rifle is more the cartridge then the gun.

Well now I am the one rambling but I have a passion about early Winchesters and hate seeing the facts distorted. The shirt maker Oliver Winchester just bought the patents and provided the capital to manufacture the gun. Henry's main role was to adapt the design to his new rim fire .44. He left the company in 1866 at which time the name was changed to Winchester.

How any one could claim "lineage" to the Henry rifle given that history?

Edit: I have no opinion on the modern Henry rifle what so ever. In fact I have never seen one. I am just interested in clarifying the historical facts.

 

[shafter]

Henry's Henry rifle doesn't even look like Tyler's Henry. It's more like a b-----dized version of the 1866.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

No need to be sorry Ohio. It's plain you've done research on this. I just do not like people blindly stating as fact the modern Henry rifle company can "trace it's lineage to the original" The toggle link lever action Winchester [henry, models 1866, 1873, 1876] was designed and patented by Smith and Wesson. Those patents where sold to the company that would become Winchester [new haven arms I believe-I don't have access to my Winchester books at the moment] The S&W design was the basis for the volcanic rifles/pistols that used a caseless bullet that had the powder charge in a hollow base.
Henrys main contribution to the rifle that would bear his name was designing and producing a .44 rimfire cartridge [the .44 Henry-who would guess he would call it that?] and adapting the S&W/volcanic design to handle it. The "Henry" name on the rifle is more the cartridge then the gun.

Well now I am the one rambling but I have a passion about early Winchesters and hate seeing the facts distorted. The shirt maker Oliver Winchester just bought the patents and provided the capital to manufacture the gun. Henry's main role was to adapt the design to his new rim fire .44. He left the company in 1866 at which time the name was changed to Winchester.

How any one could claim "lineage" to the Henry rifle given that history?

I tried not to answer all the posts about what I said because I didn't want to add to the thread hijack but this is just too much!

I never said the current Henry owners were related to Henry or Winchester. Most people know about King, Benjamin Henry and his relationship to Winchester and the levergun. They know about the 1860 rifle which was named a Henry the 1866 was named a Winchester so I didn't go into a half page post explaining all that. All I said was, "The current Henry Repeating Arms company can trace it's linage back to the original Henry plant in New Haven, CT." (which most know became the Winchester Plant) Since the current owners bought the rights to the Henry name how is what I said wrong? All the other stuff said after that was not anything I said...

Would anyone claim Redfield scopes aren't Redfield scopes just because the name wasn't used for many years? No, it was bought by Leupold and brought back so of course the current Redfield has linage to the original. Same thing with Ithaca, they were gone for Decades and the name was bought several times IIRC but would anyone say an Ithaca shotgun isn't an Ithaca, I hope not...

I just can't understand all the hate and how some people on forums think it's alright to jump all over others if they feel someone didn't explain every little detail and make them feel good. These companies don't put food on your table and they don't pay your bills so why go to battle for a name that's over 130 years old?

Edit: I have no opinion on the modern Henry rifle what so ever. In fact I have never seen one. I am just interested in clarifying the historical facts.

This is a forum for goodness sakes, not a classroom! The OP asked about a .357 Magnum Henry levergun and even though by your own admission you don't own one you did a lot of posting and why? Because you are only interested in clarifying historical facts! I think the OP was interested in current facts about the new Henry rifles.

Listen, do all the posting you want, just please leave me out of your snide remarks.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Wow. I didn't know a discussion about a obsolete 150 year old gun could generate so much emotion. Who did the modern Henry company buy the naming rights from? In other words, who owned it 1996? You seem to be omitting that. I also wish to point out that you where the first to bring up the "lineage" thing here, stating it as fact. I questioned that opinion and requested more information. I did not "highjack" the thread. You did when you made a false statement about Henrys connections to the original rifles.