Henry Rifle With Loading Gate?

[scattershot]

Yeah, my mistake. Musta been wishful thinking on my part.

[T.R.]

I rushed to buy this Henry 30-30 when they first came out by ordering it through my local shop. Right away I knew that I'd screwed up because of the heavy weight and awkward loading and unloading method. But it shot accurately and functioned okay. Shortly after this hunt, it was sold to a friend who actually liked these features.

Owning another Henry is not for me.

TR

[Foggy1111]

As far as lever guns go.......I own 7 Marlins in 22 cal, 357 caliber, and 44 magnum, a Savage 99 in 308, Rossi lever in 357, Winchester 94 in 30-30, and have three Marlins. They all have pluses and minuses......but all are terrific to own. If they were all the same.....what fun would that be? Load on Sunday.....shoot all week. .

[Potsy]

I guess another question might be, as ridiculously expensive as Winchester and Marlins have become, why do they not include the tube option in addition to the loading gate?

It's bound to be cheaper to include in the design than incorporating a gate on the Henry. I was never a huge fan of a loading gate for loading or having to cycle my way through a magazine full for unloading. The tube option is unobtrusive, and you wouldn't have to use it if you didn't want to. On the other hand, the gate would be there if you were pinned down behind your dead horse shooting Commanches and the tube load was slowing you down enough to endanger your scalp.

Come on Remlin and Winku, you can do it!!! Give us a tube load/unload option!!!!

[Bilbobaker]

Has anyone modified a Henry .22 rifle by adding a side load gate?

[O kid]

A few years ago I purchased a Henry rifle from Taylors Co. It had the normal open bottom mag tube with the external follower. It also had a loading gate on the right side, a folding over type, NOT the King type. It could be loaded like a normal Henry, or loaded from the loading gate. It was what they called an "Improved Henry". The New Haven Arms Co made ALL the Henry rifles, they also made a few hundred with the folding over loading gate. Henry left and sued "New Haven Arms", but Winchester got to keep the Henry patents. After Tyler Henry left, he was replaced with Nelson King under the NEW "Winchester Arms Co." title about 1866. King designed "the 1866 Winchester" and it was available commercially a couple years later, dubbed the "Yellow Boy". It had the closed mag tube and the better king loading gate with bronze frame. Mine shoots and looks great!

[MyFlatline]

I rushed to buy this Henry 30-30 when they first came out by ordering it through my local shop. Right away I knew that I'd screwed up because of the heavy weight and awkward loading and unloading method. But it shot accurately and functioned okay. Shortly after this hunt, it was sold to a friend who actually liked these features.

Owning another Henry is not for me.

TR

Am curious as to what you expected from the Henry and or lever action. Had you ever owned a lever action before ? I have and only own levers in centerfire, they all are heavy to a point. I own mostly Marlins and have bought and sold since the late 70's but of late, I have been buying the Henry's. I find them better than the Marlin/Remingtons and customer service is so much better. The loading gate debate is a non issue for me .

[O kid]

Buckshot, I misread your original post. You contacted the newer "Henry" Arms Company that makes a copy of the "ORIGINAL 1860 HENRY RIFLE" that was made by "New Haven Arms Company", it is NOT made in the original .44 rimfire Henry round, instead it is made in .44-40WCF. Since you said that the Henry loaded by the tube I thought you were talking about that gun. The original 1871 Marlin lever rifle (in .22 rimfire) loaded through a slot in the mag tube, just like the newer Henry company's .22 rimfire does. Just like early Winchesters, Remingtons, and almost all other .22rf rifles did. The newer Henry Company, which has nothing to do with the 1860 Henry, has chosen to NOT use a loading gate on their centerfire rifles! That would add to the cost of the gun, and the gun would function differently. No loading gate poses no problem for me, as I am used to loading my 1894 .22 Marlin lever gun, my Model 60 Marlin .22auto-loader, my Remington .22 pump gun, and a variety of other tube feed guns. I am cowboy action shooter and have seen a LOT of new Marlins malfunction, all made by Remington! The newer Winchester 94's just won't cycle very fast, and the imports seem to function flawlessly. But if you want to buy American made, or if I were to buy a new lever gun it would be the newer Henry Arms Co that I would look at. They make great guns here in the USA! If you don't like the slow loading of the Henry, then buy a gun that takes detachable magazine.

[curioushooter]

The stupid lack of a loading gate along with weighting about 1/2 to 1 pound more than a comparable Marlin or Mossberg is what has kept me away from the Henry's. I wouldn't mind a tang safety, either. Why the folks at Henry though everybody would want to load their "BIG BOYS" like a 22 I will never understand.

I've even gone so far as to price out what it would cost to have a gunsmith mill out a loading gate and make the necessary changes to make it work. Needless to say it is not worth the trouble.

[curioushooter]

Henry is selling allot of guns this loading gate thing is over rated. The tube is far safer to unload as you can rack the lever once and use the tube to unload th rest. If decreases the odds for an errant discharge from chambering and unchambering so many rounds. The tube is so easy to learn ad I just do get why some have such an issue. I will say it’s not that big of deal they can hardly keep up now with production to add a loading gate it would take an entire redesign.

If there was a safety on the Henrys this would be a non-issue. Mossberg, Winchester (on some later ones), and Marlin all have safeties for this reason. My vote is for the sliding tang safety. Fast, positive, and works for left right handed.
It's almost like the folks at Henry are being intentionally stupid or perhaps nostalgic. There is absolutely no advantage to the tube-in-a-tube system with centerfires. It is heavier, slower, requires two hands and proping the firearm, clumsy...
Tube magazines are stupid enough. The one cool thing about them is that they can be topped off quickly and easily, even with a chambered round, and don't require two hands...well that is if you have a loading gate. If you don't you get the most asbsloutely backwards loading system found on a firearm.
I put up with the tube-in-a-tube system with my Marlin 39--which holds 20 rounds--so I basically don't need to reload in the field.

[curioushooter]

I understand preferences but don’t understand all of the “heck no, never” answers over such a small thing. It’s kinda like blonde, brunette, redhead, black hair, dishwater blonde, blue, purple, pink. It all depends on the overall package and if one thing disqualifies them you are probably too picky. But that’s just my opinion.

No, a lever gun without loading gate is like a woman without a certain piece of normal female anatomy. It is a deal breaker for most guys, as this poll is clearly demonstrating.

[Thundarstick]

I just don't see not having a loading gate as being an issue. Back when the lever action was the premiere battle rifle, especially from horse back, I could see the tube in a tube system as a definite deal breaker.
I only wish they would use a better latch and ditch the o- ring!

[725]

Loading a side gate system is a non-starter for me, too. I'm not holding off a war party on horse back, so the loading while in action thing is more fantasy for me than real. Hunting, I may take two shots. I don't ever remember doing more. (Except for squirrel). By far it's a one shot deal. Some think like me, some don't. Whatever winds your clock. It's up to you.

[odette]

I just bought a Henry .41 mag BBS. Looked for a .41 in a Marlin but gave up, so ordered the Henry. The loading gate is more of a cosmetic issue to me, I just like the looks of the gate, but unloading is safer for me with the tube. So I am mostly happy with the Henry, but I have a hard time with no half cock on the hammer. I have caught myself pulling the hammer back to put in half cock and there is none. Too used to my Marlins, Winchesters and Sharps

[Bigslug]

I believe I may now be in the market for a .357 lever gun.

The Henry's are OUT of the running due to their lack of a loading gate. The ability to load in position and tactically top off was one of the slam dunks of the '66/'73 pattern. The front load/gravity feed tube load system is a throwback to the muzzleloaders that you ideally had to charge standing up.

I gave the notion of a gate-PLUS-tube system a ponder, then decided, NO, I'd rather not have the extra weight of an inner brass magazine tube.

I WOULD like a magazine with an easily-removable front that allows the spring and follower to be easily dumped for cleaning.

I DO like the idea of a 6:00 loading port (i.e. Remington 870/Mossberg 500) that (A.) doesn't care if you're right or left handed, and (B.) can be loaded with the support hand while the primary stays on the wrist of the stock.

[9.3X62AL]

My Henry BBS in 357 Magnum was bought because the Winchester/Miroku 92 was unobtainium and Marlin 1894 was out of print for 3 years+ at the time of purchase. RemLin QC issues concern me, and I kinda "settled" for the Henry. I like the thing--A LOT. The magazine tube is cumbersome, but I won't be using the rifle for repelling boarders--I have better tools for that venue. It is a hunting gun, mostly. A full magazine goes for a long time, even in the varmint fields or dry washes.

I also understand the traditionalists, and their preference for the gate-loading of Marlins and Winchesters. I have and enjoy those too. But Henrys have one element that has not been present with Winchester and RemLin--THEY HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE IN 357 MAGNUM, AND THE OLD-LINE MAKERS' STUFF HAS NOT BEEN. Henry also has leverguns in 41 Magnum and 327 Federal. Henrys are well-made and well-finished. Mine will stay, and a 327 Federal may join with it this year. Miroku and RemLin need to get right, or they will surely get left. Henry is eating their lunch, and will run off with their main squeeze before much longer.

[buckshotshoey]

If there was a safety on the Henrys this would be a non-issue. Mossberg, Winchester (on some later ones), and Marlin all have safeties for this reason. My vote is for the sliding tang safety. Fast, positive, and works for left right handed.
It's almost like the folks at Henry are being intentionally stupid or perhaps nostalgic. There is absolutely no advantage to the tube-in-a-tube system with centerfires. It is heavier, slower, requires two hands and proping the firearm, clumsy...
Tube magazines are stupid enough. The one cool thing about them is that they can be topped off quickly and easily, even with a chambered round, and don't require two hands...well that is if you have a loading gate. If you don't you get the most asbsloutely backwards loading system found on a firearm.
I put up with the tube-in-a-tube system with my Marlin 39--which holds 20 rounds--so I basically don't need to reload in the field.

WRONG! The Henry's DO have a safety. It is a hammer transfer bar that works just like the ones the Ruger revolvers have. That made them safe to carry with the hammer on a loaded cylinder.

Do you also want a tang safety on your revolvers? How about on your single shot 12 gauge? There is no reason to walk or sit in a stand with a lever action cocked anyway. It's the same speed to cock the hammer manually as it is to take off the tang safety. A tang safety is just not necessary on a Henry.

If you cock the hammer on a Henry, and your thumb slides off and the hammer falls, it WILL NOT fire. You have to be pulling on the trigger to engage the transfer bar for the hammer to connect to the firing pin. I tested mine with primed, empty brass. Do I trust it 100%? No. Only a fool would trust ANY mechanical safety 100% of the time. I still use common sense precautions.

Just keep the hammer in the down position, along with basic gun safety precautions when loading or unloading, and you are fine.

A manual safety is necessary on a bolt action, or a semi auto, and maybe even a Marlin lever action, but not on a firearm that has a transfer bar. The transfer bar system is proven and added to the list of reasons why I bought the Henry in the first place.

As for the tube, that's fine. Your preference. I have no issue with it. I actually prefer it. It fits in with my style of hunting just fine.

My Dad taught me this when I was 7 years old....Safety is not a mechanical device.....it is something you have between the ears.

[curioushooter]

I like the transfer bar system. Mossberg 464s have them as well (as do new Win 94s). They are a good passive safety feature. Even better to have a passive transfer bar safety and an active sliding tang safety. I've tested my Mossberg 464 with primed brass. Never once has it gone off or even shown impression on the primer.

Please sir describe how you manage to keep the hammer down while unchambering your Henry? All these rifles work by cocking the hammer when the bolt comes back. Perhaps you can get it to eject without cocking fully, but that is probably more hazardous then just letting it cock. And if you have anything the magazine now you are going to have a round elevated and ready to be pushed into the chamber. And the whole process will go on like this unless you first pointed the muzzle at your hand or face and unscrewed the magazine tube. This is why it is nice to have a sliding tang safety. You just shuck all the rounds out with the SAFETY ON THE WHOLE TIME. Point it at the ground to be extra safe. This is also why magazine tube unloading is a contemptible idea.

With a Mossberg to unload safely anywhere apply the safety and lever the rounds out. Even if you were to pull the trigger somehow, and the transfer bar safety failed, you will still have an active safety. And you don't have to point the muzzle up the in air, at your hand, at your face etc. in order to LOAD or UNLOAD. You can have the muzzle pointed safely always and without issue.

Furthermore, when you scope a rifle (and I scope all my rifles pretty much) the hammer sometimes gets in the way. Hammers are slower than a sliding tang safety under the best of circumstances anyway. I keep my 464 chambered, cocked, and locked when I stalk hunt (where I always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction). Just like every field shotgunner. There isn't time to be fumbling with hammers. You do know that shotguns have a hammer inside the action right, sometimes two of them, and folks have been relying the sliding tang safety on most of them for a century without worry. How many years have 1911 type pistols been carried cocked and locked without worry?

I can deal with the Henry's safety system (thought I wouldn't mind a sliding tang safety), but I cannot abide by their retrograde loading/unloading system. It's s shame too because they seem well made and have a stronger action than the others. They have a good reputation with accuracy as well.

[Handloader109]

The reason for Henry not adding a loading gate is that their brass receiver over a receiver wouldn't work. They couldn't do what they do with the brass cover. At least not easily. I really don't like the shiny brass as it scratches if you more than look at it. I personally don't want a gun I can't use without damaging it.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[curioushooter]

Look...I'm not talking about those silly brass rifles they make. Any serious shooter/hunter will go for the steel. There is absolutely no reason why the steel Henrys cannot use a loading gate.