Answer from Henry Rep Arms Corp

[Capt, Woodrow F. Call]

For some time ago, i send a request to Henry Rep Arms in US, about taking up the production of 1860 mod today or in the futures.

My question

I have been wondering about 1860 mod Henry, if you gone produce this wonderful old jewel again, or in the future
I have one 1860 Henry, it is made in Italy Uberti, but that is not the same as to have one how are made in States.

( Reply from Henry)
Thank you very much for your interest in Henry Repeating Arms.
While historically significant, the original Henry design does not meet our standards today for safety, reliability and smoothness of the action. The Henry Big Boy has many of the same important features as the original design, such as brass receiver, octagon barrel and tubular feed design – all with a superior action. The original design was also made in an obsolete caliber .44 Rimfire.

Weeell.........I hope someday it will be possible to to find some adjustment to meet the safety, reliability...and more,.......... how now's

%#&¤/#§¤......   

BR
Capt W F. Call

[Silver Creek Slim]

Interesting. Thanks for posting it.

Slim

[Dakota Widowmaker]

Well, just having the option to get an integrated barrel/tube would be appreciated.

[Driftwood Johnson]

What a load of BS!

Henry had no problem appropriating that name for their company, simply because it was in public domain, and making all kinds of outlandish statements in their advertising trying to associate themselves with the original Henry rifle and it's designer. And they go further by trying to compare that ugly thing they make to the original design, by referring to the least important, most superficial similarities of their rifle to the original. Brass receiver, octagon barrel, and tubular feed, indeed. Why don't they go all the way and claim that it has a lever, a hammer, and a trigger too? They seem to think they invented that too.

They could make the most mechanically perfect replica of the original toggle link Henry in the world and I would not buy one from them. Not until they employ a little honesty in their advertising.

[Memphis Mortician]

That's a mighty sharp splinter you got under yer saddle there Johnson.

[LazyK Pejay]

I have been looking the new Henry and it is a fine looking rifle. I suppose one could argue that Ruger looks like a 1873 Colt. However, it has much different guts to it. I think what they say as to the look of the old Henry is true in what they describe. As for taking the name; public domain is just that. They have striven in my opinion after handling one done a good job.

LazyK Pejay

[Driftwood Johnson]

Yes, you're right, I do have a burr under my saddle about the Henry Repeating Arms Company and have ever since I first saw their promotional information. I have a problem with a company that publishes pictures of long dead gun designers and claims them to be their founder. I have a problem with a company that tries to pull the wool over the eyes of uninformed customers and make claims that are half truths or outright falsehoods. Ruger never claimed Colt was their founder and never claimed the Blackhawk or Vaquero was anything but a brand new design. I could set up shop in a garage somewhere under the name Duesenberg and start manufacturing automobiles. Would they really be Duesenbergs, or just a cheap marketing trick?

I have no problem with an American company entering the firearrms market. I have no problem with quality products. Believe it or not I have no problem with the Big Boy being accepted as SASS legal and have no problem with anyone who wants to buy one. But call me a starry eyed dreamer, because I do have a problem with manufacturers who intentionally employ deception to sell products. A good product can stand on its own two feet without needing deception to sell it.

[Capt, Woodrow F. Call]

Howdy DJ

I agree with you.
( mabye i am way out of line here...but)
If Henry Rep Arms use long gone designers for there new guns or rifles, let them use it, if they think they can sell more with that.

But don't you think is stranges that Henry Rep Arms, has'nt work more around 1860 mod, to meet the safty-standards today and more, i am shure they would sell more 60 mod then the big boy, i have never tryed out big boy, it mabye turn out to be a good rifle to, but to me it do not have this old looks at all....no offend's, for the users of BigBoy. But its seems like they run out of ideas.

I dont think it is... that big problem to make a new 1860 mod to be usefull today, other firearm company's have done it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Privat, i think it a shame that all (copy) old western guns have to be made in Europe, this things shell be made with proud in US.....ok the prize is more high'er, but it is American made...........

[Driftwood Johnson]

Capt Call

Besides the fact that they were blowing smoke at you with part of their answer, the bit about reliability and smoothness of action, their safety concern is probably real. And despite all the bad things I have said about them over the years, I do recognize some of the hard realities of American manufacturing today, that Henry has to deal with. Like I said, it's only their propoganda that gives me heartburn.

I sincerely doubt if you will see any American manufacturer attempt to build a toggle link rifle. First of all, it is a weak action. It will not take the same pressures that more modern designs will. In the case of failure, and possible injury, it is probably not very likely that personal injury lawyers will be able to reach across the ocean to Italy. But they would have no problem at all reaching into Brooklyn. Consequently, American Firearms manufacturers probably have to carry much higher product liability insurance as part of doing business than foreign manufacturers do. That hits the bottom line right from the get go and is translated directly into higher product cost. Much as I think the Big Boy is ugly, it is probably a much stronger action than the old toggle link actions. Inside, it isn't much different than a Marlin, and Marlins are very strong actions. It is simply less likely to cause injury to the buying public and I'm sure Henry's bean counters have analyzed how expensive it would be to insure them if they were building a toggle link action. Frankly, of the 3 toggle link actions, the '73, '66, and Henry, the Henry is probably the most dangerous, since special precautions have to be taken to load it safely.

Secondly, American workers still make a better living and have better benefits than industrial workers in most other parts of the world, including Italy. So to produce the same rifle, you are going to have higher labor costs.

Now don't forget that Uberti started manufacturing their versions of the toggle link rifles many years ago. Nobody starts building a new product without incurring engineering and tooling costs.There are always problems and bugs that need to be worked out. I read a story not to long ago by Val Forgett III detailing some of the problems his father and Aldo Uberti ran into when beginning manufacture of the Uberti version of the '73. Their start up costs for R&D and tooling were probably paid for with much cheaper money 30 years or so ago. Engineering and tooling costs are going to be much higher today. The one balancing factor in this equation is the cost of the Euro. Presently, American made gun prices, particulalry the high end Sharps reproductions, are starting to look more attractive against their European counterparts, because of the Euro/Dollar rate. But the American made ones still cost far more than the Italians. Take a look at the price of real Colt Single Action revolvers, and the very best replica, the American made USFA. They cost 3 or 4 times what the Italian made clones cost. Same with the Hartford Armory Remmies. And that includes the cost of shipping the Italian guns a couple of thousand miles, and paying import duties. A friend of mine in the gun industry told me how much it really costs Uberti manufacture a clone, and you would be stunned what he said. This is a direct analogy to trying to make a toggle link rifle on American shores. Don't be fooled by the example of how reasonable Rugers are. They are completely redesigned from the original SAA design and have had the cost driven out by advanced manufacturing methods and drastically reducing the cost of the individual parts. But a Ruger resembles a Colt about as much as a Henry Big Boy resembles a real Henry.

Currently, most distributors are selling Uberti made Henry rifles for a tad over $1000. If an American manufacturer decided to go out on a limb and make an American Henry, I would suspect you would see them costing twice that. At that price, they won't sell very many, despite being made on American shores.

Now what I would not be surprised to see, would be a new Henry replica made by Taurus in Brazil. That makes good economic sense. Look how inexpensively they are making their new replica of the Colt Lightning.

That's my thoughts on the subject.

[Big Hext]

I guess I don't get the Cowboy thing that most folks like to claim.

Henry Rep Arms has used the worst, most backhanded methods in getting their rifle marketed and approved for SASS use.
So I don't care if their gun is the finest in the world and that using it meant fame and fortune.  I'll never own a gun made by this company.

Read DJ's comments above and you should understand what is going on..
Adios,

[Capt, Woodrow F. Call]

Howdy.

Many thanks DJ & BH 
i do get the pictures here.

//First of all, it is a weak action. It will not take the same pressures that more modern designs will//

I use only black powder in all my wepons.
Do i have to be afraid to use my henry , becouse of this weak action , this info is new to me
If there is a weak construction in it, it is good to know, there are so many new and old shooters here, how has'nt, or can get this information when they gone get them self a repeter for the first time.

The info amoung wepons for hunting is good in Norway, but when it comes to this kind of wepons.....there are no info.

BR
Capt Call

[LazyK Pejay]

While I don't own stock in Henry I do like the rifle. I think opinions are just that, opinions. I would like some documentation to back up opinions if you gentlemen would kindly point me in that direction? I would like to read about supposed underhanded advertising by this company. As for making things in America? The truth is unions and the high wages American workers demand have made it difficult to make and sell "American Made." Even goods made in America have parts made elsewhere and that has been the case for many years after WWII. Look at American cars. It was only after heavy competition from Japan that they started making better cars, and they still have not caught up with Japan in R&D and Q&A (See last weeks article on CNN about Toyota).

I would be happy to buy American if there was such a thing, and I could afford it. Thx for your comments.

LazyK Pejay

[Driftwood Johnson]

Capt Call

The three toggle link actions, 1860 Henry, 1866 Winchester, and 1873 Winchester are very old designs. They date even further back than the Henry to the original Volcanic design worked on by Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson before they started their own handgun company. The toggle link actions are never truly locked in the modern sense. There are no big metal lugs fitting into slots to lock the bolt in place. Instead tihey depend on their 'lockup' for the links of the action to be lined up straight. Exactly like the later design of the Luger. If the links are not lined up straight when a cartridge fires, they will collapse and the action will open foricibly. In addition, the frames of all three are not solid but are mostly skeletonized frames with relatively thin cross sections. Side plates cover the large side openings in the frames, but do not offer much in the way of rigid support to the action. The Henry and '66 sideplates are dovetailed into the frame, so they add a little rigidty to the structure of the frame, but not much. The side plates on a '73 are attached to the outer surface of the frame with one screw and offer no extra support at all. So in a toggle link design the thrust of recoil is transferred directly from the pivot points of the links to the relatively weak skeletonized frame. In addition to the general thinness of the cross sections of the frames, the '66 and Henry don't even use steel, they use brass, or bronze. You can get a steel framed Henry, but most are brass.

Later designs like the '86, '92, and '94 Winchesters are much stronger than the toggle link designs. The frames are not skeletonized like the frames of a toggle link, they are solid steel of heftier cross section. And the bolts are locked in place by heavy locking lugs. This is true of the 1894 Marlin, and even the Henry Big Boy. Solid steel lugs in precisely fitted recesses. The '92 is so strong that it is regularly chambered for much more powerful cartridges than we use in CAS.

Have no fear though, I don't mean to scare you. As long as you stay with Cowboy Smokeless loads in your Henry, or Black Powder loads, you will be fine. The action is plenty strong enough for that. But you must not venture into high powered loads. Mike Venturino relates a story in his book Shooting Lever Guns of the Old West about a brass framed Henry that was ruined by firing la few loads that were too powerfull for it. The brass frame was stretched and the head spacing was ruined. A friend of mine bought a used '73 chambered in .357 and had to return it when he discovered a crack in the frame. Too many high powered 357 Mag loads. But you will be just fine as long as you stick with commercial Cowboy loads, Cowboy loads from published manuals, or Black Powder loads.


Lazy K

You are correct, opiniopns are just that, opinions. My opinion is that Henry pracctices the sin of lying through omission in their advertising. Just take a look at the Henry Website

http://www.henry-guns.com/index.cfm

Click on the picture of B. Tyler Henry. There is an entire page detailing the the history of Henry and his gun. It is a very nicely done page. But nowhere do they mention that they have absolutely no connection to B. Tyler Henry, or the gun he designed. How about the photo with the caption 'The Original Henry Factory in New Haven, Connecticut'? That is a total fabrication. That is a photo of the original Winchester Factory. There never was a 'Henry Company'. Henry was an employee of Winchester.  At the bottom they even say that no contemporay collection is complete without a Henry. But nowhere do they mention that their gun is not the same as Henry's. They allow the reader to make that assumption. That is called Lying through Omission. It is a way of riding on someone eles's coat tails even though you have absolutely no connection to them at all. Politicians do it all the time.

How about a direct quote from the 'About Us' page?

'Today, the Henry Repeating Arms Company, a descendant of the venerable gunmaker, makes its home in a historic industrial area in Brooklyn, New York.'

That is a bald faced lie. Period. How are they a descendent of the venerable gunmaker? Where are the incorporation papers that show that? Henry was an employee of the New Haven Repeating Arms company, which later became the Winchester Repeating Arms Company. The present Henry company never had any relationship at all with Winchester or Henry. There was no liscensing, no agreements, nothing. They plucked the name out of the air and fashioned their own version of history to make it sound authentic.

Let's not even talk about how they were marketing the gun as SASS legal fully two years before it was approved. How many uninformed consumers fell for their advertising hook, line, and sinker, only to show up at a match and find out their gun was not legal?

Yes, opinions are just opinions. That is mine, Henry practices deceptive advertising practices. That information has been on their website, and in their brochures for over 2 years now and they have made no effort to remove it or correct it. If you don't call that Lying through Omission, I have a bridge very near the Henry factory that you might be interested in buying.

[Big Hext]

Again.. a cowboy is true to his word. 
Mr. Johnson has laid it out.  Anybody can own anything they want and like anything they want, but they can't change the facts or the past. 

[Capt, Woodrow F. Call]

Thank you so much Mr Johnson.

This info is gold worth.


BR

Capt Call.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Mr. Johnson, I agree with you 100% and would never buy that ugly rifle, BUT.........one minor point. Henrys were made by the New Haven Arms Co. which was briefly changed to the Henry Rifle Co. albeit for a short period before Oliver F. Winchester changed the name to Winchester in 1867 I believe. 

[J.D.Cayhill]

Well said Mr. Johnson. If backdoor double talk were airplanes, Henry Repeating Arms Comp. would own a airport. I wish them luck being a American firearms manufacturer, but they will never see any of my money. HRAC's liberal twisting of history and the truth has never set well with me and never will.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Fox Creek Kid:

There simply never was a Henry Company producing firearms in the 19th Century.

In 1854 Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson were doing business as Smith & Wesson Manufacturing in Norwich Connecticut. They were building a lever operated rifle and pistol that got the nickname of 'Volcanic' after an article in Scientific American in 1854, comparing the rapid fire of the rifle to a volcanic eruption. They were using a mechanism they had developed based on their earlier work on the Jennings Patent rifle. The Volcanic was the direct forerunner of the Henry rifle. The Volcanic system's weak suite was its under powered ammunition, the famous 'Rocket Ball' ammo, which was really nothing more than a hollow bullet filled with powder.

In 1855, a group of New Haven and New York investors, including Oliver Winchester, bought out Smith and Wesson. Oliver Winchester was a prosperous New Haven shirt manufacturer. Smith and Wesson moved on to Springfield Mass and started a new venture producing revolvers. The new investors renamed the company the Volcanic Repeating Arms Company. It did business from June 1855 to February 1857. The guns did not sell well because management did not attempt to change the real problem, the ammunition, and in February 1857 Volcanic Repeating Arms Company declared bankruptcy.

Oliver Winchester headed up a new set of investors and formed the New Haven Repeating Arms Company from the ashes of the Volcanic Company in Late 1857. Production was continued on the Volcanic line of firearms. Winchester and his shirt business partner John M Davies continued to pour their own personal money into the company. In 1858, Winchester hired Benjamin Tyler Henry as plant superintendent. Winchester directed Henry to improve on the Rocket Ball ammo that was stifling sales of the rifle line. Henry developed a 38 caliber rimfire cartridge, but Winchester thought it was too light, so by 1860 Henry had developed the 44 rimfire cartridge that became the heart of the new rifle. Henry had also been busy redesigning the Volcanic mechanism to accept the new ammo and on October 16, 1860, a patent was issued for the new rifle. A grateful Winchester was glad to have the patent issued in Henry's name.

Despite his contribution to the company as a designer and inventor, during the course of his employment Winchester and Henry did not see eye to eye on a number of matters. Winchester utilized an inside contract system. Factory foremen would contract to produce a set number of firearms at a fixed price per unit. The company provided materials, financing, and sales. Henry felt his compensation was inadequate and refused to hire enough workmen to produce rifles in quantity, and delays in production frustrated management. Henry's contract expired in 1864. Winchester hired new Superintendents for the New Haven plant and a new one in Bridgeport.

In 1865, Oliver Winchester retired from the shirt business and took an extended trip to Europe. Henry was still a stockholder in the New Haven Repeating Arms Company. In Winchester's absence, he petitioned the Connecticut state legislature to change the name of the company to the Henry Repeating Rifle Company, and turn over control of the company to him. Winchester caught wind of the plot and rushed home from Europe. He managed to prevent the takeover.

It was at this time that Winchester formed a new company, with some of the old investors, as well as some new ones, and named it the Winchester Repeating Arms Company.

My source for this information is The History of Winchester Firearms, by Dean K. Boorman. It does not mention whether any business was actually conducted under the name of Henry, but if the legislature did not alter the company's name, and it did not, then the company name was never legally changed. It is interesting to note that the photograph which the present day Henry Repeating Arms Company claims to be the 'original Henry factory' in their advertising is actually a photograph of the New Haven Arms Company in 1859. The photo is very well known. When the photo is enlarged a figure can be seen sitting in the window on the second floor nearest the tree. It is usually assumed the figure in the window is Oliver Winchester.

[Comanche Kid]

    I would have to say "Thank You" to Driftwood Johnson for taking an unpopular, yet factual stand on solid facts about this companies hog wash. The Only thing I can disagree with is the statement about American workers enjoying better pay and benefits than their European counter parts. I lived and worked in Europe for 6 years. Most Europeans enjoy shorter work days, better pay, and a social medical system that gaurantees everyone medical coverage. The same cannot be said about American workers.
      Stay the course Driftwood. Maybe a few of these folks will take a closer look at what it is they are spending their hard earned cash on.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Don't get me wrong folks. I have no problem with the Henry company's products. It is there marketing strategy that I find offensive. I was probably a little bit harsh referring to the Big Boy earlier as 'ugly'. Personally, I do not find it to have attractive lines, but as we all know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally gravitate more to the authentic designs of the period. I regularly shoot an Uberti '73, and I also have an original Winchester Model 1892 made in 1894 as well as a Marlin Model 1894 made in 1895. And I'm thinking of buying an Uberti 1860 Henry. I personally find these designs more aesthetically pleasing than the Big Boy. But that is just a matter of personal taste.

I have handled the Big Boy and worked the action. It seemed to me to be a quality made firearm, and the sample I handled had a very smooth action. I just don't find it to be attractive.

The first time the Big Boy came up for a vote for acceptance in SASS I told my TG I was voting against it. But this was soley because I disliked Henry's deceptive marketing practices, not for any other reason. The second time it came up for a vote, I actually voted for it. I decided that if shooters wanted to shoot it as a SASS legal rifle, who was I to stand in their way. So I told my TG I was voting for its acceptance as a SASS legal Main Match rifle, despite my personal misgivings about the company's marketing practices.

The Henry Big Boy is now a SASS legal Main Match rifle, and I will respect that decision. I just won't buy one myself, because I don't care for the design, and I don't care for the company's marketing strategy.