| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Henry 1860: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Additional Images = | |||
[[File:New Original Henry Iron Frame.jpg|thumb|none|400px|New Original Henry Iron Frame - .44-40 WCF. This is a modern replica of rare iron frame Henry 1860.]] | |||
[[File:Denix Henry rifle 1860.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Denix non-firing replica of Henry 1860]] | |||
= Discussion = | |||
How effective is the .44 Rimfire? From what I've read it seems it is almost useless beyond 100 yards. | How effective is the .44 Rimfire? From what I've read it seems it is almost useless beyond 100 yards. | ||
:Well, not overly. It's really just a handgun round, ballistically it's similar to a 200 grain .45ACP - and the flat-nosed bullets give it a lower ballistic coefficient, which means velocity will drop faster and the trajectory will be more curved. The contemporary 56-56 Spencer round was actually alot better, as it approached the effectiveness of a muzzle-loading .58 cal Springfield. It's worth noting that alot of the Western-era rifles, for which the Henry really set the pattern, were at the time called carbines, regardless of barrel length, because they fired what were really handgun rounds. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]] | :Well, not overly. It's really just a handgun round, ballistically it's similar to a 200 grain .45ACP - and the flat-nosed bullets give it a lower ballistic coefficient, which means velocity will drop faster and the trajectory will be more curved. The contemporary 56-56 Spencer round was actually alot better, as it approached the effectiveness of a muzzle-loading .58 cal Springfield. It's worth noting that alot of the Western-era rifles, for which the Henry really set the pattern, were at the time called carbines, regardless of barrel length, because they fired what were really handgun rounds. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]] | ||
::So why were these and the Winchester 1866 popular? Was it just about capacity and rate of fire? | ::So why were these and the Winchester 1866 popular? Was it just about capacity and rate of fire? | ||
:Sure. Bear in mind the Henry was popularised in the Civil War. A regiment with Henrys would be outranged by a Confederate unit with Enfields or Springfields, but once that distance was closed they would have a huge firepower advantage, enough to break up the formation. On the civilian side, 15 shots was a huge advantge over the muzzle-loaders previously available, and the reality is that not many hunters will ever take a shot at more than 150 yards, espescially in the era before scopes were popularised. Actual rifle caliber repeaters (the Spencer aside, though calling it rifle caliber is a bit of grey area) didn't hit the market until 1876 with the Winchester 76, and there wasn't a really successful one until the Winchester 1886. It's alot easier to build a repeater to handle a handgun cartridge - it makes the gun smaller, it doesn't have to be as strong and won't be subjected to as much force, making it alot more reliable. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]] | |||
On a sidenote, while this is a great design, what moron decided to not put a handguard on the damned thing? In order to not get burned, you either have to hold a cloth strap on the barrel at all times, or have thicker skin than Manny Pardo. Thoughts? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 21:49, 11 November 2016 (EST) | |||
::A ''real'' operator has skin made of asbestos and doesn't need handguards. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 10:05, 12 November 2016 (EST) | |||
:::Henry rifle (as and its little-known predecessor, a Volcanic Rifle) wasn't a foregrip, because at the bottom of the tubular magazine was notch, in which moving ammo pusher ([http://army-news.ru/images_stati/odna_iz_naslednits_vintovki_genri_3.jpg]). Because of his foregrip and could not be added. This changed only with the advent of Winchester in 1866, where the loading system completely remade. --[[User:Slon95|Slon95]] ([[User talk:Slon95|talk]]) 17:12, 12 November 2016 (EST) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:13, 8 December 2021
Additional Images
Discussion
How effective is the .44 Rimfire? From what I've read it seems it is almost useless beyond 100 yards.
- Well, not overly. It's really just a handgun round, ballistically it's similar to a 200 grain .45ACP - and the flat-nosed bullets give it a lower ballistic coefficient, which means velocity will drop faster and the trajectory will be more curved. The contemporary 56-56 Spencer round was actually alot better, as it approached the effectiveness of a muzzle-loading .58 cal Springfield. It's worth noting that alot of the Western-era rifles, for which the Henry really set the pattern, were at the time called carbines, regardless of barrel length, because they fired what were really handgun rounds. - Nyles
- So why were these and the Winchester 1866 popular? Was it just about capacity and rate of fire?
- Sure. Bear in mind the Henry was popularised in the Civil War. A regiment with Henrys would be outranged by a Confederate unit with Enfields or Springfields, but once that distance was closed they would have a huge firepower advantage, enough to break up the formation. On the civilian side, 15 shots was a huge advantge over the muzzle-loaders previously available, and the reality is that not many hunters will ever take a shot at more than 150 yards, espescially in the era before scopes were popularised. Actual rifle caliber repeaters (the Spencer aside, though calling it rifle caliber is a bit of grey area) didn't hit the market until 1876 with the Winchester 76, and there wasn't a really successful one until the Winchester 1886. It's alot easier to build a repeater to handle a handgun cartridge - it makes the gun smaller, it doesn't have to be as strong and won't be subjected to as much force, making it alot more reliable. - Nyles
On a sidenote, while this is a great design, what moron decided to not put a handguard on the damned thing? In order to not get burned, you either have to hold a cloth strap on the barrel at all times, or have thicker skin than Manny Pardo. Thoughts? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2016 (EST)
- A real operator has skin made of asbestos and doesn't need handguards. Spartan198 (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2016 (EST)
- Henry rifle (as and its little-known predecessor, a Volcanic Rifle) wasn't a foregrip, because at the bottom of the tubular magazine was notch, in which moving ammo pusher ([1]). Because of his foregrip and could not be added. This changed only with the advent of Winchester in 1866, where the loading system completely remade. --Slon95 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2016 (EST)
- A real operator has skin made of asbestos and doesn't need handguards. Spartan198 (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2016 (EST)
![[1]](http://army-news.ru/images_stati/odna_iz_naslednits_vintovki_genri_3.jpg){kind=link}