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
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[File:Henry Big Boy Replica.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Henry Big Boy - .44 Rimfire (RF). This modern rifle, while superficially reminiscent of the Winchester Model 1866, is structurally close to the Henry 1860, including a front-loading tubular magazine. The side gate is actually an ejection port, similar to Marlin 336.]] | [[File:Henry Big Boy Replica.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Henry Big Boy - .44 Rimfire (RF). This modern rifle, while superficially reminiscent of the Winchester Model 1866, is structurally close to the Henry 1860, including a front-loading tubular magazine. The side gate is actually an ejection port, similar to Marlin 336.]] | ||
[[File:HBBLG.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Henry Big Boy with loading gate - .44 Rimfire (RF)]] | [[File:HBBLG.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Henry Big Boy with loading gate - .44 Rimfire (RF)]] | ||
[[File:Henry4570.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Modern Henry 45-70 rifle (dated 2016), | [[File:Henry4570.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Modern Henry 45-70 All-Weather rifle (dated 2016), based on the Henry 1860 rifle - .45-70 Government]] | ||
= Discussion = | = Discussion = |
Revision as of 10:59, 5 September 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)