1860 Henry soon?

[clampdaddy]

A member over at the Henry rifle forum received an e-mail from a Henry staff member about the possible reproduction of the 1860 Henry chambered in .44-40 later this year. I emailed Mr. Anthony Imperato and he confirmed it. So for all that might be interested, keep your eyes peeled because we may finally get an American made reproduction of the 1860!

[Ji in Hawaii]

I hope it's not going to be just a modified Big Boy with the forearm removed and chambered for the 44/40.

1860 Henry Rifle


Henry "Big Boy"

[ving-thorr]

if it's an accurate reproduction of the original, and costs less than the ubertis, I believe I may bite. I'd like to see it chambered in .44 special though too, not like the originals were in 44-40 anyway.

[Ji in Hawaii]

I hope they make a 1866 replica too in 38 Special (I have plenty 38 ammo).

[ving-thorr]

I hope they make a 1866 replica too in 38 Special (I have plenty 38 ammo).

boy, i don't know, then they'd have to take that giant leap forward in technology--the side loading gate

[Leverdude]

Nothing they have made so far has been remotely historically correct and they have already shown a penchant for misleading marketing, so I don't see why anyone would think the 44/40 will be anything except a brass framed Marlin, maybe with no for end.

[RIHMFIRE]

as long as it is an exact reproduction of the original.....
I would by one if the quality is good
BTW I think they make a pretty nice product....
Now if we could bet them out of NYC....

[ving-thorr]

Nothing they have made so far has been remotely historically correct and they have already shown a penchant for misleading marketing, so I don't see why anyone would think the 44/40 will be anything except a brass framed Marlin, maybe with no for end.

a true-to-the-original henry rifle, however might help legitimize their misleading marketing. who could say they're just posing as "Henry" if they were to make an american made honest-to-goodness 1860 henry rifle?

that said, they really ought to stop doing stuff like this:
http://www.henryrepeating.com/images/te ... actory.jpg
calling this a picture of the "original Henry factory in New Haven, CT" as opposed to "Oliver Winchester's New Haven Arms Company where the rifle that Tyler Henry invented was produced"

[adirondakjack]

I would have to see it before wasting any time drooling.

Good things I can say about Imperato and Co.? They are a family-owned American gun producer. They have made some good guns under different names. (Kimber is the same people)

I won't dive into the critique of their rifles or marketing faux pas, but will say I have not added any of their rifle products to the stable so far. I'm always open to evaluating new offerings, but so far nothing has tripped my trigger, or even gotten the debit card off "safe" mode.

[clampdaddy]

if it's an accurate reproduction of the original, and costs less than the ubertis, I believe I may bite. I'd like to see it chambered in .44 special though too, not like the originals were in 44-40 anyway.

Same here, but the chambering I'd really like to see would be a 32-20.

[Rube Burrows]

A member over at the Henry rifle forum received an e-mail from a Henry staff member about the possible reproduction of the 1860 Henry chambered in .44-40 later this year. I emailed Mr. Anthony Imperato and he confirmed it. So for all that might be interested, keep your eyes peeled because we may finally get an American made reproduction of the 1860!

I emailed him over a year ago and asked him why they didnt do it. He gave me a call back within a matter of hours. I told him that I know many people would love to have a 1860 Henry made by HENRY. He told me that the 1860 was made for rim fire and that they were not happy with the sturdyness of the frame. I told him that if Uberti can do it then surley Henry can do it also. He was very nice and said that he would def try to push that forward and see what they could do. Glad to see that this could finally happen.

[Leverdude]

Dont get me wrong, they seem real responsive to the market & have great cust service. I just dont like misleading marketing. I'd be real surprised if they come out with a real toggle link action but who knows. It'll be quite a departure from what they make now.

[Lefty Dude]

I hope they off a slip on accessory fore piece. That Barrel exposed mag. can really get hot if you do not wear a glove.

Shoot 10 rounds of 44-40 full BP load at Cowboy speed and you can fry an Egg on the barrel.

[Rimfire McNutjob]

It's funny, he has to realize that Uberti sells way more guns than he does ... actual reproductions.

[hightime]

Uberti is good enough for me.
Anyways, I think Henry's trucks are to short for a 24'' barrel.

Owen

[765x53]

Henrys are Henrys as much as Winchesters are Winchesters. How closely does the last version of the Model 94 resemble the original?
For that mater, how dare they call the Model P a "Colt" when Sam was dead ten years before it reached the drawing board?

[Leverdude]

Henrys are Henrys as much as Winchesters are Winchesters. How closely does the last version of the Model 94 resemble the original?
For that mater, how dare they call the Model P a "Colt" when Sam was dead ten years before it reached the drawing board?

bullsnot.
A modern 94 is very similar to the first ones and are made by what that company became.
A modern Herny, from Henry in Jersey has nothing at all in common with the original Henry, either in it's mechanics or it's history. Companies make replicas all the time but don't try to inherit the history, let alone produce an entirely different line and associate themselves with something that they had nothing to do with. They make a solid product, but when you start with a lie it sticks with you. Some don't care and that's fine, heck I own a Henry and I do care, but just because I own one don't mean I need to bury my head in the sand. At any rate there never was a Henry rifle co for them to inherit their legacy or whatever from. The Henry rifle was made by Winchester.

[Martini450]

Henrys are Henrys as much as Winchesters are Winchesters. How closely does the last version of the Model 94 resemble the original?
For that mater, how dare they call the Model P a "Colt" when Sam was dead ten years before it reached the drawing board?

bullsnot.
A modern 94 is very similar to the first ones and are made by what that company became.
A modern Herny, from Henry in Jersey has nothing at all in common with the original Henry, either in it's mechanics or it's history. Companies make replicas all the time but don't try to inherit the history, let alone produce an entirely different line and associate themselves with something that they had nothing to do with. They make a solid product, but when you start with a lie it sticks with you. Some don't care and that's fine, heck I own a Henry and I do care, but just because I own one don't mean I need to bury my head in the sand. At any rate there never was a Henry rifle co for them to inherit their legacy or whatever from. The Henry rifle was made by Winchester.

Actually, the Henry rifle was made by the New Haven Arms Company, of which Oliver F. Winchester was a main stockholder. In 1866 it was reorganized and became the Winchester Repeating Arms Company; the model 1866 is the first model to bear the Winchester name. Whatever the case, the modern "Henry" rifle does not fit into the lineage.

[Griff]

And if they offered it both steel framed & bronze, long barrel and carbine... oh what a wonderous thing that would be! I might have to eat crow. Or, at the least buy one, or two, maybe three!

[765x53]

Henrys are Henrys as much as Winchesters are Winchesters. How closely does the last version of the Model 94 resemble the original?
For that mater, how dare they call the Model P a "Colt" when Sam was dead ten years before it reached the drawing board?

bullsnot.
A modern 94 is very similar to the first ones and are made by what that company became.
A modern Herny, from Henry in Jersey has nothing at all in common with the original Henry, either in it's mechanics or it's history. Companies make replicas all the time but don't try to inherit the history, let alone produce an entirely different line and associate themselves with something that they had nothing to do with. They make a solid product, but when you start with a lie it sticks with you. Some don't care and that's fine, heck I own a Henry and I do care, but just because I own one don't mean I need to bury my head in the sand. At any rate there never was a Henry rifle co for them to inherit their legacy or whatever from. The Henry rifle was made by Winchester.

Actually, the Henry rifle was made by the New Haven Arms Company, of which Oliver F. Winchester was a main stockholder. In 1866 it was reorganized and became the Winchester Repeating Arms Company; the model 1866 is the first model to bear the Winchester name. Whatever the case, the modern "Henry" rifle does not fit into the lineage.

Because the Herstal Group owns the "Winchester" name, they can have their FN or Miroku divisions make any kind of gun they want and truthfully call it a Winchester.
Because the Imperato family owns the "Henry" name any gun they make can be called a Henry.
In either case the historical connection equally tenuous.

[Martini450]

Henrys are Henrys as much as Winchesters are Winchesters. How closely does the last version of the Model 94 resemble the original?
For that mater, how dare they call the Model P a "Colt" when Sam was dead ten years before it reached the drawing board?

bullsnot.
A modern 94 is very similar to the first ones and are made by what that company became.
A modern Herny, from Henry in Jersey has nothing at all in common with the original Henry, either in it's mechanics or it's history. Companies make replicas all the time but don't try to inherit the history, let alone produce an entirely different line and associate themselves with something that they had nothing to do with. They make a solid product, but when you start with a lie it sticks with you. Some don't care and that's fine, heck I own a Henry and I do care, but just because I own one don't mean I need to bury my head in the sand. At any rate there never was a Henry rifle co for them to inherit their legacy or whatever from. The Henry rifle was made by Winchester.

Actually, the Henry rifle was made by the New Haven Arms Company, of which Oliver F. Winchester was a main stockholder. In 1866 it was reorganized and became the Winchester Repeating Arms Company; the model 1866 is the first model to bear the Winchester name. Whatever the case, the modern "Henry" rifle does not fit into the lineage.

Because the Herstal Group owns the "Winchester" name, they can have their FN or Miroku divisions make any kind of gun they want and truthfully call it a Winchester.
Because the Imperato family owns the "Henry" name any gun they make can be called a Henry.
In either case the historical connection equally tenuous.

While the current incarnation of Winchester is certainly several generations removed from the original company, there is no doubt that it is legitimately descended from the Winchester Repeating Arms Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester ... ms_Company). Another point to consider is that, at least to my knowledge, the current guns bearing the Winchester name are indeed based on Winchester designs (Models 92, 94, 95, 70, etc). So, it is not a matter of simply owning the Winchester name, the current company is actually producing Winchester designs, and is demonstrably descended from the original Winchester company.

Conversly, the modern Henry Repeating Arms has virtually no connection to the Henry rifle of the nineteenth century, either by design or any historic affiliation. Even the name isn't historic, as there never was a "Henry Repeating Arms" to be descended from. The historic connection between the new and old Winchester is to a degree tenuous; the historic connection between Henry and the New Haven Arms Company simply doesn't exist. While I have no beef with the Henry company, and understand that they're a first rate organization that stands behind its product, the comment on the Henry website "...a descendant of the venerable gunmaker" is a bit misleading.

[Leverdude]

I'm surprised folks even get bothered by the facts when thryre pointed out. The only reason they can use the Henry name is it wasn't protected like Winchester, Colt or Marlin are. Because it wasn't ever a company at all until the Imperatos adopted it. The only beef I have is the marketing, some call it misleading. I'm not real pc though, to me it's a lie to claim a lineage you have no rights to. Just something I keep in mind, I still bought one of their 22's. A nice little alloy rifle with plastic barrel bands, made with the same craftsmanship they used in 1860, on their alloy & plastic guns.

[Leverdude]

Henrys are Henrys as much as Winchesters are Winchesters. How closely does the last version of the Model 94 resemble the original?
For that mater, how dare they call the Model P a "Colt" when Sam was dead ten years before it reached the drawing board?

bullsnot.
A modern 94 is very similar to the first ones and are made by what that company became.
A modern Herny, from Henry in Jersey has nothing at all in common with the original Henry, either in it's mechanics or it's history. Companies make replicas all the time but don't try to inherit the history, let alone produce an entirely different line and associate themselves with something that they had nothing to do with. They make a solid product, but when you start with a lie it sticks with you. Some don't care and that's fine, heck I own a Henry and I do care, but just because I own one don't mean I need to bury my head in the sand. At any rate there never was a Henry rifle co for them to inherit their legacy or whatever from. The
Henry rifle was made by Winchester.

Actually, the Henry rifle was made by the New Haven Arms Company, of which Oliver F. Winchester was a main stockholder. In 1866 it was reorganized and became the Winchester
Repeating Arms Company; the model 1866 is the first model to bear the Winchester name.
Whatever the case, the modern "Henry" rifle does not fit into the lineage.

I'm aware of that. They bought the rights to the action that became the Henry from s&w if I recall right, B Tyler Henry turned the s&w Volcanic lever action pistol into the gun Winchester made under the NHAC name and called the Henry rifle. It was not a company, only one model of gun that was the descendant of all Winchesters lever guns until John Browning got involved. I forget where but I read Winchester didn't want his name on the gun before he knew if it would be a success. Once it was he reformed the company and the rest is history.

[bdhold]

I think the Henry .22 is an awesome little shooter for $300.
I hope they stay in business. Look how everyone else stays in business - how can you tell a marketer is lying? - he's writing ad copy.
Yes, their 1860 will be a side-eject without a forearm. We won't buy one.

[Leverdude]

I think the Henry .22 is an awesome little shooter for $300.
I hope they stay in business. Look how everyone else stays in business - how can you tell a marketer is lying? - he's writing ad copy.
Yes, their 1860 will be a side-eject without a forearm. We won't buy one.

Its easy to notice a lie when you know the truth. Might be the writer was just ignorant but the Imperatos know & could have changed it. I like the 22 I bought too, but id dont change nuthin.

[bdhold]

they chose to associate their levergun with the xxxx yankee rifle you load on Sunday and shoot all week.
They made it yellow to stylize it to fit the name.
Of course everybody involved in the process knows the actual history - that's why the marketers use it.
Almost surprising they're willing to associate the arm with Abe Lincoln, considering the bad rap he still gets in the south.
(but the south is an automatic market, we buy guns here, especially cheap ones)
It's a marketer's job to sell the weak points - the strong points sell themselves. A start-up company with an instant history. Very convenient.

If you don't buy something because of marketing lies, you don't buy anything, because all marketing is all lies.
Do you really think the Chevy Chevette handled well? That's how they marketed it. Did you write off Chevrolet?
Do you believe Dodge Ram commercials? Marketing is to create an image. Sam Elliott has a nice, though contemptuous, voice and he is lying through his teeth, and paid to do so. Dodge also believes we're all contemptuous at heart, or they wouldn't be marketing that way.

I wish Henry success and hope they continue to make this rifle in the USA.

[Martini450]

they chose to associate their levergun with the xxxx yankee rifle you load on Sunday and shoot all week.
They made it yellow to stylize it to fit the name.
Of course everybody involved in the process knows the actual history - that's why the marketers use it.
Almost surprising they're willing to associate the arm with Abe Lincoln, considering the bad rap he still gets in the south.
(but the south is an automatic market, we buy guns here, especially cheap ones)
It's a marketer's job to sell the weak points - the strong points sell themselves. A start-up company with an instant history. Very convenient.

If you don't buy something because of marketing lies, you don't buy anything, because all marketing is all lies.
Do you really think the Chevy Chevette handled well? That's how they marketed it. Did you write off Chevrolet?
Do you believe Dodge Ram commercials? Marketing is to create an image. Sam Elliott has a nice, though contemptuous, voice and he is lying through his teeth, and paid to do so. Dodge also believes we're all contemptuous at heart, or they wouldn't be marketing that way.

I wish Henry success and hope they continue to make this rifle in the USA.

The difference is between marketing a euphamism as a opposed to a falsehood. Saying a Chevette handles well is a relative thing; compared to a VW bug they did handle well. Disingenuous yes, but not a falsehood. After all, we wouldn't expect Chevy to advertise that their car handled poorly; but then again, we also wouldn't expect them to advertise it as a direct descendant of a Dussledorf. When Henry states that they are "a descendant of the venerable gunmaker", referring to B. Tyler Henry, they are saying something that can easily be shown to be false regardless of how its looked at.

The whole thing is just a marketing ploy, and I don't really think its a big deal. Using the Henry name is a valid and creative marketing tool, but trying to claim a connection to the original product is probably not a great idea. Folks who like leverguns tend to be history oriented, so Henry is bound to be called out on it. All that said, I don't think poorly of them as a company for it and my impression is that they make a solid product and stand behind it. For that they deserve our business.

[bdhold]

fair enough.

[Beaker]

The fact is Henry Rewpeating Arms Co. now owns the rights to the Henry rifle name as they purchased them.

[765x53]

I don't believe anyone is being deceived by Henry Repeating Arms, nor is that their intent.

Anyone with enough appreciation of tradition to lay out several hundred dollars for a lever gun, knows they are not buying an original Henry.

[airedaleman]

The fact is Henry Rewpeating Arms Co. now owns the rights to the Henry rifle name as they purchased them.

From whom?

[John Boy]

The only beef I have is the marketing, some call it misleading. I'm not real pc though, to me it's a lie to claim a lineage you have no rights to.

If think Henry is misleading check out the wording Hodgdon uses to advertise Goex powder:

Our Product Testing Grounds the US map in the background
The authentic black powder that helped build a nation
Made in the U.S.A. for more than 200 years. The tradition continues

So much for wordsmiths ... Goex was bought from DuPont in 1977!

[Martini450]

The fact is Henry Rewpeating Arms Co. now owns the rights to the Henry rifle name as they purchased them.

From whom?

That's kind of the point, I doubt they had to purchase the name from anybody. Virtually any company could have copyrighted the name; owning the name doesn't have anything to do with being connected to a product from 150 years ago. From a marketing perspective, using the name was a valid and inspired idea, and I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Claiming to be descended from the original Henry rifle is probably not such a hot marketing idea, however. While it doesn't overly bother me, it rubs some folks the wrong way, which isn't what you want your advertising to do.

[Leverdude]

The fact is Henry Rewpeating Arms Co. now owns the rights to the Henry rifle name as they purchased them.

From whom?

That's kind of the point, I doubt they had to purchase the name from anybody. Virtually any company could have copyrighted the name; owning the name doesn't have anything to do with being connected to a product from 150 years ago. From a marketing perspective, using the name was a valid and inspired idea, and I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Claiming to be descended from the original Henry rifle is probably not such a hot marketing idea, however. While it doesn't overly bother me, it rubs some folks the wrong way, which isn't what you want your advertising to do.

Exactly. They lied, it's no biggie but it bugs me so I mention it. They didn't buy it. In an earlier discussion about it somebody e mailed Mr Imperator and he said the name wasn't protected. Why would it be really? This is the first Henry rifle company.
I like their 22s but not so much their center fires and while the rim fires are cheap, the center fires sure aren't. They stand behind their stuff though and are very responsive.

[Beaker]

The fact is Henry Rewpeating Arms Co. now owns the rights to the Henry rifle name as they purchased them.

From whom?

From Winchester.

[airedaleman]

The fact is Henry Rewpeating Arms Co. now owns the rights to the Henry rifle name as they purchased them.

From whom?

From Winchester.

Are you serious?