I've been searching the web for information on Henry Big Boy rifles and am finding a lot of hate for the company, as well as a lot of love from owners. People seem sharply divided into two passionate camps with little middle ground. Since I can't reply to any of those old posts, I thought I'd start a discussion here about some of the issues that come up regarding HRA.

Here are some of the complaints I read:

1. They took the name from the original Henry Repeating Arms, and they are not related to them, so it's like they stole it.

But...there never was a Henry Repeating Arms or any other Henry gun making company. The Henry rifle was made by New Haven Arms. It seems all they have done is name their company after Benjamin Tyler Henry. Isn't that a neat thing to do? Why are people angry at this?

2. They say they are descended from Benjamin Tyler Henry, "that venerable gun maker." But they're not.

Well first, they don't seem to say that anymore, I can't find it on their website. That aside...isn't everyone who makes lever guns (or even any repeating firearm) a descendant of BTH? Winchester is certainly a descendant, as is Marlin. Why not HRA?

3. Their rifles (e.g. the Big Boy) are not replicas of any specific historical rifle.

Aside from the new original Henry rifle, they're not, and that's a good thing. I love Uberti 1866 Yellow Boys...trying to find one in .45 Colt, but when I get it, if I load a high pressure Buffalo Bore cartridge into it, it's going to explode and kill my face. The Big Boy is for people who want a modern center fire lever gun that can handle stout loads without killing your face, but that has the looks and features (brass receiver, octagonal barrel, etc.) of a classic lever gun. Why is this bad??

4. The tube loader sucks! I ain't gettin' no gun that loads like no rimfire!

Well, the loading tube is a matter of preference. Though hopefully not one of juvenile egoism. I prefer the loading gate on my Marlin 1895 (but hate the one on my .30-30...it pinches my fingers!), but the HRA tube is faster to reload (though slower to top off), and I do appreciate the convenience of being able to dump all the ammo out
of the tube without having to cycle it through the action. The ideal lever gun would have both a loading gate and a loading tube, but in the absence of such a rifle, both are fine, both have advantages and disadvantages.

5. The Big Boys suck at Cowboy Action Shooting! You can't cycle them as fast as some of the other rifles with the short stroke kits! I hate them!

Well, assuming that is even true considering the SASS folks seem to loathe HRA and everything they put out with a special kind of passion, the next time I wan to use my lever gun to mag dump 10 rounds into a giant steel plate 15 feet away as fast as humanly possible, I will consider this information. Until then, behold the field in which I grow the fucks I give. Lay thine eyes upon it, and see that it is barren.


I just can't fathom why there is so much angst over this company. They make good quality, accurate rifles. Some people don't like the design, the loading tube, etc. Fine. But why all the hate?

I've got a little Henry H001 in 22lr and it's a fun, inexpensive gun.  I think it's great to shoot, accurate, and a wonderful carbine to teach new shooters on. That said, I don't have any of the Henry Big Boy carbines.  Not because they have bad actions, are poorly made, or not worth the money, but
rather because for me, they are too heavy and lack the side loading gate
I want.  I also don't have any Marlins because I don't like their thick stocks, actions, or triggers.  It's just personal preference for me.
I'm not hating on any of them at all, I just choose to buy another brand.  So, for my high powered 357mag caliber leverguns, I have two Rossi 1892 clones; a 20" carbine and 24" rifle which I can shoot with the most powerful 357mag handloads I want to make without any worry.  For my 45 colt leverguns (I know they didn't come in that caliber, I just like it) I got two Ubertis; a 1866 Yellowboy 19" carbine and a 1873 24" Special Sporting rifle which I only shoot standard pressure (14K psi max) handloads in.
In fact, I opted for a new Mossberg 464 with walnut pistol grip stock over a new Winchester 1894 carbine because I liked the Mossberg's action and trigger as well as the pistol grip stock much better than the new Winchester's.  Again, nothing wrong with the Winchester, I just preferred the Mossberg.  Just my personal preferences, no hate at all.  




 
 

Well yeah, they are heavier than the little Rossi carbines, that's for sure. That may be my next lever gun...they're so small, almost toy like, but awesome!

But that's what you get with an octagonal barrel.

Yes . . . . . . . and no.
Yes, in that an octagonal barreled Uberti 1866 & 1873 clone is heavy in part because of the octagonal barrel but also because of the larger, heavier frame design. For instance, my 45 colt, Uberti 19" 1866 Yellowboy carbine weighs 7lb 4oz while my 45 colt, Uberti 24½" 1873 Special Sporting rifle weighs 8lb 1oz with the pistol grip stock.  Both would be heavier in 38/357mag because of the much thicker barrel due to the smaller diameter bore, i.e .357" vs .452".
No, in that an octagonal barreled Rossi 1892 clone is not heavy at all in large part because of the light weight but exceedingly strong design of the 1892 action.  Even with the heavy 38spl/357mag chambering, my Rossi 1892, 24" octagonal barreled rifle weighs only 7lb 10oz while my Rossi 1892, 20" round barreled carbine weighs a mere 5lb 14oz.
Compare that to Henry's 20" Big Boy carbine in 45 colt that weighs a whopping 8lb 11oz, 1lb 7oz more than the 19" round barreled 45 colt Uberti 1866 Yellowboy carbine, 1lb 1oz more than my 24" octagonal barreled 38spl/357mag Rossi 1892, and 10oz more than a longer barreled, 24½" octagonal 45 colt Uberti 1873 Special Sporting Rifle with a pistol grip stock.   And, all of mine have side loading gates as well.
No, the fact is that Henry designed their Big Boys knowing that they would be heavier than competing designs and for some reason decided to build them without a side loading gate even knowing that most shooters prefer one.  They had their reasons for their design decisions and the rifles they produce are good, precision examples of the design they produced.  They just don't fit the bill of what I want in a levergun.  Nothing bad about them, just not my cup of tea.




 
 

I have a Henry .22 Octagon, and it's a fine rifle, though I'm not in love with the pot metal receiver plates.  


Point 1&2:
I do have complaints regarding their strong implications that they are in any way related to the company that produced the original Henry rifle.  Although they have removed the outright claim

"Today, the Henry Repeating Arms Company, a descendant of the venerable gunmaker"

View Quote

from their web site, they still go out of their way to lead you to that conclusion.  Did they make the change to clear up honest confusion, or to remove demonstrably and explicitly false claims from their site?  They certainly make absolutely no effort to make their lineage clear.

The current "About Us" pages still strongly imply a connection to the makers of the original Henry rifle.  

-The history page is titled, "Henry History" not "History of the (Original) Henry Rifle", and it's under "About Us" which implies, you know, it's about them somehow.  
-The History page also shows a photo captioned:

"The original Henry factory in New Haven, CT"

View Quote

 If I started a company called the Bel-Air Automobile company and displayed a picture of a 1957 Chevy factory labeled "The Original Bel-Air factory", you might reasonably assume I was claiming some lineage from Chevrolet.
-The Henry Today page seems intended to force the inference that there is a connection between "Henry History" and "Henry Today", which are both under "About Us"
-Everything the web site under "About Us" is about the Henry Repeating Arms Company, except the History page.  Can the average person not in the know be expected to make the correct conclusions about the company?

I also have problems with another deception/dishonesty from the company, regarding their nifty AR-7:  

Form their web site:

Nope.  The AR-7 was not designed for nor was it adopted by the US Air Force.  The AR-5 was a bolt action, .22 Hornet take-down air crew survival rifle officially adopted by, but never entered into service with, the US Air Force.  The AR-7 .22 LR semi automatic survival rifle was derived from the AR-5, and was never adopted by the Air Force.  Totally different actions, not the same rifle.

Point 3, no big deal.  Are they nice guns?  Do some/many people like them?

Point 4:  Personal preference.  I don't care for the end loaded tube for center-fire cartridges (or really for rim fires either, but there aren't any alternatives in a lever gun), and if someone asks my opinion, I'll give it and give it and give my reasons for it, but I won't insist anyone is wrong for disagreeing with my opinion.  I have many reasons for my preference; the one most applicable to others is:   I prefer to keep my hands away from the muzzle of my guns when I'm out shooting and handling ammo, which makes it undesirable to top off the tube on a Henry.

Point 5:  I understand Winchester 1892s suck at CAS as well, and hammers suck at driving screws.  The right tool for the right job, and I love the Win 1892 above all other levers.

Henry's octagonal barrels are not tapered. This, obviously, adds to weight. So yeah, that's a consideration. But not all historical octagonal barrels were tapered either, and a heavier barrel does improve accuracy and stability.

My favorite lever gun is my Marlin 1895, which I converted into an "ABL" by swapping in a gray laminate stock. It's not exactly a lightweight, and it does feel lighter than my Big Boy .44, but not by much. I would call the BB heavier, but not heavy.

Well they were in a tough place. They came out of the blue to make lever guns, which is a market dominated either by original companies going back to the 19th century, Italian copies of classic rifles or South American budget copies. They wanted to produce a well made American rifle at the upper end of the price range. Their strategy was to name their company after the father of lever guns and capitalize on that heritage. Is it a little disingenuous?

I don't know. Is it disingenuous of Marlin to call their .45-70 the "1895" when it has little to do with the original model 1895 and is just a beefed up 336? Shouldn't they have called it the Marlin 1972?

Is it wrong of Springfield Armory to call themselves that and confuse people into thinking they are the same "company" as the original? I think this is a lot worse, since there really was a "Springfield Armory" whereas there was never a Henry Repeating Arms or any Henry gun company.

I mean sure, they're not angels, they know what they're doing and it works (and also backfires), but they are not actually lying, nor are they doing anything other makers haven't done.

They're not actually lying...anymore, but they were as recently as at least June 2013:  http://web.archive.org/web/20130618045818/http://www.henryrifles.com/about-henry-repeating.cfm

I can't call what Springfield Armory has done worse.  For one the distinction of there having actually been a Springfield Armory vs no Henry Repeating Arms or any Henry gun company is mostly only relevant to people who know that about Henry.

At least Springfield Armory's current About web page makes it explicitly clear that it is not the same company:  http://www.springfield-armory.com/about/  

I almost mentioned the Marlin 1895 under point 3.  I consider it technically inaccurate to call it an 1895, but it probably falls short of being unethical.  At least Marlin of today has some lineage directly back to the Marlin that made the original 1895.

What Henry should do is edit their history to include something similar to what's on their Wikipedia page or what Springfield Armory did::



I wouldn't even expect that to include:

Walter Hunt?

Okay, the father of the first practical, effective and widely used lever gun.

As to your other points, I agree that would be better than what they have now. I just don't see what they have now as being "bad," just not perfect. The line, to me, would be saying that they are the same company that made the original rifle.

From their website:

"Today, the Henry Repeating Arms Company makes its home in Bayonne, New Jersey and in Rice Lake, Wisconsin. From our inception our goal has been to manufacture a line of classic, well-crafted firearms that every enthusiast would find readily affordable. Our American made rifles are engineered with features that other gun makers often charge twice the price for."

This paragraph makes it clear that they are an original modern company. They may not come right out and say it, but it's still there.

Really, you get that as a clear takeaway?  To me, the use of the word Today, is there to imply a yesterday for the company, as in not a recent yesterday.  It's smoke and mirrors there to trick people into inferring a lineage back to the company that made the original Henry rifle while now maintaining the plausible deniability that they aren't actually saying that (anymore).  Change it to "Today, this Henry Repeating Arms Company...", or even "the new Henry Repeating Arms Company and it would be a little less problematic.

All they did was take out the blatantly and provably false "a descendant of the venerable gunmaker" from "Today, the Henry Repeating Arms Company, a descendant of the venerable gunmaker, makes its home in..."
that they formerly had on their web site and promotional literature during at least 2007 - 2013

What they are doing with the AR-7 shows that this is not isolated behavior for the company.  That others like Springfield Armory or Marlin may do something similar (but demonstrably different) is no excuse.  "Timmy does it too" didn't work in Kindergarten, and it shouldn't work for grown ups in business.  The excuse that they needed to deceive and even lie in order to get established in a tough and competitive market doesn't hold much water either.  

I understand they are a great company that makes fine firearms, right here in the USA and they offer superlative customer support, but that doesn't affect my opinion that what they are doing is unethical and wrong.

The company that made the original Henry rifle is Winchester, formerly New Haven Arms, now Miroku.

Are you saying that Henry is trying to tell people that they are Winchester?

What Henry is doing is trying to get people who are ignorant about the early history of gun making to believe that there is a link between what they are buying and the original Henry Rifle. They do not concretely tell you what that link is, they just tell you that there was this guy BTH and this thing called the Henry Rifle and that now they make lever guns. Is that deceitful? Borderline, sure. It is a lie? No, there is indeed a link between them, since the action they use is very similar to a 336 action, which is an indirect descendant of the 1860 Henry.



Yes, I agree, that would be better. "Cleaner," if you will. I just don't have a huge problem with them honoring BTH and linking their work to his, even if they are doing it to sell rifles. I also don't think they need to do this to sell rifles. Their rifles are good and sell themselves.



That part I disagree with. As I said in my original post, they are descended from BTH, as is everyone who makes lever guns today, including Miroku.



I would call it a little shady, but not unethical, so I think we can agree to disagree.

I am far more angry at Remington for their abhorrent quality control than I am at Henry for following the advice of a marketing specialist and doing a little gray area advertising.

I would disagree a bit here.



While the basic lever action concept was popularized by the Henry rifle, Henry himself built on the ideas of others who came before him, and people after him made advancements to his designs, and others, who used the pre-existing lever action concept built totally different actions some of which superseded Henry's design.



I would not say that the 1892, 1894, or 1895 rifles descended from the Henry rifle. They replaced rifles that descended from the Henry, but they were all very different designs.

You could not really say that Savage rifles descended from the Henry rifle, they were a very different and innovative design.

The Marlin rifles did not descend from the Henry, they are a very different design. So are a number of less well-known leverguns.



I would say that the Henry centerfires are loose clones of the Marlin rifles, like Rossis are clones of Winchester 92s, or their original Henry rifle is a clone of the original Henry.



There are lots of leverguns out there, and many share certain features, like tubular magazines and levers, but only certain models can really be said to be descended from the Henry.



Also, I posted in this forum in another thread a direct quote from Henry's advertising in which they clearly and blatantly said that Benjamin Tyler Henry founded their company.



I like their rimfires. I like some things about their company. I think it is dishonest to tell people that Henry was their founder. I like some things and I dislike some things about their centerfires. So I don't buy their centerfire rifles, but I would if they changed a few things.



 

I like Henry's rimfires. Not too fond of their big bore Marlin copies, and their big boy rifles are jammamatics in CAS.

I would love to do a comparison between Uberti's 1860 Henry and Henry's 1860 that they came out with a while ago in .44-40.

That's a matter of opinion. I believe one would not have been made without the other, and so I consider one to be descended from the other. You don't, and that's fine.



Now this is serious. If true, it would be bad. But it's a pretty serious accusation to present without evidence.

Yeah, I hear this from CAS folks all the time. I also know they hate that rifle for political reasons, something about HRA strongarming or bribing the SASS to legalize the rifle.

Mine doesn't jam no matter how fast I work the action, but maybe that will change if I put on a cowboy hat.

my big boy used to jam... after 100-200 rds it doesn't any more. Just needed to be broken in . I love mine.

Only complaint is the tube mag.. but its a minor one.

Action is factory slick, accurate, the whole thing feels of quality.

Do you honestly believe that is what I a saying?  

Let me try again to make it clear to you.  Henry is not trying to fool people who have an understanding of the history of Winchester and know that the the Henry rifle was made by New Haven Arms, which became Winchester, later US Repeating Arms, and that currently for lever guns the Winchester name is used under license from Olin corporation for guns manufactured by Miroku and imported by Browning, a subsidiary of FN-Herstal.

Henry is trying to deceive those who don't know the history of New Haven Arms and its successors.



Sorry, but the Henry Rifle Company is not a descendant of BTH.  No way, no how.  By that logic, nearly ever manufacturer of semi-auto pistols around today is a descendant of John Browning.  Smith and Wesson is a a descendant of Samuel Colt.  (It would actually be far more accurate to say Winchester is a descendant of Smith and Wesson)  There's a difference in claiming a design is a descendant of another design or designer and that a company is such.  The fact the Henry has expunged the words,

a descendant of the venerable gunmaker

View Quote

seem to indicate that Henry at least recognized that it was problematic and in need of removal.



Precisely because they want people to infer a conclusion they are legally incapable of stating outright.

Is that deceitful? Borderline, sure.

View Quote

Please tell, how much deceit must one use in business before it becomes unethical?

Henry Repeating Arms Company would be in an entirely different category if they had, instead, used the name "Iver Johnson".  

No, but your wording was problematic. They cannot lie about being descended from a company that never existed.



I would say that they are creating an impression and letting the ignorant form their own conclusions, just as Marlin does with its 1895. Many people who buy the 1895 believe that it, like the Winchester 1894, is an original 19th century design. Marlin's website does nothing to discourage this idea. Why is this okay? Maybe because it is, in spirit, descended from the earliest Marlin leverguns?



Yes, you can make that argument, but no one would, because those companies are competitors, so doing so would be disadvantageous. I would say that nearly all semi-auto pistols are descended from John Browning, and so would many others.

And yes, there is a difference in the two claims, but they are subjective, not objective, and you cannot definitively state that such claims are false.

This is why I asked these questions in the first place. There seems to be an inconsistency in judgment between HRA and everyone else. Is it because they are from Brooklyn and Joysee and have thick accents?



Easy, outright lies. "We are the same company that made the original Henry Rifle" would be completely unethical.

Quote History

No, but your wording was problematic. They cannot lie about being descended from a company that never existed.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

No, but your wording was problematic. They cannot lie about being descended from a company that never existed.

My wording was problematic?  Whether they did or not, anyone can lie about a company being descended from a company that never existed.  Watch:   "IBM is descended from a company that made linen fabric in the 1500's called Irsay's Basic Manufacturing"

The Henry Rifle company is no more a descendant of BTH than IBM is a descendant of Joseph Marie Jacquard.



I don't recall that I ever said it was OK.  I did explain why I considered it to be different.  I mentioned that I think it "probably falls short of being unethical", however I'm very open to discussion on the Marlin 1895 issue.  That is completely irrelevant as to whether the Henry Rifle Company is being ethical or not.   It may be relevant as to whether some people are using different standards to judge Marlin and Henry (which appears to be part of your original agenda), but that is also irrelevant to whether Henry is being ethical or not.

Yes, you can make that argument, but no one would, because those companies are competitors, so doing so would be disadvantageous

Using your own reasoning:  Ha, gotcha, John Browning is not a company, and I wasn't referring to the Smith & Wesson firearms company, I was talking about Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson, referring to them in short-hand as Smith and Wesson.   John Browning, Horace Smith, and Daniel B. Wesson are all not alive, not companies, and not competitors to anyone.  

I would say that nearly all semi-auto pistols are descended from John Browning, and so would many others.

Yes, and that is objectively an entirely different claim than saying the companies that make those pistols are descendants of JMB.  

Easy, outright lies. "We are the same company that made the original Henry Rifle" would be completely unethical.

Is it really your position that anything short of an outright lie would be ethical, or did you just avoid actually answering the question I asked with an extreme statement any reasonable person might agree with?

I don't think most people even consider the lineage of a company or it's rifles when they see one sitting on a shelf. I have a Big Boy in .357 and I love it. I did some research first, but in the end, it was the rifle I wanted. I'll admit, I learned more on this particular thread than all of my "research" turned up! Anyway, the 2 Rossi's I had didn't run well so I got rid of them both for the Henry. I do love my little 22 marlin though. I'm pretty sure the my Henry is one of those rifles I'll never get rid of.

I can see where this is confusing. Yes, someone *can* lie about such a thing, but HRA does/did not. HRA implies a connection to BHT. People accused them of lying about being descended from the original Henry rifle company. I call bullshit because there never was an original Henry rifle company and they never said there was. How you choose to interpret that is up to you. I see it as them resurrecting the name of a great gun designer to promote a quality American made product. Yes, they are sneaky. I never said they weren't. But in the marketing field, sneaky works, and at the end of the day, EVERYONE in the gun industry is out to make money. Some people, like Ronnie Barrett, go above and beyond, but most don't.




I don't consider it unethical either, but then I don't consider what HRA does unethical. You and I seem to draw a fuzzy line in slightly different places.



Well, yeah, you could do that, but that would be weird, since there is a real S&W company making real S&W guns.

Now if S&W were destroyed by a meteorite, then maybe Taurus would adopt such a marketing strategy, since many of their guns are, in a very real sense, descended from Horace and Daniel. And there would be nothing wrong with that.



No, you're right, there may other places where I draw the line, depending on how slimy the marketing was, but I just don't see HRA as being there, and they are moving further away, since they are removing elements of their marketing (e.g. descended from, etc.) rather than adding.

They would gain points with me if they spelled out that they resurrected the name of BTH and flatly stated that they are a new company making products inspired by his design, but then Remington would gain points with me if they stopped putting out crap, Benelli would gain points if their customer service were not atrocious and Glock would gain points if they stopped making plastic sleeved magazines with notches that wear out. No one is perfect.

+1, have henrys, ubertis , and old winchesters (pre60s) love them all.

Regardless of their marketing/advertising techniques - Their current offerings at Henry Firearm Company produce rifles that everyone and anyone can be proud of owning.

in response to my response to:

It seems you may have missed that I wasn't confused and what I was doing was pointing out the irony of you immediately following up an accusation of problematic wording with highly problematic wording.  I specifically omitted any accusation of lying or deception in that comment and simply demonstrated the falsity of your statement.

By the way, what's your position on Henry's statement on the AR-7?

"Since 1959 the venerable AR-7 has been the choice of U.S. Air Force pilots who need a small-caliber rifle they can count on should they have to punch out over a remote area."

View Quote

I am just glad they are putting out some effort !   ---   Winchester delegated authority to Japan ,  Marlin has been sucking hind teet   ----   I like to see companies like Rossi , Mossberg, and Henry step up and at least try to fill the gap for new gun buyers.  

I thought it took guts to come out with the 1860 clone, when Uberti has a clone at nearly half the price  --- i've only seen one example , - but it is an impressive firearm

I will repeat. People are accusing Henry of lying about being descended from the original Henry rifle company. It's all over the web. I consider this a problematic accusation, since such a company never existed, and HRA never made such a claim, since to do so would be to lie about such a company's existance. If you're going to keep arguing this point, at least consider, if only for a moment, what you are arguing against. Is it HRA's marketing, or me?



The AR-7 has been around since 1959 and made by several manufacturers before HRA got the rights, and the statement "the choice of" implies that it was something people chose, not something people were issued. After all, the M16 rifle was not the choice of my platoon in basic...we had no choice. As far as I can tell from poking around the web, some air force pilots bought them and used them in place of the AR-5. But if you set out to hate a company, these are all things you can conveniently ignore.

lost the sight hood on my 22lr.

VP sent one out,personally.

just my $.02

clown

I really don't care what anyone else out there is saying. Feel free to find them and engage them in a conversation if you wish.  That's not relevant to the discussion you and I are having since I haven't accused them of that.  What I have accused them of is engaging in an intentional campaign to deceive people into thinking the Henry Repeating Arms Company is descended from the company that that produced the original Henry rifle, which, by the way, could legitimately be referred to as the original Henry rifle company if you pay attention to which letters are capitalized, as in the New Haven Arms Company was the original Henry rifle company- the original company that produced the Henry rifle.


Regardless of what HRA has or has not claimed, as a matter of logic, that's a total non sequitur.  One doesn't logically follow from the other.  I've pointed out this error in your logic before.


Can you not see that I am arguing with you over the difference in our interpretations of what HRA is doing?

Yes, I figured that would be your exact, apologetic response regarding the AR-7 question.  What's your response to the following line in my 2007 HRA catalog?  


Similar stretching apologetics?

Interesting, you searched the internet and found some claims that one or more Air Force pilots violated AF regulations and took unapproved firearms into the cockpits of multimillion dollar airplanes and that to you justifies the claim that the AR-7 was the "choice of U.S. Air Force pilots".  I'm not at all surprised that this is your take.

By the way, the AR-5 was never issued because there were still plenty of M6 survival rifles in inventory- no real need to violate regs take the AR7 in place of an AR-5 that was never issued, but it's at least plausible that at least one or more pilots did so if you mean "in place of" to mean in place of a rifle that was never issued.


I'm not ignoring your contortions of reasoning; I'm just not buying into them.

I guess if you are biased  to support a company, whether consciously or unconsciously, you can easily justify &/or ignore any negative aspects and refuse to accept any criticism of that company.

"I have a Henry .22 Octagon, and it's a fine rifle" & "I understand they are a great company that makes fine firearms, right here in the USA and they offer superlative customer support", aren't exactly what I would call hate, but we've already established that you and I have very different takes on things.

I'm on the fence about Henry. They make very pretty rifles, but the only one that really interests me is the 1860. I'm only interested in lever  rifles with historical significance, even if they are clones of originals.  





The main thing though is that Henry's  marketing is a little off putting. I don't like the  implied  connection to Benjamin Tyler Henry or the New Haven Arms company. They seem to have cut back on this, and finally making an actual Henry design helps, but it soured me on the brand. I'm glad they're made in the USA though.  

 

I think we've clearly established that. Rather than going around in circles (again and again), let's just agree to disagree.

It is true. It is bad. How about some evidence?



http://www.henryrifles.com/rifles/golden-boy/

"The Golden Boy rifle’s awesome 20-inch blued octagonal barrel, American walnut stock, brass buttplate and gleaming Brasslite receiver will transport you back to the wild and wooley days of America’s Old West, when our company founder Benjamin Tyler Henry designed the original Henry lever action rifle."



On this page http://www.henryrifles.com/henry-history/ is a historic photo of the old New Haven plant captioned, "The original Henry factory in New Haven, CT." The wording is clever, but not worded in a way that anyone would use unless trying to make people believe a lie. In fact, that whole page is designed to mae people believe that HRA was founded by BTH. They are stealing Winchester's history, to be bluntly honest.



Additionally, other advertising is designed to make people believe that BTH designed HRA's rifles, and that he founded their company. You cannot look at their advertising and not see this, unless you are one of those sucked in my the marketing.



Also, in a number of publications where HRA has placed press releases or ads or product reviews, you will see writers including a phrase similiar to, "Henry Repeating Arms, founded by the inventor of repeating firearms, Benjamin Tyler Henry, in 1860 . . ." or "Benjamin Tyler Henry founded Henry Repeating Arms in 1860, shortly after inventing repeating firearms," etc. This is not an accident, but a marketing gimmick in which a company uses a third party to make a statement they could not legally make. I have seen it done many times. By the way, I have spent most of my life in marketing, and I greatly admire Henry's skill in marketing, even if I disagree with their ethics.



I will hold that I can say something that is technically not untrue, but if I word it in such a way that it is designed to deceive, with the intent to deceive people, then it is a lie. Deception is deception, whether you outright lie, or spin phrases to make people believe what you do not say outright.





 

I have two HRA products. An AR-7 Survival and the pump action 22LR.
Both work great. Enjoy them immensely.
As far as the hate goes I don't get it. HRA guns are in no way historically correct.
Any Doofuss can see that. To rage about it is pointless. If you want historically correct you cough up the bucks and go with the real thing or Italian.
As a modern designed and built firearm they work well.
I am somewhat puzzled by their attempt to market the original Henry rifle clone. It won't sell at the price they've marked.
IMO, Winchester and to a lessor extent Marlin are the ones deserving the rage.
Winchester could of absolutely OWNED the lever gun market if they hadn't of stuck with that dopey ass '94 angle eject.
They should of went back to the 66 , 73, and 86. Every last lever gun guy I've ever known wanted a real live US made Winchester lever gun.
Instead we got Jap made editions. Idiots.
Marlin tried but they cheaped out too.

One of Henry's greatest assets is their skill in marketing. You can see the effectiveness of their marketing in the following ways:



1. People who are younger, or new to lever actions, tend to be overly enthusiastic evangelists for Henry firearms. This tells me that it is not becasue Henry is so much better than everything else out their, but that newer lever action shooters are basing their opinions on Henry marketing. In fact, most of the reasons they give for Henry's superiority come word-for-word from Henry's marketing lines.



2. People who are older, or who have a longer history with shooting leverguns, are not as impressed with Henry rifles, nor are they so quick to buy into the hype. They will give concrete reasons why they like or dislike these rifles, without repeating words like "heirloom" or trying to defend the indefinsible position that Henry Repeating Arms actually descended from the Benjamin Tyler Henry.



3. Those who are most enthusiastic about the Henry rifles make their arguments by quoting Henry's marketing. They don't argue based on merit as much as they argue based on marketing hype. They show a cult-like devotion to the company and the firearms, and cannot tolerate any arguments against any aspect of either. This is commmon when marketing builds a fan base that becomes enamored with the idea behind a product, more than with the product itself.



The marketing presses several points. Some I agree with and some I do not. It is very effective marketing, though.



1. Henry rifles are and always will be made in the US.

To me, they could almost stop right here. So little is made in the US anymore, and much of what is is shoddy, or uses a lot of foreign components. How many companies have made a strong stand for US-made products? Almost none.

This is what I admire most about Henry.



2. Henry rifles are good quality rifles.

Add this to the the first point, and it is all Henry needs to advertise.



3. Old-world craftsmanship

What does this mean? That they are built in Europe, or like things built in Europe? That they are built he same way rifles were built back in the 19th Century? Well, they are not. They are built like rifles are built today.



4. They are classic, heirloom rifles.

The rimfires are a modern remake of a not very old imported design. They have a similar look to some classic rifles, but they are not really a classic rifle, nor are they a clone of a really classic rifle. They are not really heirlooms until they have been passed on a generation or two.

The centerfires are loose modern clones of Marlin 336 rifles, which are descended from the classic 1936, 1893, etc. lineage, but bulkier, and a different look.

Now I understand that they are trying to make people equate them with a classic original Winchester or Marlin, but they are not.



5. That they are somehow tied to BTH, and that he somehow was responsible for the founding of their company.

This is a bit dishonest, and it is annoying to me. I think this offends many lever-action fans. I think that between this, the slightly bulky, heavy design, and the lack of loading gates, they have alienated many strong lever-action fans, while drawing in the younger or newer lever-action shooters who are not as tied in to the historic leverguns. I think Henry would do themselves a great service by dropping this angle.



If I was advertising these rifles, I would advertise that they are made in America. I would also advertise that they are quality rifles. This is a big deal. Henry has proven that a quality lever-action rifle CAN be built in the US, and still be sold at a fairly reasonable price.



I would also advertise that they are a classic STYLE of rifle, built with modern techniques and materials.



And I would suck up the cost and add a loading gate.

The Japanchesters are very well made leverguns. And they are not cheap. I would take a Miroku-made Winchester over just about any other levergun built today . . . except  . . . what is this? A tang safety and rebounding hammer?! At least the Jap 1873 doesn't have the tang safety.



If they would build their leverguns in the US, they would cost, well, probably about what their Japanese rifles cost. And people would be more inclined to buy them.



I don't know what to think of the original 1860 Henry clone. It is bulkier and shaped differently than the original Henry clone, and so expensive. Still I assume they did the market research and are confident in their ability to sell a quantity. I suspect it was a marketing move to sell their other rifles more than anything else.



The Henry pump .22 lookslike a great little rifle - I really like pump .22s. I like their leveraction .22s as well. I won't mess with their centerfires only for the lack of a loading gate. I can buy older Winchesters and Marlins cheaper, anyway.





 

Wow, that's a bad one. It's gotta be a mistake!

I bet Karl_Withakay wishes he had found that and brought it up though, huh?

Sure, a mistake that has been floating around on their website and in advertising for a couple years, that just happens to fit with their other misleading marketing. What a strange coincidence!





Here is another coincidental "mistake":

"Thank you for purchasing your new Henry Lever Action Rifle. We are proud to have crafted this rifle for you in the great tradition of Henry Repeating Arms Company which dates back to 1860 when the first effective, lever-action repeating rifle was developed by our founder, Benjamin Tyler Henry. We go to great efforts to provide the highest quality of design, craftsmanship, manufacture and function that was established over 140 years ago."
 

I've emailed the owner, we'll see what he says.

There are similar issues with Armalite's provenance

and Springfield Armorys

Well, it's not exactly blazed across the front page of their web site, but at least Armalite has a pretty exhaustive history of Armalite(s) they put on their site:

http://www.armalite.com/images/Library%5CHistory.pdf



Likewise for SA,

http://www.springfield-armory.com/about/

Eh, what would be the point?  Your classic apologetic response shows there is likely no evidence that will move you from your fixed position.  It might persuade some of those still sitting on the fence.

 Of course, in your narrative that's the only possibility.  The possibility that you are wrong isn't even worth considering.  When presented with clear and unequivocal evidence against your position, it must due to a mistake.  Your reaction would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.


Sure, since you can't come up with any spin better than "It's gotta be a mistake", let's see what kind of contorted reasoning the owner (or his layers and PR dept) can come up with to justify these claims.

To a lesser extent, Rock Island Armory.   I heard somebody had a gun store extolling the virtues of these pistols with real US military heritage.    I didn't say anything but merely noted to myself that Rock Island Arsenal is different than Rock Island Armory.

RIA makes solid budget 1911's though---- I just wonder how many newer shooters equate them  to the Famous Illinois outpost mistakenly

But------- i havent seen much advertising either

Actually he said he would change it. Let's see.

Just like rifles are carefully crafted, so are marketing words and phrases. Sometimes, mistakes are made, but when there is a pattern, you can be sure it is not a mistake.



The use of historic names is not a rare practice, nor is it unethical, in my opinion. You can see it in many industries, such as the automotive industry, and I have no problem with it if it is done right.



Several of those firearms companies that do so have been mentioned here, and for the most part, I don't have a problem with it because most make it pretty clear that they are not the original company, though I think that Armalite borders on the edge of purposeful deception.



Now, on the other hand, a lot of companies are very good at making firearms or related products, but not so skilled at marketing. So they hire a marketing firm to investigate the market and craft marketing strategies. Many times these firms know little about the industry and about shooters, and make poor recommendations and choices. Since they are the experts, the companies allow them to do so. I have seen this happen many times. So this may not be a decision made directly by Henry, but by their marketing firm, and approved by Henry after the strategy was sold to them by an outside firm.



 

Well said.

any one who does 5min of research should know.. until now Henry Rifle Company was never a company. It was always New Haven Arms.. Henry Patent.

my opinion is; that its a night and day comparison and no real reason to get too worked up about the name.  What bugs me is companies, as stated in this thread,  use the name of the  original company and act like its the same...

examples of this are
Winchester, Springfield armory, to name a few.

Here is my problem.



So some of you like Henry rifles. I like some of them a lot, too, others, not as much. But liking a firearm does not mean you have to be unreasonable in worshiping the company that made it.



A number of Henry fans here would not even consider that idea that Henry could possibly be unethically claiming to be descended directly from BTH. So I post proof that Henry actually does so, and anyone who does 5 min. of research should know that.



And yet I am still told, "It must have been a mistake."



Now the reason people get worked up is because most long time levergun fans are very concerned with history. It is the nature of why we love these rifles. Same with the guys who like Mausers or historic single-shot cartridge rifles, or Colt revolvers, or historic muzzle-loaders.



There are also still a lot of people out there who value honesty and integrity. Now one of Henry's big marketing points is their integrity as a company, and they have proven integrity in several ways. Then they turn around and flatly claim that the modern Henry Repeating Arms Company was FOUNDED by BTH in the 1860s. I posted proof of this.



Yet Henry fanboys come back with claims that it must have been a mistake, and now attack Winchester and Springfield Armory, yet defend Henry and say it is no big deal that Henry is blatantly lying in their marketing material. How can you even justify such a stance. This is not even close to the same thing.



Winchester has a clear, direct lineage to the original New Haven Arms, and even a bit farther back than that. While the company, not just the name, has been sold to different entities at different times, it has continuously manufactured firearms and ammunition under the Winchester name (now the ammo and firearms manufacture are separated, but both are a direct lineage all the way back). Saying that Winchester should not use the Winchester name is like saying Ford should not use the Ford name, since Henry Ford is long gone, and it is operated by a different group of people today.



Springfield Armory bought a name. That is not a big deal. They don't claim to be the original SA. They are clear on that. Some others get much closer to obscuring the difference between an original company and their current name, like Armalite has at times.



But Henry has stated numerous times that Benjamin Tyler Henry was their company's founder.

They have worded their marketing to make people believe they were founded in 1860.

On their company history page, they have a photo of the New Haven plant captioned, "The original Henry factory."

They have stated that BTH invented the repeating rifle.



Does 5 min of research prove that Henry has absolutely no connection to Benjamin Tyler Henry? Sure. And any long-time lever-action fan will already know that. But this does not change the fact that Henry's markeing is filled with blatant lies and wording designed to deceive. It is a slap in the face to anyone who cares about the history of lever action rifles, which is a huge percentage of Henry's potential customer base.



Few would even know the BTH's name, except for Winchester's historic practice of patenting improvements and innovations in the name of the employee, instead of the company.



Don't urinate on my face and try to impress me with your meteorological prowess.

Big Boys are Rosie O'Donell ugly.



However I might buy one of their .22 lever guns.

I would.



 

You have one?  Are they as nice as they seem?