Henry rifle effective fire power

[stepnmud]

Tweet

Since most of us weren't there when the 44 rimfire Henry rifle became available in 1860.  The Henry rifle was in competition in sales with other rifles like the Spencer as a moderate powered firearm with much faster rate of fire than bigger bore  single shot rifles. If you had a choice of any rifle during the time period of 1860 to 1870 and venturing out west on a quest for a new life style or just to start anew following the civil war and knowning that the possibilities of enemy hostiles awaited. Why choose a Henry over other rifles with more powerful calibers?

[Stillwater]

<snip>

 Why choose a Henry over other rifles with more powerful calibers?

Greater fire power... You don't need a more powerful cartridge to knock a Indian down, you just need more cartridges in the magazine...

Bill

[Trailrider]

I think it would depend, (1) on whether I could afford one, and (2) what I expected to be doing.  If I wasn't sure, I'd probably go with the Henry. If I was hiring on with the Army as a QM Dept. employee, and expected to be in the field with the troops, I'd have to see what they were armed with.  If they were armed with muzzleloaders, I'd go for the Henry.  If armed with breechloaders, then the question of logistics/ammo availability would have to be answered.  If they had Spencers, then I'd probably try to get them to issue me one.  If a Sharps or M1868/70 Springfield in .50-70 Gov't, then I'd want one of those, and hope the troops didn't get themselves in a tight corner.  Same with the M1873 Springfield.  OTOH, I might prefer the Henry for its firepower, IF I didn't plan on sticking with the Army for a long time.

(BTW, QM employees, Wheatley and Fisher who were both armed with new Henry rifles they wanted to try, were with Lt. Grummond's Spencer-armed cavalry at the Fetterman disaster, lasted only a bit longer than either Grummond or the muzzleloader armed troops at the Fetterman Fight.

[Joe Lansing]

    Stepnmud, for the same reason our troops today are generally issued  M16's  and not the 50BMG sniper rifle. It's what works best in a fire fight. Don't forget, back then there were numerous opportunities for a fire fight weather you wanted one or not. All you needed was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    If I were in that scenario, I would probably take a Henry or a '66 and maybe a 50-70 Sharpes to reach out.

                                                                     J.L.

[Coffinmaker]

If you manage to get yourself into a situation where you are going to loose, regardless, your choice of rifles is pretty much moot.  Personally, I don't like to loose.
A lot of the question was affordability.  Most of the westward roaming settlers didn't have a rifle of any sort.  They had shotguns.  The guns that won the west were shotguns and the Henry was, just like today, damned expensive.  Our westward traveling forefathers were lucky if they could afford powder and shot.  The cost of cartridge ammunition was way way beyond their means.
Personally, if I knew I were to be facing hostiles (the vast majority didn't), my choice would have been the Henry.  Remembering, most handguns were still loaded with loose ammunition.  Of course, if the engagement is to be up close and personal, I'll take the shotgun.

Coffinmaker 

[Sean Thornton]

I think if I were facing "bad guys" and there were several of them at close range, within 100 yards, my vote is to have a Henry with 16 or 17 shorts depending on the ammunition.  After the Civil War in 1866 Henry rifles sold for as low a $2.25 up to $6 or $7.  Still a lot of money for the time but if I was going West where I might encounter trouble the Henry would be my choice.  However if I were going to hunt buffalo I am thinking a .44-77 Sharps or maybe a .50 by 2 1/2 inch.  Effective firepower all depenbds on what you are going to be up against.

[Henry4440]

After the Civil War in 1866 Henry rifles sold for as low a $2.25 up to $6 or $7.

Sean, i think that must be a mistake!
$2.25 up to $6 or $7 for a Henry that cost $42.00 in 1865?
Luther Sage Kelly paid $50.00 in 1868 for his Henry.
Augustus Santleben and Angel Torres paid  $95.00 each for their Henrys, ordered them through Mr. Hummel,San Antonio, 1867.
The 66 and the 73 costs ca $ 40.00 when they hit the market.
 

[Henry4440]

Why choose a Henry over other rifles with more powerful calibers?

A little story:
Two former Union soldiers had kept their Henrys and took them with them into Blackfoot Indian country. They began mining borax, knowing it was just a matter of time before they were paid a visit by the Indians. That day did not take long in coming. One morning about 40 warriors dismounted out of range and advanced. Once they got in range, two of the Indians would show themselves hoping to draw the fire of the two miners. The miners caught on to what the Indians were trying to do. The miners fired their Henrys at the same time but only one round each. The Indians seeing that two shots had been fired decided to rush the miners, thinking they were reloading their "muzzle loaders." The two miners waited until the Indians were within easy range and started a deadly rapid fire with the 15 remaining shots in each of their Henrys. Reloading, they chased the fleeing Indians and shot any of the wounded Indians that were left behind. After the shooting was all over, they dragged the dead Indians and piled them up out of rifle range and left them as a warning to any would-be attackers. The surviving Indians never bothered them again, they even named the Henry the "Spirit Gun."

 

[Mossyrock]

OK...just to poke the bear a bit, I am going to go the other way.  While firepower and a large mag capacity is a good thing to have, if I only had one rifle, and might have to deal with bear or buff, I would want a Spencer over the Henry for the heavier bullet and better penetration.  If you get someone who knows how to effectively run a Spencer, to include reloading from a Blakesly Box, he isn't really giving all that much up to a Henry, and has a pretty good advantage in several areas.

[Sean Thornton]

Sean, i think that must be a mistake!
$2.25 up to $6 or $7 for a Henry that cost $42.00 in 1865?
Luther Sage Kelly paid $50.00 in 1868 for his Henry.
Augustus Santleben and Angel Torres paid  $95.00 each for their Henrys, ordered them through Mr. Hummel,San Antonio, 1867.
The 66 and the 73 costs ca $ 40.00 when they hit the market.
 

Lonesome Henry, No mistake, According to the National Achieves Record Group 156-125 On November 22, 1866 at Fort Monroe 24 Henrys were sold for between $2.25 to $14.50 each.  57 more were sold in Washington D.C. on June 2, 1868 for $7.62. In June 1871 the St. Louis Arsenal sold 7 Henrys for $6.25 each.  Also take into account that the government bought 1731 Henry rifles and of these over 800 were taken home by the soldiers in June of 1865 free.  You can also check John D. McAulay’s book Civil War Breech loading Rifles for the same information.  When the government dumps it surplus stuff it sells at bottom basement prices.  The government paid over $40 for the 5000 Rodgers and Spencer revolvers that were never issued but then after have then for a few years they were sold for around 25 cents each.  It depended where you were when you purchased a Henry as to how much it may cost you. 

[Christopher Carson]

Lonesome Henry, No mistake, According to the National Achieves Record Group 156-125 On November 22, 1866 at Fort Monroe 24 Henrys were sold for between $2.25 to $14.50 each.  57 more were sold in Washington D.C. on June 2, 1868 for $7.62. In June 1871 the St. Louis Arsenal sold 7 Henrys for $6.25 each.  Also take into account that the government bought 1731 Henry rifles and of these over 800 were taken home by the soldiers in June of 1865 free.  You can also check John D. McAulay’s book Civil War Breech loading Rifles for the same information.  When the government dumps it surplus stuff it sells at bottom basement prices.  The government paid over $40 for the 5000 Rodgers and Spencer revolvers that were never issued but then after have then for a few years they were sold for around 25 cents each.  It depended where you were when you purchased a Henry as to how much it may cost you. 

That might mean you could only get prices like that if you were in the right place at the right time?

I think I might go with Mossyrock's answer: Spencer abd Blakeslee box(es).  Another reason to prefer the increased bullet weight and penetration is because sometimes they had to shoot the enemy horses.

Wouldn't mind having a platoon of Henry's right there beside me at the same time, though 

-Chris

[Sean Thornton]

That might mean you could only get prices like that if you were in the right place at the right time?

Just like today.  A friend of mine bought a new in the box Uberti Henry for $500 in .45 Colt just 2 months ago. The right place at the right time has not changed since the beginning of time. LOL 

[Stillwater]

I recently bought an unfired, ANIB, 1866 Winchester Saddle Ring Carbine, for $450.00.

Bill

[Henry4440]

  You can also check John D. McAulay’s book Civil War Breech loading Rifles for the same information. 

You are right!!

After you mention the book, i went staight to my bookshelf and what did you think i found.That book!!

Buying a Henry in Washington for $7.62 and selling it in San Antonio for $95.00.


 

[Tascosa Joe]

You are right!!

After you mention the book, i went staight to my bookshelf and what did you think i found.That book!!

Buying a Henry in Washington for $7.62 and selling it in San Antonio for $95.00.


 

The American Way!  "Little man picks the cotton, big man gets the money".  Bob Wills 1941.

[Stillwater]

The American Way!  "Little man picks the cotton, big man gets the money".  Bob Wills 1941.

The line from the song you mentioned, is from Bob Wills' hit song, "Take me back to Tulsa."

Bill

[Driftwood Johnson]

I recently bought an unfired, ANIB, 1866 Winchester Saddle Ring Carbine, for $450.00.

Bill

I recently bought a 1919 vintage Winchester 1892 Saddle Ring Carbine chambered for 44-40 for $450. Yup, sometimes you are in the right place at the right time. Not exactly unfired, but the bore looks like it just left the factory.

I know, nothing to do with the Henry discussion, but I thought we were wandering to good buys.

[Stillwater]

I recently bought a 1919 vintage Winchester 1892 Saddle Ring Carbine chambered for 44-40 for $450. Yup, sometimes you are in the right place at the right time. Not exactly unfired, but the bore looks like it just left the factory.

I know, nothing to do with the Henry discussion, but I thought we were wandering to good buys.

Good buy... I paid $450.00 for my NIB 1866 Winchester in .44-40. I think you got the better deal.  Which makes me very happy you got your rifle.

Wanna make 50% profit on the '92? 

Bill

[Shotgun Franklin]

Time and place are everything. I bought a Taylor & Co '73 rifle in .45 Colt for $600 total walk out the door with a lifetime warranty. God is Good.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Wanna make 50% profit on the '92?

Nope.

[Stillwater]

Nope.

You're pretty hard to deal with... How about 100% profit?

I don't blame you even a little bit. When you have something that good, I wouldn't let go of it for anything..!

I just bought an original 1903-A3 Springfield by Remington. It is still in the cosmoline, and still in the original 1960 shipping container. I have been offered some spectacular prices from hard core Springfield collectors. Although I have two other Springfield's, I won't let this one go either.

Bill