Lever Action Strength

[Steve]

Myself and 2 friends were plinking with 45 Colt lever action rifles. 1 Henry, 1 Rossi, 1 Winchester.

I mentioned the fact that I was considering loading some near maximum brass jacketed rounds for the Henry. The Winchester guy said the Henry action is weak so I shouldn't do it. He is one that does not like his opinion questioned, so I did not mention the fact that the Henry and Rossi were functioning perfect and his Winchester was jamming a lot.

There is a lot of knowledge on this forum so I thought I would ask if someone here knows if there is truly any weakness in any of the actions. I have read and believe that lever actions are not as strong as bolt actions. But is it there any concern based in fact with shooting full power hunting loads in a Henry? Brass or steel action?

With my Henry Big Boy I have fired 500 rounds of 250 gr hard cast bullets with 6 gr of Tight Group and the action is really smoothed out nice.

[Fyodor]

When loading for a lever fun, always think of the design in the context of its time.

The Henry was designed for the .44 Henry rimfire cartridge, that used black powder as propellant. The design was reused unaltered in the 1866 and 1873 rifles. All these were originally designed to withstand the power of a black powder load with soft lead bullet.

The action in modern replicas is still the same. There is a reason why there are so few 66 or 73 rifles out there chambered in .357 mag, because the .38spl is about the hottest they can bear with smokeless powders. They won't blow up immediately, when you use hotter loads, but on the Henry and the 66 the brass received might stretch, and the toggle links get deformed. I have seen a 66 with more than one millimetre of headspace, that was caused by hit loads and jacketed bullets just a bit too large. The action still worked, and the owner was still shooting it regularly, but it clearly stretched, and I would not shoot it anymore.

The lever rifle meant to fire smokeless was the 92 and later models. They have a completely different action.

[Steve]

The Henry rifles he was referring to being weak are the new production models in general. 44 mag, 30-30, 45-70. 45 colt.

[62chevy]

The Henry rifles he was referring to being weak are the new production models in general. 44 mag, 30-30, 45-70. 45 colt.

Is yours made from brass? I've seen some made from steel but not sure what caliber.

[62chevy]

WoW the brass receiver is 2.5 times the cost of steel. got to thinking about it and the chamber is in the barrel but that said Henry does not say rated for +P like some guns do.

[Ranch Dog]

I've kind of wondered about the "modern" Henry's myself. Just how do they lock the bolt in place? Is it still the patented toggle joint or have they come up with a locking bolt of some kind.

Henry_locking_bolt.jpg

Looking at the user manuals for the H006, H009, & H010, it seems that they are using a locking bolt through a groove in the bolt similar to the Marlin 336. Never seen a Henry rifle but it looks different than they Henry toggle joint. The fact that the H006 rifles are chambered for the 357 Mag, and 44 Mag tells me that they are good to 36.0 KPSI and I wouldn't hesitate to use that in the 45 Colt.

Kind of the same thing with the H009. If they are going to chamber a rifle in 30-30 Win, then it is good to 42.0 KPSI. That leaves the H010 in 45-70 Govt. If the H009 is good to 42.0 KPSI, is the H010 good to go at the same? I doubt it. It all boils down to the thickness of the metal at the barrel threads and their match at the receiver port. Now back to the Marlins. This is why a 336 is not a 444 or a 1895. In fact, it is why an 1895 is not an 1895M or MR (the 450 Marlin). It is all in the barrel thread as that is what is going to hold up are let go under pressure.

I looked at the same in the Rossi Rio Grande series, comparing the 30-30 Win to the 45-70 Govt. Owning both, I could take some measurements and felt that the 45-70 Govt rifle was good to 35.0 KPSI and nothing more. that is where I've kept it and just for a WAG I would kind of figure the same for the H010.

[RBHarter]

I'm not a metallurgist just a mechanic.

The Henry or any 73' like design I wouldn't push past the normal basic loads . 18,000 psi tops use slower powders if you want to get something more out of them.

The 92' is another fish altogether . The 94 was slicker but I think the 92 and 96 were stronger.
The 92' comes in 454 , but those and the 44 mags are heat treated different . My 92' Rosschester will manage 454 lengths but the 454 is rated over 50,000 psi where the +P+ Colts run up to only 25,000 psi my hot Ruger loads are probably around 22kpsi.

I'm in the camp of if you want to run mag levels buy the mag and shoot the standards hot if you want but don't try to make a mag out of a standard.

There is a segment of our hobby that says "98s will shoot any cartridge you want to put in them" . I for 1 am not going to build a 460 S&W on a 1916 action built originally for the 7x57 not because I don't trust the design but because the cal is nearly doubled and for all intents firing proof loads at every shot. This also happens to be the same pressure relationship between the Colts and 454 ,actually the 454 triples pressure and doubles a Colts proof load.

[Ranch Dog]

Dang it, all this Henry talk has got me considering the H010 45-70 again! Please stop it, help me stop the madness!

[Steve]

Dang it, all this Henry talk has got me considering the H010 45-70 again! Please stop it, help me stop the madness!

I was eyeballing that rifle for quite some time, but for plinking 45-70 is too much of a powder hog for me to mess with.

[mikld]

Dang it, all this Henry talk has got me considering the H010 45-70 again! Please stop it, help me stop the madness!

Can't hep ya there Michael! I'm the last one to stop a firearm's purchase with logic (my wife once asked my why I was buying an "old antique rifle" [a Puma M92] and the best I could come up with was "Because...").