Tube loaders?

[.44 Cowboy]

First I would like to say hello to everyone with this being my first post. Next let's get to the question. So, tube loaders. I'm not too sure about them. I've only ever had gate loaders before and with Marlins issues I'm not sure I want to chance it. I'm not interested in used fire arms and I don't like top ejected cases so that counts out Rossi and Winchester 94's, and browning doesn't make a lever gun in the caliber I'm looking for. So I was looking at a Henry but for the life of me I just can't seem to get past the fact that they are tube loaders. It just seems cheap. It a $700 rifle and it's like they cheaped out on the magazine. I'm use to seeing tubes on cheap .22's not higher end big bore rifles. So I guess my question is are the tubes on Henry's durable and does the spring in the tube hold up to very frequent use? Does the tube get loose and pop out easily when there is only one or two rounds left in the magazine? And finally are there ANY other side eject gate loaders out there I can get in .44? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.

[CLYA]

I own two of the newer Marlins made in 2016, and one Henry 45-70. The Marlins are a 45-70 and 336SS 30-30. If you buy a Marlin, check it out first. I didn't chance it, because I did go over them, before purchase. Was actually going to look at a Henry, when I saw the Marlins after reading the horror stories as well as pics. Since the 45-70 worked out so well, I bought the 30-30 a few months later. I now have hundreds of rounds through each of these rifles, and not a single failure. Financially only possible, due to reloading.

It appears that a few years back, Henry had to do some redesign on mag tube. Must be durable now, because mine works every time, and never gets loose. As far as I know, Henry uses that tube mag, just because the originals did (even though they're not the same company). Looking at the parts count, and what's required for each rifle, I can't see the Henry tube as being any cheaper to produce. It does add a bit of weight.

IMO, the stock finish on the Henry looked better than the Marlins. Some oil finish really spruced them up. Marlin has finally got the metal to wood fit taken care of. Just check the one you want to buy first. Henry has a lighter trigger, and the action was smoother. However, it doesn't take much polishing, to make the Marlin actions smooth. I get in there, and tear them apart, for cleaning and any required lube, before firing, anyway.

All three rifles are accurate. I put a Skinner sight on the Marlins, and left the semi-buckhorn on the Henry. Just scoped the 30-30, to see how accurate it could be, for a lever. I was impressed with the results yesterday.

I still prefer the side gate loading, but like having all three rifles.

[T. O'Heir]

"...they are tube loaders..." So were the originals. Hence they're on the new rifles. Spencers had tube mags too. So are and were Win 94's.
"...side eject gate loaders..." Marlin's 1894. Steep MSRP at $1,041 though. There's a new model they say is for .44 Mag and Special with an MSRP of $789. These also have tube mags with gate loading.

[Joe-ker]

I agree with you cowboy, I'm not that crazy about the tube load on my Henry. But that's pretty much where my complaints end.

As for your question about them working loose, I guarantee that wouldn't be an issue on mine. In fact I found it was too hard for me to twist it loose. I removed the factory o ring and replaced it with a thinner one which made it easier for me.

[Danoobie]

I like the gate loaders, but I don't let tube loaders distract me too
much. Any tube mag streamlines the shape of the rifle, making it
easier to tote, in general.

[JWT]

I prefer gate loaders but the Henry is such a smooth action it's impossible to ignore.

[kenny53]

I feel my Henry 22 is robust rifle. I was shooting it today, it always puts a smile on my face. They are great guns.

[briandg]

I believe that the 94 is a side eject.

They really aren't saving any money, I don't think, the tube is already there, the cost of killing out the action and fitting a gate can't be too bad, building a removable tube can't be too bad.

To me, there is one, just one difference. Do I want to jam my pistol rounds, with my big fingers, through that tiny gate? NO! That causes pain. Would I like to feed rounds into a tube? I can't see much wrong with that. I see that with a gate, a single round can be fed in to fill the magazine after firing a shot, but using that as a deciding factor makes no sense.

Each rifle uses a tube and a spring and they fire identically. Gate, or gate free? That's what I see and I hate gates.

[JWT]

The 94 is a top eject.

[Hawg]

Loading a tube from the front doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as side eject does. I do love my Henry Golden Boy but I'm more forgiving of .22's.

[briandg]

Jmt, technically and physically it has a topside opening, but it was changed in the early eighties. The fired rounds do not eject upwards, they are thrown out to the side. Winchester made that change so people could use a scope.

So, since it doesn't eject up through the top, but actually sideways through the top, it's more complicated than it seems.

[9x19]

I actually prefer the Henry setup to the Marlin.

I don't always fire every round in the magazine before heading to the house, and I prefer pulling the tube and dumping the contents to running every round through the action.

[briandg]

Yep

[Dufus]

I actually prefer the Henry setup to the Marlin.

I don't always fire every round in the magazine before heading to the house, and I prefer pulling the tube and dumping the contents to running every round through the action.

My feelings as well. I learned to shoot with a tube loading 22LR when I was a pup back in the 50s. It was a Remington Fieldmaster and my Dad still has the rifle. In all those years there has never been a problem of any sort. Many squirrel, cotton tails, jack rabbits, armydillers, and snakes have met their demise from it. Accurate as all get out.

That is one of many reasons that I love my Henry Rifles. I would never think of getting rid of any of them.

[Mobuck]

"Gate loader" allows topping up the magazine any time you're not actually firing which the tube loaders don't. If that's not a factor, I don't see much diff other than the tube loader reduces the number of cuts and dirt entry points in the receiver.

[Model12Win]

They use tubes on the Henrys for the sake of tradition, just like on their old rifles. They have been making the same design for over 150 years. It harkens back to the old ways, and is much safer to unload this way. It's also a real hit with the youngsters and those youngsters at heart who are used to the tube fed .22s as well.

[Targa]

I like them both and although I am partial to the look of a loading gate there is something to be said for sparing a worn out thumb...

[Tony Z]

Neither was an issue to me, until I started seeing on forums that it is an issue to others!

There are positives and negatives to both, but neither method would in and of itself, be the determining reason for buying or not buying a firearm. I'm not really a hunter anymore, except for some PA small game, but when I started moving from deer hunting, I was using a Ruger #1 and a muzzleloader, so the need for "topping off" a magazine never entered my picture.

As far as modern lever actions go, The Henry's are much nicer finished than Marlin. The Winchesters, made by Miroku, are really nice, though half again the price of a Henry. So that leaves Henry as a middle of the road choice!

[bamaranger]

I think it's important to note that the early lever rifles (Henry rimfire .44, Volcanic, the Spencer butt mag) used a sliding tube/gateless mag. But the improvements to those designs, as done by Browning for Winchester, all used gated/fixed tubes ( Win. 66, 73 and all others 'till the '95) as did the competition, namely the Marlins. Perhaps there was some type of patent on the sliding tube, but my suspicion is that Browning/Marlin saw the gated/fixed tube as an improvement over the earlier designs.

I have no idea on the durability of the tube on the new Henry centerfire rifles. I know that the tube on my Henry lever .22 works fine is is no more or less of a problem than the tube on other .22 rifles. But my experience and observations on the tube feed .22s indicates that the tube is a bit of a liability:
-for one thing, the tube comes out of the rifle, and like a detachable mag of any kind, it may not be there when you want it to be

-likewise, since it is removeable, it can get damaged, as in bent, either when partially deployed, or when laying about loose

-the walls of the outer tube, when the inner is not present, are typically thinner and possibly more easily damaged if receiving a blow

-if used heavily, the retaining mechs on the .22 tubes can wear and be an issue, I dunno about the Henry centerfires retaining mechs.

Repair or replacement of the inner tube on .22's so equipped is not an unusual job in a shop I read, and the parts houses sell replacement tubes for a variety of models, so this stuff does happen, and I have seen some of the above myself. Not an issue on a fun gun, or even a small game gun like a .22 in this modern age. But if the centerfire was a tool depended on by users against hostile critters, locals, and folks in the wilds back in the day, all of the above were problems to be avoided.

I think the "modern Henry Rifle Co" is a great thing, and regardless of what they make how they make it, if the quality continues as it has, I'm all for them. But I would rather have a gated mag on my lever rifles.

[Areoflyer09]

Bamaranger - with the exception of wear and tear, I would most of the concerns you listed as human error issues instead a design issue.

For instance, why would the inner tube be laying about loose? If you aren't loading it, then it should be locked in place. If you are loading it then it should only be pulled far enough to expose the loading hole, and then put back when you are done. No reason for it be laying about loose. Human error.

Or why would the tube not be kept in the rifle and locked in place? I can't think of a reason the tube wouldn't be there when you need other than that person removed it for some reason. Human error.

Simarly, I suppose there stands that one could bend the inner tube if one is being careless while loading it. It's a simple brass tube, so that wouldn't be difficult if one tried. Human error.

The locks are steel on steel, so it should take quite a lot of use before here is an issue there. But this is wear and tear related, and all firearms experience this in some way.

Why would the magazine tribe be receiving a blow? More so, why would that happen without the inner tube in place? Sound like improper use or carelessness is occurring.

I'd argue that your concerns are less about issues with tube fed magazines and more about the carelessness of people.


OP- The gated loaders are faster for reloading. The importance of this will depend on your use, Henry rifles aren't popular with SAS for this reason. After that it comes down to personal preference. I like the Henry build quality, that they are US made products and tube loading doesn't bother me.

I have a .357 Big Boy. I love it. I picked mine up in May and have roughly 200 rounds through it so far. The tube stays nice and tight right up until it's empty.

[briandg]

Almost any issue involving durability between the two is negligible. Outer tubes of either one should be steel, both will be mounted to action and barrel well. If there were any genuine concerns about breakage of the follower it would be shipped with a flexible one. Since the Henry has a loading slot, if there were concerns about losing the follower, a dead simple lip on the road and retaining bolt on the tube would lock it in place.

Judging by my own tube fed rifles, gated and otherwise, I can see no concerns for either system, they are both subject to the same damage, both have the same strengths.

We could look at tube fed shotguns, and notice that for a variety of reasons, they are all gated. That brings up one of the only benefits that I have ever seen for a gated magazine. A person can sit on a duck blind, fire one of three rounds, and replace that round with minimal hand movement, leaving the gun in place.

[Cheapshooter]

The 94 is a top eject.

The Marlin 94 is side eject, and available in 44 Magnum as asked in the OP

And finally are there ANY other side eject gate loaders out there I can get in .44?

[Hawg]

They use tubes on the Henrys for the sake of tradition, just like on their old rifles. They have been making the same design for over 150 years.

The Henry Arms Co. was founded in 1996. The original Henry was made by the New Haven Arms Co. later Winchester Repeating Arms Co. There is no connection between the two altho they would like you to believe there is.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

So I guess my question is 1. are the tubes on Henry's durable and does the spring in the tube hold up to very frequent use?
2. Does the tube get loose and pop out easily when there is only one or two rounds left in the magazine?
3. And finally are there ANY other side eject gate loaders out there I can get in .44?

1. I'm sure it does otherwise you'd read allot of belly aching.

2. I highly doubt it. I assume there made to last a lifetime.

3. The last {side eject} lever 44 Mag I seen. A discontinued Ruger model 96. Got to shoot one once. I wasn't impressed.

[Cheapshooter]

3. The last {side eject} lever 44 Mag I seen. A discontinued Ruger model 96. Got to shoot one once. I wasn't impressed.

https://www.marlinfirearms.com/lever-action/model-1894
https://www.gunsamerica.com/95435865...New-in-Box.htm