Brass Or Steel Henry .327?

[DPris]

I'll word this carefully, so as not to give anybody the wrong idea.

Just as an example of how strong Henry's brass is, as a part of in-house tests they took a Big Boy sample and modified the chamber to accept a certain hi-powered handgun round that used the same bullet diameter, but exceeded pressures established for the normal caliber by several thousand.
Not merely a hotter load in the caliber, and well beyond a proof load.

Tied the gun down, stood back, touched off one round.

The brass held.
The steel BARREL expanded beyond its normal elasticity recovery & stayed expanded.

Now- necessary commentary.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT'S OK TO DO THIS AT HOME!

THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT'S OK TO REAM OUT A BIG BOY'S CHAMBER TO SHOOT CALIBERS IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO SHOOT!

THIS DOES NOT MEAN BIG BOY BARRELS ARE WEAK!
THIS DOES NOT MEAN HENRY BARRELS ARE INFERIOR IN ANY WAY!

The factory builds a fudge factor into their guns, with a safety margin engineered into them that makes them stronger than they actually need to be.

The guns are designed to handle the pressures involved in the calibers they're chambered for.
And they do.

Steel formulations in rifles, and not just Henry, can have the same types of elasticity under certain pressures that you see in brass cartridge cases.

On firing, the brass swells slightly, and typically returns to somewhere near its original size.

In the case of the one test round that expanded the barrel diameter slightly, where that barrel was designed to safely handle proof-load pressures in its normal chambering, slightly lower pressures could have possibly expanded it slightly & allowed it to return to size, while slightly higher pressures could have blown it.

The takeaway here is not that you can fiddle a brass Big Boy out of its normal chambering and take it up to power levels that'll kill bulldozers, but that the brass receiver is more than strong enough to handle what it was designed to handle, in its factory chambering.
Denis

[DPris]

Jim,
The term "solid" was used to differentiate the true "brass" in the centerfires from the "pseudo-brass" or Brasslite coating on the rimfires.
Sorry about the confusion.

The brass color you see on a Henry centerfire extends all the way through the receiver.
The brass color you see on a Henry rimfire does not.

The centerfires are "solid brass".
The rimfires are not, and not even brass at all.

As far as the brass alloy goes, yes- brass in itself is an alloy.
The formulation that Henry uses (proprietary) contains more of other elements added to increase strength.

I won't say what they are, but I was surprised that there's still enough "brass" (as such) to retain the gold color & age like brass does.

It is a solid construct, no layering, no plating.
Best I can say, hope it helps.

It's just a much more sophisticated mix than merely copper & zinc.
Denis

[Jim Watson]

Yes, there are a multitude of copper alloys, some quite strong.
If you throw in other stuff besides zinc, it is more usually called a bronze, but hey, if you can keep the yaller color, everybody knows what brass looks like.

[FrankenMauser]

Brass is copper-zinc alloy, right?
So how do you have "just enough brass" in a "solid alloy"? Are there other constituents or is it a layered or plated item?

There are many other things that can be alloyed with copper and zinc, but still qualify as "brass".
And there are many different alloy percentages that still qualify as "brass".

Gilding Metal, for example, is a brass alloy. ...But contains just 5% zinc. It's 95% copper, but still "brass".
Muntz Metal, on the other hand, contains up to 45% zinc, plus some iron; but is still considered "brass".

Other "brass" alloys often include manganese, arsenic, tin, lead, nickel, aluminum, silicon, and phosphorus.


There are some "brass" casting alloys out there with such high zinc content (sometimes over 50%), backed by high percentages of tin, aluminum, lead, and/or nickel, that it is amazing that the alloys retain a brass color at all.

[DPris]

Easier to market it as "brass" than something like "A multi-elemented formulation of eight different metals which are stronger than conventional brass alloys but still retain a golden brass color."

We can all still call it brass.
Denis

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by turkeestalker

Looking at the Henry in .327 and can't decide which to get, so I'd like some opinionated input.

I'm not interested in the shorter barreled carbine, I want the 20" version.
I really like the octagon barrel and brass receiver, but just can't get past that chrome fuel door on a rusted mid 80s Silverado looking brass barrel band.
Just really rubs me the wrong way.
Besides, the original Henrys didn't even have a hand guard much less any need for a barrel band.
The Big Boy Steel is cleaner looking with the forearm cap, and certainly useful with the sling swivels, but a thick rubber butt pad on a 7.5 lb .327 lever action? Why?
That just really rubs me the wrong way too.

So... seeing as how I doubt that Henry would build a Franken-Boy to suit me, and I am being a picky twit...
Which variant have others chosen, or would others choose?
Sway me one direction or the other please.

The Big Boy is more of a copy of a Marlin 336 with a straight stock, oct bbl, brass like receiver, and it's wood forearm (sans the loading gate) rather than the Winchester Model 1866 which did have a wood forearm, rd bbl, and a side loading gate (which is an update of the 1860 Henry without a side loading gate or wood forestock but with an oct bbl).

Henry Repeating Arm's Big Boy.



Marlin 336.



My suspicion is that Henry Repeating Arms' Big Boy model leverguns don't have a side loading gate because of a patent infringement issue with the Marlin 336 design first produced in 1942 and still protected somewhat.

Contrast the above with Henry Repeating Arm's copy of a Henry 1860 carbine. Note it doesn't have either a forestock or a loading gate.



My Uberti copy of a Winchester 1866 Yellowboy carbine. The major advantage of the '66 was the addition of the side loading gate which allowed the inclusion of a wood forestock. That, and the introduction of the 44-40 centerfire cartridge in lieu of the 44 Rimfire cartridge the 1860 Henry was chambered in. (BTW, the 1866 was the very first rifle produced under the newly taken over by clothing manufacturer, Oliver Winchester, and renamed the Winchester Repeating Arms Company.)

[TruthTellers]

All I can say is in December somebody said something about a possible "all weather" model in .327 and that's got me thinking about holding off on a steel .327 with 20 inch barrel.

[DPris]

The Henry centerfires have not had side gates entirely because Imperato decided he didn't previously want side gates.
It wasn't a protected patent issue, and there's no patent protection on a side gate today at all.
Denis

[TruthTellers]

Denis, how much more would it cost Henry to manufacture their Big Boy rifles with a gate?

[Hawg]

The major advantage of the '66 was the addition of the side loading gate which allowed the inclusion of a wood forestock. That, and the introduction of the 44-40 centerfire cartridge in lieu of the 44 Rimfire cartridge the 1860 Henry was chambered in.

The 1866 was never chambered in 44-40. It was originally chambered for the .44 Henry Flat rimfire that the 1860 Henry was chambered for. Towards the end of production it was chambered for the same cartridge but centerfire.

[Jim Watson]

I saw a picture in an old gunzine of an 1860 Henry with a foreend and a slip tube magazine very like the current crop. Nobody knew where it came from, no claim that it was a prototype or done by a famous gunsmith for a famous frontiersman; just there it was.

[3Crows]

I would buy a Henry rimfire if it were steel but I am sorry I will have to pass on the Zakmat or whatever it is. The tube loading, chunky centerfires, no thanks. But I would prefer steel if I were to settle my eyes on one.

3C

[Hawg]

I would buy a Henry rimfire if it were steel but I am sorry I will have to pass on the Zakmat or whatever it is.

I've got a Golden Boy that I've had for over 12 years. No problems out of it at all. You couldn't give me a Marlin 39A or a Winchester 9422 for it.

[TruthTellers]

There are a lot of .22 LR firearms out there that use Zamak as the receiver in rifles or slide in handguns and they function fine and last a long time. .22 is not a high stress cartridge on firearms.

Out of all the .22 guns I have, were I to buy a Golden Boy, it would probably be the highest quality .22 in my possession.

[DPris]

Once the initial re-design was done & integrated into production processes, it wouldn't cost much more at all to incorporate a side gate into the guns.

Maybe one of these days we'll be able to compare pricing side by side.
Then you'll know.

And on the Zamak 5- my GB has over 28,000 load & shoot as-fast-as-I-could rounds through it.

It was two STEEL parts that had to be replaced.
The Zamak is holding up fine, and the gold coating is still even intact.

There is NO reason to turn up your nose at that material.
Denis

[Jim Watson]

Henry has the advantage of being designed for the material, it is not an ersatz substitute on an existing product.

[DPris]

For the design applications used, the material is more than adequate.
It's way past time for snobs to stop avoiding a Henry rimfire simply because it's not all steel.
Denis

[TruthTellers]

Denis, the way you word things and the insider knowledge you have along with pm's we've exchanged has me wondering about a great... many... things.

[DPris]

There are, in fact, a great many things TO wonder about.

Keep an eye on Henry this year.
Denis

[FrankenMauser]

It's way past time for snobs to stop avoiding a Henry rimfire simply because it's not all steel.

I'll hold my nose high while grabbing the Marlin 39a.


...And secretly sneaking the Henry H001 out, too.


Steel is better.

[DPris]

Only if you believe it is.
Denis

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by Hawg

The 1866 was never chambered in 44-40. It was originally chambered for the .44 Henry Flat rimfire that the 1860 Henry was chambered for. Towards the end of production it was chambered for the same cartridge but centerfire.

My mistakes, you are correct. I'm thinking of the 1873 Winchester (I've got one of those also.) which introduced the 44-40.

I don't have anything against the Henrys, I've had an H001 carbine for years and it's a nice light fun 22lr that the kids in our NRA training classes love to shoot. It, along with the matched 10/22s my wife and I got back in 1973 shortly after we got married are nice but I'm not into shooting 22lr much anymore.

[turkeestalker]

Ok...
I can definitely see how it could seem like lugging a Subaru around after hefting it for an extended period of time, but danged if she ain't pretty! Hubba hubba!!

I understand that the shiny brass wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, (may not be mine if I were to buy a second Henry), but it is absolutely beautiful and I'm very happy with my choice.
Thank you all for the input.

I may yet get a blued barrel band, we'll see... now to get some range time in!

Added: Interestingly I did not wind up with the rifle that I chose, the woman doing the shipping actually shipped the wrong rifle out. I had a 'media moment' with seeing something shiny just as the proceed came through on the 4473 and I wound up with the 20" brass in my name.
When I phoned my guy about it, he credited me back a buck fifty to avoid the hassle of doing the return... that helped in making me happy with me 'choice'!

Just gives me an excuse to some day maybe make the second one a steel carbine and then my sons won't argue when I'm gone over who gets the lever in .327!