Which Cal. for a Henry ?

[Richard Schimenti]

Gentleman, I am considering the purchase of A Uberti 1860 Henry. My question is this. Whic cal., the 45 long colt cal or 44/40 cal would be the best to purchase ?

i do not plan on live firing other than a trip to the range to see what it can do.

my intention is the use in skirmishing at the reenactments I attend.

I do not reload now, but i may have to start, so any help along the lines of cartridge selection and reloading would be greatly appreciatged.

[harley_davis]

Cpl,
In my experience, I have found the .44WCF (.44-40) to function better, both with live and blanks. The main reason is the small rim that you find on the .45 Colt case versus the rim on the .44WCF. I have experienced and witnessed this time and again on the firing line at CAS events wherein the extractor fails to fully engage the rim on the .45 Colt. The extractor is then pulled right over the edge of the rim, leaving a case firmly in the chamber. The toggle action of the Henry & early Winchester repeaters was not designed for the small rim available on the .45 (by smaller rim I do not mean the overall diameter of the rim but the rim available between the edge of the rim and the case wall, compare the two rounds and you will see this). I recall a fellow with a Rossi made Winchester 1892 some years ago that had a real bad habit of that. Also, the taper design of the .44 seems to seal better in the chamber and there is less fouling blown back into the chamber. That fouling can further impend proper extraction of the .45 case. It seems to be worse with the .45 blanks. Of course, if you are using a 5 in 1 blank, there is less sealing that occurs in the .45 chamber since the 5-1 blank is tapered to function in the tapered chambers of the .44WCF & .38WCF as well the straight wall .45 Colt, .44 Special & Magnum. I have had very few issues with extraction in my Henry chambered in .44-40 however, on the occasion I have used my 1866 Winchester .45 Colt, it happens all to frequently. My weapons are 10 years old and I suppose I do not know if the currently manufactured weapons have been updated to correct the issue. As far as your reloading is concerned, the opposite is true. The .45 Colt is much easier to handload. The .44WCF is quite fussy in terms of proper crimp on the lead bullet. I strongly recommend the use of a factory crimp die in the final step of the reload process. I learned how to reload a .44WCF when I breifly used a Ruger chambered in that caliber. They purposely made their chambers so close to factory ammo specs to discourage hand loading. If you can build a .44WCF to chamber in the older Ruger Vaquero, it will feed like butter in your Henry. Best of luck, course, this is all just one fellers opinion.
I remain, respectfully,

[7thNJcoA]

i second the 44/40 as the better of 2 for blank firing you can easily modify it to shoot easily made 44 mag blanks it makes it alot cheaper and more fun when you empty a magazine tube into a charging reb

[major]

Richard
Check out this article on “Reenacting with a Henry” at: http://www.9thnycavalry.webeditor.com/henry_article.html It should answer a lot of your questions about making ammo.
Also you might want to consider using a Spencer instead of a Henry as there were about 90,000 more Spencers in the war than the 10,000 Henrys. Here is an article about that also. http://www.9thnycavalry.webeditor.com/spencer_article.html
Terry

[fifthnycav]

Pm Sent>>>>>

[Bob Taylor]

Terry
I read your articles, very interesting. Which do you prefer the Henry or the Spencer and why? I am thinking of buying one of them.
Bob

[major]

Bob
I gota tell you that I prefer the Spencer. Both guns have there good and bad points. They both cost about the same new. You definitely get more fire power with the Henry as it can hold 16 in the magazine as apposed to only 7 in the Spencer. But the barrel gets very hot with the Henry and because there isn’t any forstock you have to wear a glove. But even with the glove it sometimes got so hot that I had to hold it by the sling.
It is possible to see just how many rounds you have left in the magazine of a Henry and top of the magazine if you need to. With the Spencer you can top it off but you have to be able to keep track of how many you have shot. It is best just to shoot the magazine empty and then put a new tube full in.
One of the shot comings to the Henry magazine is that it is more delicate than the Spencer. If you drop the gun on the magazine you run the risk of denting the tube and if that happens the magazine is put out of commission. I have never seen this happen but there are reports form the 1860 about this problem. They also reported dirt in the magazine causing problems. But again I have not seen this in my experience with reproduction Henrys.
The Spencer has a forstock and a bar & ring for mounted use and the Henry does not.
Making the ammo for the Henry is easier but more expensive than the Spencer. Henry blanks are about 25 cents each and Spencer blanks are 15 cents each or less if you can get free 410 hulls.
Spencers are much easier to clean than the Henrys and there are fewer moving parts in the Spencer to break or get lost.
The Henry tends to cycle better with less jamming problems but the carrier block can get gunned up and freeze on you. A little water from your canteen in the receiver and it will free up again but now you have water in the works that needs to be cleaned out later. Sometimes the 410 shells have a problem finding the chamber when cycling the action on a Spencer but the gas seal is very good and the receiver and action stay very clean.
Plus when all is said and done the Spencer is more historically correct. There were about 100,000 Spencers used during the war and only 10,000 Henrys.
If you have the time to wait the new Spencers in .45LC will be out in a month or two and they may work even better than the ones in 44-40 do.

[Bob Taylor]

Major
Thanks for all the info. You seem to have a handle on this Henry and Spencer stuff. I am not in any hurry so I think I will take your advice and wait and see how the 45’s work. Will you be posting more info when you find out about the 45’s?
Bob

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Plus when all is said and done the Spencer is more historically correct. There were about 100,000 Spencers used during the war and only 10,000 Henrys.

True, unless the time and place of one's impression had one Henry armed.

But not true if one is talking about the M1865 Spencer Carbine.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

(Actual Henry and Spencer "calibres"' noted...but not mentioned as part of the discussion.)

[major]

Major
Thanks for all the info. You seem to have a handle on this Henry and Spencer stuff. I am not in any hurry so I think I will take your advice and wait and see how the 45’s work. Will you be posting more info when you find out about the 45’s?
Bob

Bob
I am hoping to get a chance to examine one when I go the N-SSA Nationals in early October. If I can I will report my findings here on this board.
Major

[major]

Hallo!



True, unless the time and place of one's impression had one Henry armed.

But not true if one is talking about the M1865 Spencer Carbine.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

(Actual Henry and Spencer "calibres"' noted...but not mentioned as part of the discussion.)

Curt
What I meant by that remark is that it would be more likely for someone to find a Spencer armed soldier in the war than to find one with a Henry. You are correct in pointing out that location and time period would also be a factor but in general the Spencers were more numerous than Henrys.
The reproduction Spencers being produced by Armisport are actually the 1865 version but with out very close examination and the use of calipers and other measuring devices it is hard to tell them from an 1862 model.
The calibers they are produce in today were probably tailored for the CAS people. But this has opened up a new impression venue for Civil War reenactors as these smaller calibers make it easier to make affordable blanks.
Unless I am just out to have fun, I tend to use my Spencer for late war impressions and I use my Sharps & Hankins for early war.

[killerreb]

my belief (which is often wrong) is simple, whatever caliber is true to the period is what the weapon should be kept at. call me purist, or any number of other things, but if it is to be used at events, why would'nt you want it as true to correct as possible?...

steve hutton
caliber nazi.

[Frenchie]

The reproduction Spencers being produced by Armisport are actually the 1865 version but with out very close examination and the use of calipers and other measuring devices it is hard to tell them from an 1862 model.

Well, that, and the importer/manufacturer's name, Italian proof marks, date codes, etc., but mostly all you need to do is look at the ejector, which is completely different.

Spencer Shooting Society at CAS City http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?board=35.0

[major]

Frenchie
Yes, the Lane extractor is a post war item but it is necessary because when using the smaller calibers the blade and paddle types are just not reliable.
Because these carbines are governed by FFL regulations the marks can’t be removed. They are considered by BATF as being modern firearms and do not fall under the category of antique. It would be nice to be able to defarb them but we have to live in a modern anti-gun world that makes that impossible. To some extent we have to think of them as stage props for use by us reenACTORS.

[7thNJcoA]

my belief (which is often wrong) is simple, whatever caliber is true to the period is what the weapon should be kept at. call me purist, or any number of other things, but if it is to be used at events, why would'nt you want it as true to correct as possible?...

steve hutton
caliber nazi.


If we were to keep it PEC it would be a 44 rimfire with a dual striking firing pin. That would be all fine and dandy just one thing! It would cost you a fortune to reenact with a 44 rimfire b/c it is near impossible to get the ammo for it.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Herr Terry, agreed...
(Although a two inch difference in barrel length might not require caliphers... ;-) :-) )

"my belief (which is often wrong) is simple, whatever caliber is true to the period is what the weapon should be kept at. call me purist, or any number of other things, but if it is to be used at events, why would'nt you want it as true to correct as possible?..."

Herr Steve..

IMHO, sometimes, what is, is. (for better or worse,or in between)
Meaning, IMHO, the reproduction Spencer carbine was made and marketed for the post Civil War fast growing Cowboy Action Shooting (CAS) and SASS folks- so a "M1865" works, but the Italians made the choice to offer it in popular (and easy cartridge available) .44 S & W Russian and .45 Schofield (with a "promise" to do the "historically correct" .56-50 later- which now they are fulfilling).
(And because initially the .56 Spencer calibre was "outside" of CAS
/SASS calibre requirements)

The M1860 Henry and M1866 Improved Henry is/was more complicated, because no one makes .44 Henry Rimfire cartridges that the Henry and "Yellowboy Winchester" were made in.

So, IF the only reproduction of a Spencer carbine is in brass centerfire rather than copper rimfire, and in "M1865" configuration, should it be "denied" to CW folks because of model, calibre, and cartridge?
IMHO, that is a personal Mental Picture choice lads make for themselves. And as with 4th Model P1853 Enfields, and Enfields in .580, .581, and even .583 calibre instead of .577...

"...but if it is to be used at events, why would'nt you want it as true to correct as possible?..."

On the Sliding Scale of Imperfection we all are on, sometimes "wanting" and "having" are separated by a few split hairs of thousands of an inch or so- and sometimes the Spencer or Henry we "get" is only "as true to correct as is possible" to have.

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Who would prefer copper percussion caps and cartridges and not brass Mess

[killerreb]

all true all true..i kneel before the voices of reason :)

steve hutton

[Frenchie]

FYI, from http://www.civilwarguns.com/spencer3.html

Cartridge Confusion

There is a lot of confusion with regard to Spencer cartridges. This is due in no small part to their peculiar designations. Much has been printed about Spencer calibers and cartridges, a large portion of it is not correct. At the time of their introduction, it hadn't occurred to anyone to name cartridges by the caliber of the barrel for which they were intended. Therefore the first metallic ammunition was designated simply by its body diameter. Thus the cartridge that fits the Model 1863 rifle and carbine was called the "Number 56 Cartridge", since the weapon for which it is intended had a chamber of about .56". The actual barrel caliber is .52". When a 50 caliber round was first investigated, it became obvious that the chamber diameter designation was not going to work. The new round would also be .56" in body diameter. At that point, another designation was introduced. This method uses the diameter at the head and mouth of the cartridge. Thus the No. 56 became the 56-56 and the new 50 cal. round became the 56-52.

To add even more confusion, Springfield was also developing a 50 cal. round for the reduced bore M-1865 Spencer and, supposedly, all future carbines. This one was a great improvement over the commercial ammunition then being produced. It featured a cartridge case that covers and protects the bullet's grease grooves. In a foreshadowing of future designations based on barrel caliber, this became the 56-50. It was also known as the 50 U.S. Carbine and, in spite of its government roots, the 50 Spencer.

There was considerable debate during development of the 56-52 and 56-50 between Christopher Spencer and Steven V. Benet of Frankford (incidentally, father of the poet of the same name). Benet held that the bullet was better protected by a longer cartridge case. Spencer maintained that the heavy crimp used would damage the bullet's nose or even cause it to strip, thus ruining accuracy. The result was that there were two cartridges available for 50 caliber Spencers. The two rounds are different but interchangeable. The 56-50 is the first generally issued inside lubricated rimfire cartridge. The bullet's grease grooves are covered by the cartridge case. In the 56-52, The bullet's grease grooves are exposed. The Army almost exclusively issued the Springfield designed 56-50 ammunition, even if it was commercially made.

Civil War contract arms were all originally made in 52 caliber with 6 groove rifling. Over 11,000 of these were refinished and converted at Springfield to 50 caliber. Most also had Stabler's patent magazine cutoff added to allow use as a single shot. This work was done from late 1865 through the early 1870's. The conversions can easily be distinguished by their three groove rifled barrel liners. All other military models are 50 caliber. While these are the two common calibers of Spencer firearms, other chamberings exist. A few very rare and valuable sporting rifles were produced just after the Civil War, mostly from condemned parts. The greater number of these used a bottlenecked 44 caliber cartridge based on the 56-52 case. There are also a very few early prototypes in various small caliber chamberings, particularly 38 and 46 straight.