Thread 64061297

I never really got the seethe over the lack of a king's gate on the older Henry rifles. It's not the dangerous loading system from the OG henry rifles and yes, if I was facing a bunch of injuns, I'd want a king's gate. But most henry rifles are used for plinking or hunting. For range use it's a non issue. .22 rifles literally had tube fed mags just like the henry rifles since the late 1800s and if it was an issue they would have fixed it long before the 10/22. For hunting, how often do you top off your mag mid hunt? hell can you even top off most of the newer detachable mag hunting rifles without dropping the mag? I don't think the unloading is a big issue because when I try to unload my henry by dumping the tube instead of running the action it jams because the one thing that jams it is trying to cycle a round from the tube/elevator into the chamber without spring pressure from the mag tube spring.
The only real problem a lack of a loading gate gives is if you are doing cow boy competition shooting. But I'd assume most of those guys buy a nicer gun than a henry

>>64061297 (OP)
I never really cared and probably would just buy a Marlin instead or something instead but what really fucking annoys me is how NO ONE makes a 22 with a king's gate or any other loading gate. Colt did it back in fucking 1887 and we still don't have another god damn 22 that has a loading gate, especially considering the benefit of being able to have a full-ish length tube and a silencer due to not needing the extra room to take the insert out the front. And back to the point of the thread, as much as I think the nu-Henry rifles look silly with both, it is the best of both worlds. Load easy, dump easy.

>>64061384
I'm assuming the loading gate .22s must not have worked well if we have like 130 years of tube .22s and no one went back to the loading gate.
Really old pre 39a marlin .22s used loading gates

>>64061431
I bet it was just a patent thing. I'm not sure how the guts of a lever action 22 would work around a gate but it can't be too hard. I think the thing you'd have to worry about most is making the bullet loose in the crimp of the case on rimfire and the colt method seems to largely avoid ever putting sideways pressure on the bullet unlike a king's gate potentially could. It only has to put pressure on the rim as it jumps past the spring. You do have to cut and put a flare+break in the tube though IIRC.

>>64061297 (OP)
>I never really got the seethe over the lack of a king's gate on the older Henry rifles.
Not having a loading gate for a tube mag is objectively inferior and objectively less convenient, it's for the exact same reason virtually all shotguns with tube mags let you load them from the rear end.

Loading at the front of the tube is silly, it literally only makes sense for if you're making an actual replica of the real 1860 Henry, which is a minority of what modern Henry does (also having zero connections to Benjamin Tyler Henry or the company, by the way).
There's great reasons why the 1866 Winchester took off more than its predecessor ever could.

>But most henry rifles are used for plinking or hunting
Gate is more satisfying and practical for both, I can load one round at the time from the receiver end at my own leisure.
It also just feels better.

>For range use it's a non issue. .22 rifles literally had tube fed mags just like the henry rifles since the late 1800s
If they worked out a good loading gate for .22 rimfire lever-actions, I'd actually be interested in one.

>>64061384
Yep.

>>64061431
I'm assuming that it was to keep these rifles cheap, as that was one of the big selling points.
You couldn't really do a King's style one with .22 because of the weak bullet crimp, but that's not the only way to do one.

>>64061453
If you look at the difference between the 1860 and 1866, King's design was actually incredibly simple, it really just is a hole in the side of the receiver with the springloaded flap, so you can reach to load the tube from the back.

>>64061526
>If they worked out a good loading gate for .22 rimfire lever-actions, I'd actually be interested in one.
They had them in the 1800s and got rid of them because they sucked
>Not having a loading gate for a tube mag is objectively inferior and objectively less convenient, it's for the exact same reason virtually all shotguns with tube mags let you load them from the rear end.
It literally does not matter for hunting or range shooting. And the henry tube loading is better than the 1860 tube loading.
If anything it's faster because you aren't fucking with the King's gate

>>64061453
>I bet it was just a patent thing
zero chance it was a patent thing. How long do patents last, 20 years? Colt lightnings have a king's gate. Marlins have Kings gates but they got rid of them on .22s

I don't care if it's impractical, I want one for plinking and range use.
It's cool, I go out to the wilderness and shoot for fun, that's it.

>>64062002
I didn't say that it's impractical. I just said it's not a big deal if it's not on the gun

Bought a non loading gate Henry in 45 colt when Ohio began to allow straight wall cartridges for white tail hunting.

Since Ohio is also retarted and only allows 3 rounds in the gun while hunting I've never really needed the loading gate. Do I wish it had one? Yes. Is it arguably a stronger receiver without the loading gate? Possibly? (I load and shoot almost exclusively Ruger only 45 colt out of it)Is the receiver also slightly more closed to the elements without the loading gate? I guess so?

> Tl;Dr I think the older non loading gate Henry rifles are gtg for hunting I've shot a lot of deer with mine and never felt like I was missing out not having the loading gate. Any time I've had to shoot 3 times I can just single feed another round in and top up to 3 later..

>>64063761
I can't imagine the receiver is stronger than an 1892 receiver

>>64063951
I was meaning relative to a side gate loading Henry.

how are Henrys so consistently ugly?