Tweet
Hallo!
Is an iron mounted Uberti an excellent choice to consider for an authenticity-based impression? Even when one is portraying a unit researched and documented as armed with Henry rifles?
During the period just before the Civil War, the New Haven Arms Company was not doing so well.
And, as a number of CW era Confederate arms makers and would-be arms makers found out, it was hard to break into the business due to the lack of on-hand or working capital to buy a factor and machinery, as well as the high costs of getting skilled workers.
The previous Volcanic repeating rifle and pistol, and its “Rocket’ cartridge had done so well. Benjamin Tyler Henry, plant superintendent for Oliver Winchester had been working on improvements to the guns, but also for a more effective and powerful self-contained cartridge. Changes in the cartridge led to changes in the rifle.
In October 1860 Henry received a patent for a newly designed rifle, the “Henry.” As was common at the time, Winchester essentially “owned’ the patent which was assigned to Winchester for “free.” In return Henry riskily agreed to a share of the profits in place of his $1,500 a year salary as superintendent for the next five years, while sales were not great, it would be a wise gamble as Henry pulled in $15,000
(Henry’s big success would be Post War as Henry’s and evolving into “Winchesters” starting with the M1866 Improved Henry and the Model 1873.
For the first 5,000 rifles years, Henry would supervise Henry Rifle production as an “inside contractor’ within Winchester’s New Haven Arms Company factory. His pay would be the difference between the fixed cost of making them, and the profits. By the end of 1866, Henry would save the nearly bankrupt Winchester.
The “Iron Frame” (frame and butt plate) Henry is controversial. Without getting into the argument, it appears as though less than 400 Henry’s were made possibly for a contract with the U.S. Navy that never came to be, and were possibly made by Colt as the serial numbers overlap and are duplicated. Some argue that all of those were just processing and clerical errors at Winchester. Anyways iron framed Henry’s have a different butt trap contours rather than straight mortising made by different machinery, and their screws have thinner more beveled heads.
As with any firearm, the study of minute detail and evolutions can be complex, and here as in other areas, most times, there is a “typological’ system used. And while as other guns there can be early and late features, things do get complicated further by the introduction of later features on older guns as they transition new production and parts before all of the old were used up and gone.
In brief and to over generalize in a short post that would make up a book itself…
The reproduction Henry Rifle grew out of an early Navy Arms venture that after about 500 or so went to Italy to be produced by Uberti. What Uberti chose to do is to is replicate the late 1864 or more likely 1865 (based on rear sight configuration) ‘Type II” (sometimes AKA “Late Model”).
And because no one makes rimfire Henry ammunition they are not offered in their CW era .44 Henry RF, but rather .44 WCF (aka .44-40) or .45 Long Colt both being centerfire cartridges.
While an 1864 or 1865 rifle is best for 1864 or 1865 impressions, we as reenactors and living historians are forced into a bit of “dishonesty” when we use them as “close enough” for the Type I’s used in 1862 and 1863. IMHO, forced in the same way using a pretty much post War Spencer M1865 Carbine if one wants to use a Spencer at all.
HOWEVER, Uberti sought to expand their market by offering an “Iron Framed’ Henry by simply taking their 1865ish Type II “Brass Frame” and swapping an iron butt plate on it. There were no iron framed Type II Henry Rifles.
In brief and to over generalize…
How is an 1862 or 1863 Type I Henry different from an 1864 or 1865 Type II (the Uberti repro (without splitting hairs too finely)?
1. Curved butt plate rather than sharper crescent shaped.
2. Rounded butt plate heel rather than angular.
3. Slightly curved lower butt stock profiled versus straight.
4. Near vertical or abrupt or steeper angle comb at the wrist versus more angled toward the rear.
5. Loading lever without a tab and safety catch in the stock. Added about serial number 400ish (after Iron Frame production.) .
6. Two dovetails for the rear sight. One in front of the hammer, one in front of the receiver. Usually one is not used.
7. Slight bevel to the curve of the frame in front of the hammer versus a greater bevel more sloped forward.
8. Small diameter trigger retaining pin.
9. Four piece hickory take down cleaning rod in the butt trap versus steel in a smaller trap hole.
10. No sling swivels before May of 1863
11. Half-moon, or rounded front sight versus later tapered down with higher square rear.
12. Early style rear sight starting with calibration to 1,000 then down to 900 yards. To my knowledge there are no studies or data on rear sight changes although between the first in 1862, and the last in 1865/66, there were three added variations on the theme
Here is an image of an Iron Frame Henry Type I where the differences with a later Type II can be seen: curved butt, rounded butt plate heel, slightly curved or “perch belly” butt stock, near straight comb at wrist, rounded bevel of frame in front of hammer, rear and forward rear sight dovetails, spurless and catchless trigger guard lever, small trigger pin, and rounded front sight.
And last but not least, this is a very short over view post on a complicated subject. When it comes to Henry’s the old adage about No Absolutes can apply, and there are ‘variations on a theme.” But if one can condense and summarize things to be kinda/sorta “standard” items.
So, no, in History there “never was” an Iron Frame Type II, 1864/1865 Henry Rifle.” Which bends things and requires either a compromise or blind eye when also using late War Brass Frame Type II’s for 1862 and 1863 events.
Curt
Is an iron mounted Uberti an excellent choice to consider for an authenticity-based impression? Even when one is portraying a unit researched and documented as armed with Henry rifles?
During the period just before the Civil War, the New Haven Arms Company was not doing so well.
And, as a number of CW era Confederate arms makers and would-be arms makers found out, it was hard to break into the business due to the lack of on-hand or working capital to buy a factor and machinery, as well as the high costs of getting skilled workers.
The previous Volcanic repeating rifle and pistol, and its “Rocket’ cartridge had done so well. Benjamin Tyler Henry, plant superintendent for Oliver Winchester had been working on improvements to the guns, but also for a more effective and powerful self-contained cartridge. Changes in the cartridge led to changes in the rifle.
In October 1860 Henry received a patent for a newly designed rifle, the “Henry.” As was common at the time, Winchester essentially “owned’ the patent which was assigned to Winchester for “free.” In return Henry riskily agreed to a share of the profits in place of his $1,500 a year salary as superintendent for the next five years, while sales were not great, it would be a wise gamble as Henry pulled in $15,000
(Henry’s big success would be Post War as Henry’s and evolving into “Winchesters” starting with the M1866 Improved Henry and the Model 1873.
For the first 5,000 rifles years, Henry would supervise Henry Rifle production as an “inside contractor’ within Winchester’s New Haven Arms Company factory. His pay would be the difference between the fixed cost of making them, and the profits. By the end of 1866, Henry would save the nearly bankrupt Winchester.
The “Iron Frame” (frame and butt plate) Henry is controversial. Without getting into the argument, it appears as though less than 400 Henry’s were made possibly for a contract with the U.S. Navy that never came to be, and were possibly made by Colt as the serial numbers overlap and are duplicated. Some argue that all of those were just processing and clerical errors at Winchester. Anyways iron framed Henry’s have a different butt trap contours rather than straight mortising made by different machinery, and their screws have thinner more beveled heads.
As with any firearm, the study of minute detail and evolutions can be complex, and here as in other areas, most times, there is a “typological’ system used. And while as other guns there can be early and late features, things do get complicated further by the introduction of later features on older guns as they transition new production and parts before all of the old were used up and gone.
In brief and to over generalize in a short post that would make up a book itself…
The reproduction Henry Rifle grew out of an early Navy Arms venture that after about 500 or so went to Italy to be produced by Uberti. What Uberti chose to do is to is replicate the late 1864 or more likely 1865 (based on rear sight configuration) ‘Type II” (sometimes AKA “Late Model”).
And because no one makes rimfire Henry ammunition they are not offered in their CW era .44 Henry RF, but rather .44 WCF (aka .44-40) or .45 Long Colt both being centerfire cartridges.
While an 1864 or 1865 rifle is best for 1864 or 1865 impressions, we as reenactors and living historians are forced into a bit of “dishonesty” when we use them as “close enough” for the Type I’s used in 1862 and 1863. IMHO, forced in the same way using a pretty much post War Spencer M1865 Carbine if one wants to use a Spencer at all.
HOWEVER, Uberti sought to expand their market by offering an “Iron Framed’ Henry by simply taking their 1865ish Type II “Brass Frame” and swapping an iron butt plate on it. There were no iron framed Type II Henry Rifles.
In brief and to over generalize…
How is an 1862 or 1863 Type I Henry different from an 1864 or 1865 Type II (the Uberti repro (without splitting hairs too finely)?
1. Curved butt plate rather than sharper crescent shaped.
2. Rounded butt plate heel rather than angular.
3. Slightly curved lower butt stock profiled versus straight.
4. Near vertical or abrupt or steeper angle comb at the wrist versus more angled toward the rear.
5. Loading lever without a tab and safety catch in the stock. Added about serial number 400ish (after Iron Frame production.) .
6. Two dovetails for the rear sight. One in front of the hammer, one in front of the receiver. Usually one is not used.
7. Slight bevel to the curve of the frame in front of the hammer versus a greater bevel more sloped forward.
8. Small diameter trigger retaining pin.
9. Four piece hickory take down cleaning rod in the butt trap versus steel in a smaller trap hole.
10. No sling swivels before May of 1863
11. Half-moon, or rounded front sight versus later tapered down with higher square rear.
12. Early style rear sight starting with calibration to 1,000 then down to 900 yards. To my knowledge there are no studies or data on rear sight changes although between the first in 1862, and the last in 1865/66, there were three added variations on the theme
Here is an image of an Iron Frame Henry Type I where the differences with a later Type II can be seen: curved butt, rounded butt plate heel, slightly curved or “perch belly” butt stock, near straight comb at wrist, rounded bevel of frame in front of hammer, rear and forward rear sight dovetails, spurless and catchless trigger guard lever, small trigger pin, and rounded front sight.
And last but not least, this is a very short over view post on a complicated subject. When it comes to Henry’s the old adage about No Absolutes can apply, and there are ‘variations on a theme.” But if one can condense and summarize things to be kinda/sorta “standard” items.
So, no, in History there “never was” an Iron Frame Type II, 1864/1865 Henry Rifle.” Which bends things and requires either a compromise or blind eye when also using late War Brass Frame Type II’s for 1862 and 1863 events.
Curt