Henry 44 steel carbine, any first hand experience
- Thread starter Milt Dale
- Start date
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1456690-Henry-Mare-s-Leg-44-Mag-with-full-length-stock
Essentially the same rifle but with a much shorter barrel. Very accurate, 3rd page, and very comfortable to carry around all day. The lever action with the brass receiver is silky smooth when comparing to my Henry 45-70 steel receover. I appreciate the large loop when wearing glove but prefer the look of the standard size loop.
Between my Henry 45-70 and Henry 44 Magnum. My goto cabin rifle will be the 44 mag. Now if the two were of the same barrel length I'll be having a hard time deciding which one to take into the woods.
Very appealing little gun. I've been snooping around for a brass .45-70 for awhile without luck. Can't find a .44 brass carbine either. Frankly, for my purposes (backyard range toy, no serious hunting), this re-stocked Mare's Leg would be preferable to either of those, and Mare's Legs are easy to find. Hmmm....
How does the wood finish and colour compare between the new buttstock and the original fore-end? They look pretty close in the photos.
How does the wood finish and colour compare between the new buttstock and the original fore-end? They look pretty close in the photos.
I am good for levers now, I picked up a steel Henry .44 on the EE, probably weighs about the same as the brass mares leg with a full stock, fun to shoot, I also have a steel 45/70 Henry and my wife took a liking to a straight stock Marlin 30/30 that we bought for Her. I have always preferred wood and blue in a lever and had no interest in a brass model although I understand the appeal, I definitely prefer the tube loading of the Henry.
I've always resisted the idea of tube loading; I remember thinking that it was a PITA with my old Cooey bolts when I was a kid, and I'm none too fond of it now with my model 39. This and a couple of other threads has me re-thinking that idea. The claim seems to be that tube-loading .44mag and other relatively large centerfire cartridges is much easier than doing the same with dinky little .22's.
Of course, at one time I wouldn't be caught dead with a brass receiver either, so...
Of course, at one time I wouldn't be caught dead with a brass receiver either, so...
Totally agree on the .22, still don't want a tube loader in .22, maybe for someone with nimble young fingers, even when I was young more shells landed on the ground than in the rifle.I've always resisted the idea of tube loading; I remember thinking that it was a PITA with my old Cooey bolts when I was a kid, and I'm none too fond of it now with my model 39. This and a couple of other threads has me re-thinking that idea. The claim seems to be that tube-loading .44mag and other relatively large centerfire cartridges is much easier than doing the same with dinky little .22's.
Of course, at one time I wouldn't be caught dead with a brass receiver either, so...
I have it in .357mag (model H012M), it's a fine rifle. I've put a bit over 1600 rounds through mine with not one single issue. 
Accuracy-wise, it's a lever action. I've done several 2 moa groups at 100m, but the norm for me is about 3 moa, so minute-of-vitals at 200m.
P.S. If you intend to scope it, get the rail from Henry at the same time as you get the rifle, it simplifies things.
Accuracy-wise, it's a lever action. I've done several 2 moa groups at 100m, but the norm for me is about 3 moa, so minute-of-vitals at 200m.
P.S. If you intend to scope it, get the rail from Henry at the same time as you get the rifle, it simplifies things.
