More Relaxed, and my New Henry .22

My wife was recently invited to be a guest artist at the Edge of the World Art Exhibition at Waikawa in the Catlins. We drove down and we really enjoyed the people and the countryside. Driving back, we passed through Christchurch on my special (start collecting Govt Superannuation) birthday. At what felt like the right moment, I suggested that perhaps I could visit Gun City, and was pleased when I got a supportive answer. We didn't have much time as we had an appointment, and it seemed that the Sockburn branch of the shop was closest to our route. We found the shop and were grateful that it had some free car parks as it is not easy to get to when the traffic is busy. I rushed in, asked to see the Henry H001 .22 that was on special... it looked OK so I bought it.

I had been a little bothered by the fact that the action housing is die cast, but so many things are nowadays, and scanning through reviews on the net it seemed that people were getting good mileage from these rifles.

It shoots well enough. I put a scope on it and shot five-shot test groups using several different types of ammo. At 25 yards, my best groups measured about 0.65" centre-centre and this was using some old Chinese (Norinco) ammo I had on hand, and an old packet of Winchester Power Point. I got slightly larger groups using Kilwell Whisper, Peters High Velocity (fairly old stuff) and CCI Subsonic. The worst group with a spread of 1.8 inches was Winchester Super X Target (this too is fairly old). I had no misfires and no extraction problems. A couple of cartridges did catch the top of the chamber while being fed in. I found that if I worked the lever decisively it fed well. I like the trigger.

While I was at the range, I fired some similar groups using my Dad's scoped Brno. I got a 0.25 inch group using CCI Subsonics and a 0.4 inch group using Winchester Subsonics. The Winchester Super X Target gave me a 0.9" group.

I took the scope off the Henry. I learned to shoot using open sights many years ago, and I like them. I am likely to always have a rifle with a scope because I can shoot better with it at a distance and in dull conditions. But I prefer open sights. To me a rifle looks better without a scope, and I like the simplicity and reliability of iron sights (or alloy as seems to be the case).

I did not do well at the range using the open sights shooting at a high-contrast target. As I closed one eye and concentrated (the method I used when shooting competitively), the target sometimes seemed to multiply into two or more. I tried covering the black bullseye with my wide foresight, but mysteriously I could still sometimes see the doubled image. I shot well enough for hunting purposes, but there was plenty of room for improvement. My eyesight is pretty good, and a few weeks back I passed the eye test when renewing my driver's licence... but for quite a while now I've had difficulties with targets, particularly when I concentrate on them. Some days I don't have such a problem. Maybe it depends on the kind of light, maybe it relates to over-concentrating.

So I came away from the range pleased that the Henry functioned well enough, and that it grouped well enough for close range hunting. I was also pleased that I'd shot a couple of good groups with the Brno.... so I was satisfied that I still had a good enough technique when using a proven rifle and a scope. But I wanted to shoot as well with open sights as I did as a teenager.

Last night I pondered the situation. I decided that my priority was not to be smallbore champion or a benchrest enthusiast. I am primarily a hunter who also likes to shoot at targets occasionally. I decided that I should be a bit more realistic and practical rather than paying too much attention to standards now promoted by so many internet users. I really appreciate what the accuracy fanatics are achieving and teaching us... but in reality all I needed to do was to practice to get my shots into an acceptable group for the animals I'm hunting at realistic distances. So meanwhile I'm thinking my open sighted .22 rimfire should be able to consistently land shots in a two inch circle... and I'd like to be able to do this offhand at distances out to forty or fifty yards. Using my .357 subsonic handloads in an open-sighted rifle for pigs and goats (and maybe a deer one day), I'd like all my shots to land in a five inch circle up to 100 yards. (For serious longer shots I have a scoped .223 which seems to be capable of shooting a one inch group at 200 yards with factory ammo on a still day).

Today I took the Henry and a couple of boxes of ammo to a friend's place. I set up a home made 'target' created from a two-inch square of heavy steel plate with chain welded to the top corners. I wiped chalk across the face of the target to enable me to see it better. I took quick shots at the target without the squinting that I'd been doing at the range. I kept both eyes open, and I was very pleased to make that target swing about at ranges of up to forty yards or more. Dunno why, but I found that I was shooting higher using this more free and easy technique, so I dropped the sights lower than the setting I'd raised them to at the range. I didn't use any sort of rest. I shot from a sitting or standing position. And it felt good.

And while I'm confessing my slack attitude, it is appropriate to also mention that I've stopped weighing each charge when I reload .357 magnum cartridges. I just use home-made dip measures, and it doesn't seem to make any significant difference in practical terms.

I see this Henry .22 as a 'practise gun' for my Rossi Puma .357... and maybe another centrefire lever rifle in the future. I kinda like the look of the Henry Big Boy model X with the threaded barrel and the convenient rail for mounting a flashlight. I don't generally hunt with a spotlight, but it is good to have the option.

I'm pleased I bought the Henry.

https://i.imgur.com/7th38HX.jpg

it will be interesting to see if your groups go to shite if you rapid fire them with the newer model....apparently an issue with the older ones.
whats the magazine capacity???? surprised they didnt drop length back to bring barrel band closer to forestock.
find and ty some winchester subsonic 42 grn power point stuff....its rather good and a step up in killing power.

Come to think of it, I have a packet of the 42 grain Winchester somewhere. Next time I go to the range I can fit the scope again and try it.

That front barrel band and the foresight seems to be one piece of metal. So that's probably why the magazine tube wasn't shortened.

The magazine capacity is for ten long rifle cartridges whereas the USA advertising says the magazine should hold fifteen. Looks like a gunsmith has altered the magazine follower tube. It has a crimp around it that possibly holds some sort of a stop in place. Much as I'd like to have the bigger capacity, I'm getting through too much ammo with the limit set to ten.

I thought about you when we were passing through Geraldine... wondered where you lived and hunted down there. We stayed the night at Grumpy's and ate some excellent 'gunslinger' burgers at the Central Cafe or Central Grill whatever it is called.

Mate....you couldve called in and chewed the fat for a time..... sounds like the mag has been altered to meet new laws,good idea.
I really rate the 42grn stuff.

"I decided that I should be a bit more realistic and practical rather than paying too much attention to standards now promoted by so many internet users." What a great line @Coote one doesn't need to shoot 1/4" groups to efficiently kill stuff.

Good write up, sounds like fun, the Henry certainly looks good.

The 42gr Winchester subs hit bunnys hard and seem to quite accurate in all the 3 rifles I've tried them in.

Bought a Henry HOO1 in 22LR about 7-8 years ago. Quite nicely made and very slick action ... but...
Grouped well on range for about 5 shots then groups opened up and were terrible. Barrel warming causing distortion with the quite thin barrel. After few rounds groups went from about 1" (5 shots at 50m) to 2-4" - and all over the place. This was a common story then. Contacted Henry but no joy, so HOO1 went straight back to Guncity. They also range tested it then gave me a refund.

Hope yours perform alot better. Keep an eye on second or third groups.

i bought a chiappa l/a 22. failed after shot nuber 3 it literally jammed up solid. took it back swapped it for a henry but it couldnt hit a barn door at 10 paces and ejected ammo was cracked open. took it back. bought a browning 22 l/a octagon barrel with nickel receiver.
damn things a tack driver but seriously pissed off i had to have it taken down to 10 rounds to suit fascist laws

@Coote , great write up mate and shows as you say a relaxed attitude to shooting and enjoyment.
Like Mudgripz I also have had that model of Henry .22 and won't go into details but hope yours performs well for you and better than mine did.
They have a very slick little action.

Thanks for the comments. The possibility of poor accuracy due to overheating is a bummer.

I looked at the targets I shot at the range and I only found one anomaly... and that was a second group of Peters ammo that created a large 1.5 inch group, whereas an earlier group was only 0.8 inch.

Here are my targets. The first photo shows only groups shot with the Henry. Five shots in each groups and these were shot fairly quickly... limited only by the time taken to reload... and then walking up to the target after two to four groups to label each group. I started at the top left hand corner and worked down. My first group was a relatively good one at 0.65"... the seventh was the worst at 1.8", but this same ammo was also the worst performer when I tested it in the Brno. The eighth and last group on this target was quite acceptable at 0.7". So I'm hoping I've got a good rifle. I should also note that the day was warm with a slight breeze.

https://i.imgur.com/HSqamwX.jpg

Here's my second comparative target. Once again I worked from top left to bottom right at 25 yards. First three and the last groups were shot with the old Brno that Dad bought around the time I was born. All groups are five shots except for the last group where I only fired 3. The sixth group is the one that seems a bit odd seeing that the same ammo gave me a 0.8" group in the first test with the Henry. Perhaps this is evidence of overheating, but it took over fifty rounds to get there. However, this test was not particularly scientific.

https://i.imgur.com/T9QwS5w.jpg

The time at the range gave me a greater appreciation for that Brno.... and I made a mental note to get some more CCI Subsonics to shoot in it.

Interesting about your Chiappa experience. I had been considering a Chiappa as a possibility.

When I was a kid I just enjoyed hunting and shooting. There were basically three types of guns in common use... the .22, the "three-oh" and the shotgun. Occasionally I'd get to hear something mentioned about a 30-06 or .30-30. And my uncle had a Winchester 32-20 that I lusted after. My world opened up a bit when Dad went to Germany and was presented with an over-under 7x64 (or was it 65?). He also brought back a Krico .222.

My hunting and shooting knowledge basically came from first hand experience and through talking to relatives and close friends. I used whatever ammo I could scrounge, and it all seemed to perform well enough (apart from a brick of what I seem to recall was 'Super X' .22 where a good percentage of the ammo misfired. I knew that I was limited by distance, and I guess I kind of had an instinct about trajectory.

Nowadays we have the internet, and it is a marvellous thing. It is a place where shooters can indulge their passion when they aren't actually out on the hillside. There is so much we can enjoy... and learn from each other when each of us participates honestly with an open mind.

It seems that quite a bit of stuff gets posted on the 'net that appears to just be repeated opinion instead of springing from actual experience. And in keeping with our current tendency to be politically correct in all things, I can feel a bit reluctant to discuss things in some places when I feel it is likely I will be bombarded with 'expert' or 'righteous' opinion.

There can even seem to be a fervour associated with some topics that I feel is similar to a religious fundamentalism... where there are many 'experts' who parrot the same views so that they can be part of a club, organisation, political party or gang. I was raised in a church, and I've observed a lot of folks over the years. It seems that nobody is more 'correct' than certain young enthusiastic male members of a church. I was quite an expert myself once upon a time.... now I realise I know bugger-all, and I'm suspicious that many of us could be mistaken about a variety of things.

I think a lot of the shared and, to me, odd opinions arise from the fact that there are thousands of folks interested in shooting (or whatever), who don't get out to do it much but they do spend hours reading and commenting on it on the web. Folks may be inclined to take a 'safe' position where they feel they have the support of the peers they admire or the group they want to be identified with. In the developed world, a lot of people are living lives that are quite removed from the natural world.

So... having ranted a bit.... I am willing to 'come out' and state that it is ok to hunt with a rifle that won't shoot to 1"MOA, and that deer can be killed with less than a thousand foot-pounds of energy.... etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coote

Interesting about your Chiappa experience. I had been considering a Chiappa as a possibility.

When I was a kid I just enjoyed hunting and shooting. There were basically three types of guns in common use... the .22, the "three-oh" and the shotgun. Occasionally I'd get to hear something mentioned about a 30-06 or .30-30. And my uncle had a Winchester 32-20 that I lusted after. My world opened up a bit when Dad went to Germany and was presented with an over-under 7x64 (or was it 65?). He also brought back a Krico .222.

My hunting and shooting knowledge basically came from first hand experience and through talking to relatives and close friends. I used whatever ammo I could scrounge, and it all seemed to perform well enough (apart from a brick of what I seem to recall was 'Super X' .22 where a good percentage of the ammo misfired. I knew that I was limited by distance, and I guess I kind of had an instinct about trajectory.

Nowadays we have the internet, and it is a marvellous thing. It is a place where shooters can indulge their passion when they aren't actually out on the hillside. There is so much we can enjoy... and learn from each other when each of us participates honestly with an open mind.

It seems that quite a bit of stuff gets posted on the 'net that appears to just be repeated opinion instead of springing from actual experience. And in keeping with our current tendency to be politically correct in all things, I can feel a bit reluctant to discuss things in some places when I feel it is likely I will be bombarded with 'expert' or 'righteous' opinion.

There can even seem to be a fervour associated with some topics that I feel is similar to a religious fundamentalism... where there are many 'experts' who parrot the same views so that they can be part of a club, organisation, political party or gang. I was raised in a church, and I've observed a lot of folks over the years. It seems that nobody is more 'correct' than certain young enthusiastic male members of a church. I was quite an expert myself once upon a time.... now I realise I know bugger-all, and I'm suspicious that many of us could be mistaken about a variety of things.

I think a lot of the shared and, to me, odd opinions arise from the fact that there are thousands of folks interested in shooting (or whatever), who don't get out to do it much but they do spend hours reading and commenting on it on the web. Folks may be inclined to take a 'safe' position where they feel they have the support of the peers they admire or the group they want to be identified with. In the developed world, a lot of people are living lives that are quite removed from the natural world.

So... having ranted a bit.... I am willing to 'come out' and state that it is ok to hunt with a rifle that won't shoot to 1"MOA, and that deer can be killed with less than a thousand foot-pounds of energy.... etc.

---

the chiappa is junk, what looks like heat treated steel is nothing more than a finish over pot metal.

this is what you need!!Attachment 132786

That Browning looks good. I had a friend, now deceased, who had a Miroku .22 lever gun that he really seemed to like. I wonder if that rifle is still in a cupboard at his family home.

Tried a number of levers and personal favourite is the Winchester 9422. Had a pair of 9422s in 22LR and 22WMR - in mint condition - but sold them both several years ago as too pretty to be knocked round in heavy shooting off the truck. Delightful wee rifle.

The other lever to impress me alot in the field was a bit of a sleeper - not many around - and that was the Ruger model 96 in 22LR. Excellent wee rifle and dam good hunter. More accurate than the Ruger semis at 0.7" groups at 50m, and with its short throw action, absence of blowback mag clogging, and trouble free running it was an absolute little gem.

Miroku/Browning and Marlin model 39 also well regarded levers. I hope Henry goes well for you - if it doesn't there are several really good lever 22 choices available.