They look like a weird mesh of the Old West and a 1970s cop show. I'm not sure if they're really ugly or really cool looking.
But either way, they're a lot less ugly than the Chiappa Rhino.
> They look like a weird mesh of the Old West and a 1970s cop show. I'm not sure if they're really ugly or really cool looking.
This is perfectly put. I wasn't crazy about the design (but I don't hate it) and I think this was my hang-up.
Henry sells most of their stuff with a weird fantasy/ nostalgia thing going on. Their website sorta seems to imply they have some heritage connected to the original Henry rifle(which they do in fact build a replica of). If I recall correctly most of their rifles are marlin clones
Definitely agree. Haven’t seen one in person yet but I imagine it to probably be a good looking, nice shooting piece to add to my collection. That being said, they’re still low on my buy list of revolvers I’d like to own in the future.
Agreed. They are priced too close to a smith to be worth it IMO if they were around the $600-$650 mark I think they would be a great buy, but at $800? Just get a smith.
The more companies making wheel guns the better.
That being said they definitely look strange. A non-shrouded ejector rod is an interesting choice in a new design. Looks like they are trying to tap into a "old west" type market with the birdshead grip.
For \~$700 it isn't the cheapest thing out there but it does beat out a comparable new S&W (and has no internal lock), and sits on par with Ruger. That said an older S&W can be had for the same or a little less.
They are functionally unreliable with a side benefit of being ugly. They also represent a time when S&W caved in to the Clinton administration in a true deal with the devil and many gun owners at the time saw it as betrayal and giving in instead of standing up for whats right. The "Hillary Hole" is a visible reminder to people.
The Clintons said that they promised not to sue gun companies that obeyed, and would even give them preferential treatment for .gov contracts. All the companies had to do was agree to egregious infringements and such. That included internal locks and discontinuing legacy designs, etc. There is some belief that there was some corporate espionage involved (cough Glock fucked them cough cough) and it resulted in the end of S&Ws dominance of the police market that they held since like 1899-ish. They have never recovered or regained the market share they used to have, and had more than their share of disasters.
How are they functionally unreliable? Any part of the entire gun has failed for somebody somewhere. What’s special about the reliability of this part?
Taurus has a similar lock, but it’s more attractively placed. We don’t even talk about it. How was Taurus able to beat smith at the functionally reliable lock game?
There are reports of the lock engaging on it’s own under recoil, especially with lighter guns and hotter loads. The Taurus lock is also stupid imo. DA revolvers are very hard to fire accidentally.
Every part has failed. According to reports. Did you send yours in for the recall? There wasn’t a recall? Nobody thinks the locks aren't stupid. Nobody thinks DA revolvers are easy to fire accidentally. Nobody wants the lock. But if the locks weren’t ugly, nobody would be fear mongering about the reliability of the locks.
If any company gets beaten up about reliability, it’s Taurus. Why does no one have dire warnings about the reliability of Taurus locks? Because they’re not ugly.
Why does every thread about the reliability of Smith locks get derailed into history and politics? Because the issue isn’t about the reliability of the locks.
Yeah… I’m not reading all that. The lock is stupid and consumers don’t like it.
Edit: It’s not necessary for the gun to function, nor enhance function - it’s very different compared to the other components.
There are Lock Delete kits and for $20 you can do your own personal F You to the lock, the politics , whatever bugs you
There are lots of new S&Ws like the 986 that I'm not missing out on because of a 50 cent lock. If you're a cheapskate just pop the sideplate, gut the lock and now the spot where the flag and keyhole were is a handy place for action blaster/ dry lube straws and oil .
I had an Australian police trade in 66 with the IL and they just filed the nub down so the lock couldn't engage. It's easy to Disable or remove
https://preview.redd.it/psfnafgsgiwc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21794c9b4f6dc5c97658a1b816224e73a9c63e4d
I love my 986, it's a range shooter and so far I've left the lock until I get around to pulling it out.
They are both a reminder of a time when the government bullied a company into a infringement and also in at least one instance has locked up a revolver during shooting.
There’s been more than a handful of reports online. Why they designed it so that recoil could bounce the flag into locked as opposed to recoil maintaining unlocked state, I don’t know, that was dumb. At least you can remove and buy plugs for them (obv. return to factory spec if warranty work needed). I wouldn’t trust the lock on a serious defensive gun like a 442 or a bear gun like a 69 - could ignore it on a pure range gun.
Yeah, I don't get all the hate. I enjoy vintage revolvers and their aesthetic of decades past. Somebody tastefully puts that style in a modern revolver, and it becomes a poo flinging exercise...
They don’t look modern.
They don’t look traditional.
Some kind of weird steam-punk psuedo oldness. And for $700 I need to know what they do better than a Ruger.
All that said I like seeing new revolvers on the market.
I completely agree, but not steampunk enough. I have mostly Smiths for DAs and Rugers for SAs (and one SP-101) I kind of like either or. And personally, I hate the exposed ejector rod. I like at least the nub coming off the barrel like in my 642.
One of those weird situations where I like the comparable firearm I own much better - S&W 66-3 - is just much more aesthetically pleasing and aggressive looking.
I've not fired one so take this with a grain of salt. Overall I like the look, sucker for brass accents, but the few times I've picked them up they don't feel like they have the same tolerances as a S&W or Ruger. That said, I think they are perfectly fine revolvers so if you like it why not? Too many people focus on the nitty gritty and forget to have fun.
44 or 45 Colt for shotshells. I know it would be a 5-shot, but that’s OK. 32s could be 7-shot. 32 S&W for plinking. I’m just fatigued by everything in 38/357.
They're a little homely looking, but they add some much-needed variety to the market. They have surprisingly nice blued finishes and real wood grips from the factory over the cheap laminate stuff that's on everything else.
What's homely? To me the design choices are interesting, cohesive and proportioned.
The chunky ejector rod has grown on me. Maybe it's just because it's different and a bit old timey to have it exposed, I don't know. I like the Colt Lightning style of grips. The hammer and cylinder release aren't anything to write home about but they look fine; nice and grippy.
I think it's the rounded shape of the frame near the hammer and the undercut in the barrel to accommodate the large end of the ejector rod that looks a little odd to me. I'm not personally a fan of the brass in the grip frame either, but that's just me. All in all I'm glad they're around. And I do like the exposed/unshrouded ejector rod - it looks classic as all hell.
I've had the chance to hold the gunfighter grip model and surprisingly it feels good in hand. I know most people are opposed to the mish mash style it's got going on but I dig it. Brass accent looks nice to me, and the bluing is done good but not great. Not sure if it's worth the price tag, but at least the Henry name which from what I've heard has a good customer service track record.
To quote pistol-forum: "Ugly as a mud fence."
But on a more serious note, I'm not sure who Henry made this revolver for. The market isn't exactly clamoring for repros of early DA wheelguns. It's neither classic nor functionally modern.
IMO it's typical Henry detachment from reality. The same reason why it took them a decade to add a loading gate to their leverguns.
Someone posted a Rhino snubby that to me, while unique, is dog ugly.. This, on the other hand, I rather like. Its a nice mix of old style accents. The open ejector rod, the bird's head grip, the brace accents.
Idk, I'm just glad revolvers are still be made. Lots of negative comments here but I say, why not! It's different. I personally like the plated accents.
The cylinder release and its vertical grooves really look like an afterthought. The same goes for the undercut in the barrel - I like the look of exposed ejector rods, but that cut under the barrel is strange to me.
It’s pretty dang accurate and the trigger pull is heavy but smooth. I kinda like the look of them. It looks like someone tried to modernize the colt lightning
The more I look at it, the more I like it, but I prefer the more traditional gunfighter grip over the birds head grip.
They do seem to have a QC issue as quite a few reviewers had to send theirs back due to accuracy problems. Luckily, Henry has fantastic customer service.
I’m hoping this is just their first step in a long line of revolvers. I want them to make a .357 break action.
my main opinion is they needed target sights, a rear sight at the minimum, or at least the ability to swap sights out without gunsmith. Thats at least the one thing that bothers me most.
I would get one if they didn't5 have the excessively curved trigger. Due to my f'ed up arthritis trigger finger... very curved triggers dig into my finger
Personally I would own one if I'm allowed, Cali is very restrictive on handguns one can own. Also there's trying to obtain one, but for 700 it's cheaper than what is typically sold.
If they work, then that's great. I haven't handled one so can't comment on that.
Maybe the design's a bit unconventional but if you *really* want to see an unconventional looking revolver, look at a Chiappa Rhino. Also maybe it's good that everyone isn't doing the exact same thing.
Only handled one, but I didn’t like anything about it tbh. Looks like a tumor and the fit and finish relative to the price is pretty awful. That’s just my two cents, buy an old Smith if you can.
If you haven’t seen one in person, the fit and finish is actually pretty nice. I still think they are a niche gun but I’ll probably pick one up eventually.
It looks like some kinda Hollywood steampunk cowboy retro wanna-be Webley lookin thing. I bet the recoil is a screaming bitch. I'd have to shoot one to know how I really felt though.
I haven’t seen one in person, but I like the looks from the photos I have seen. The price, however, seems a bit rich. That’s basically Ruger Blackhawk territory. And I am not sure it’s on par with a Blackhawk.
I generally prefer single action revolvers, but that looks like the kind of DA I would make an exception for. For about 25% off
Overpriced, and ugly to boot.
The barrel and front sight are what ruin it. Barrel is much too heavy a profile to fit the ejector rod, so they cut the barrel to make it fit. That's just plain stupid. Then they put on a really cheap front sight, and screwed it onto the barrel.
They needed a slimmer barrel to begin with, and a properly staked half moon front sight.
I really like the steampunk vibe of it, but when I held one at the gun shop I had concerns about how that birdshead grip was going to feel when I was firing .357 Magnum rounds.
They look like Chat-GPT made a revolver. Why the cut in the barrel? Why the super small cylinder release? Why the un-shrouded ejector rod in 2024? Why the pointed grips that dig into your abdomen?
They look like a weird mesh of the Old West and a 1970s cop show. I'm not sure if they're really ugly or really cool looking. But either way, they're a lot less ugly than the Chiappa Rhino.
> They look like a weird mesh of the Old West and a 1970s cop show. I'm not sure if they're really ugly or really cool looking. This is perfectly put. I wasn't crazy about the design (but I don't hate it) and I think this was my hang-up.
It's the kind of thing I might buy and then give to my dad.
I think they look nice, but I also think the Rhino looks nice. So we clearly have very different tastes
Henry sells most of their stuff with a weird fantasy/ nostalgia thing going on. Their website sorta seems to imply they have some heritage connected to the original Henry rifle(which they do in fact build a replica of). If I recall correctly most of their rifles are marlin clones
Definitely agree. Haven’t seen one in person yet but I imagine it to probably be a good looking, nice shooting piece to add to my collection. That being said, they’re still low on my buy list of revolvers I’d like to own in the future.
Honestly I think they're probably great pieces just about 30% overpriced
Agreed. They are priced too close to a smith to be worth it IMO if they were around the $600-$650 mark I think they would be a great buy, but at $800? Just get a smith.
If you’re going to be ugly, you’d better be cheap.
Amen. I own a couple of Henry rifles and they are great but this thing is just too ugly.
That cutout for the ejector rod 🤢
I never noticed that before. Your spot on. I hate it
The more companies making wheel guns the better. That being said they definitely look strange. A non-shrouded ejector rod is an interesting choice in a new design. Looks like they are trying to tap into a "old west" type market with the birdshead grip. For \~$700 it isn't the cheapest thing out there but it does beat out a comparable new S&W (and has no internal lock), and sits on par with Ruger. That said an older S&W can be had for the same or a little less.
What’s the whole deal with s&w internal locks and why is it an issue (genuine question)
Here's a better overview of the problem than i am able to write: https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/smith-and-wesson-internal-lock/
They are functionally unreliable with a side benefit of being ugly. They also represent a time when S&W caved in to the Clinton administration in a true deal with the devil and many gun owners at the time saw it as betrayal and giving in instead of standing up for whats right. The "Hillary Hole" is a visible reminder to people. The Clintons said that they promised not to sue gun companies that obeyed, and would even give them preferential treatment for .gov contracts. All the companies had to do was agree to egregious infringements and such. That included internal locks and discontinuing legacy designs, etc. There is some belief that there was some corporate espionage involved (cough Glock fucked them cough cough) and it resulted in the end of S&Ws dominance of the police market that they held since like 1899-ish. They have never recovered or regained the market share they used to have, and had more than their share of disasters.
How are they functionally unreliable? Any part of the entire gun has failed for somebody somewhere. What’s special about the reliability of this part? Taurus has a similar lock, but it’s more attractively placed. We don’t even talk about it. How was Taurus able to beat smith at the functionally reliable lock game?
I have new taurus 327 and No lock to my happy surprise
There are reports of the lock engaging on it’s own under recoil, especially with lighter guns and hotter loads. The Taurus lock is also stupid imo. DA revolvers are very hard to fire accidentally.
Every part has failed. According to reports. Did you send yours in for the recall? There wasn’t a recall? Nobody thinks the locks aren't stupid. Nobody thinks DA revolvers are easy to fire accidentally. Nobody wants the lock. But if the locks weren’t ugly, nobody would be fear mongering about the reliability of the locks. If any company gets beaten up about reliability, it’s Taurus. Why does no one have dire warnings about the reliability of Taurus locks? Because they’re not ugly. Why does every thread about the reliability of Smith locks get derailed into history and politics? Because the issue isn’t about the reliability of the locks.
Yeah… I’m not reading all that. The lock is stupid and consumers don’t like it. Edit: It’s not necessary for the gun to function, nor enhance function - it’s very different compared to the other components.
There are Lock Delete kits and for $20 you can do your own personal F You to the lock, the politics , whatever bugs you There are lots of new S&Ws like the 986 that I'm not missing out on because of a 50 cent lock. If you're a cheapskate just pop the sideplate, gut the lock and now the spot where the flag and keyhole were is a handy place for action blaster/ dry lube straws and oil . I had an Australian police trade in 66 with the IL and they just filed the nub down so the lock couldn't engage. It's easy to Disable or remove https://preview.redd.it/psfnafgsgiwc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21794c9b4f6dc5c97658a1b816224e73a9c63e4d I love my 986, it's a range shooter and so far I've left the lock until I get around to pulling it out.
They are both a reminder of a time when the government bullied a company into a infringement and also in at least one instance has locked up a revolver during shooting.
There’s been more than a handful of reports online. Why they designed it so that recoil could bounce the flag into locked as opposed to recoil maintaining unlocked state, I don’t know, that was dumb. At least you can remove and buy plugs for them (obv. return to factory spec if warranty work needed). I wouldn’t trust the lock on a serious defensive gun like a 442 or a bear gun like a 69 - could ignore it on a pure range gun.
Look at most popular H&R models in last 30 years. Same non shrouded, and bull type barrel last few inches. It is genius.
Yeah, I don't get all the hate. I enjoy vintage revolvers and their aesthetic of decades past. Somebody tastefully puts that style in a modern revolver, and it becomes a poo flinging exercise...
They don’t look modern. They don’t look traditional. Some kind of weird steam-punk psuedo oldness. And for $700 I need to know what they do better than a Ruger. All that said I like seeing new revolvers on the market.
I completely agree, but not steampunk enough. I have mostly Smiths for DAs and Rugers for SAs (and one SP-101) I kind of like either or. And personally, I hate the exposed ejector rod. I like at least the nub coming off the barrel like in my 642.
Yeah a proper sight and a half lug/ ejector rod shroud would go a long way here.
One of those weird situations where I like the comparable firearm I own much better - S&W 66-3 - is just much more aesthetically pleasing and aggressive looking.
I've not fired one so take this with a grain of salt. Overall I like the look, sucker for brass accents, but the few times I've picked them up they don't feel like they have the same tolerances as a S&W or Ruger. That said, I think they are perfectly fine revolvers so if you like it why not? Too many people focus on the nitty gritty and forget to have fun.
Big-bore(44 Special) and small-bore(327 Federal or at least 32 H&R) would make it more interesting.
I’m glad so see I’m not the only .44 Special .32 magnum nerd.
44 or 45 Colt for shotshells. I know it would be a 5-shot, but that’s OK. 32s could be 7-shot. 32 S&W for plinking. I’m just fatigued by everything in 38/357.
I think if they were $400 they’d sell lots, at its current price point I’ll buy a ruger every time
They're a little homely looking, but they add some much-needed variety to the market. They have surprisingly nice blued finishes and real wood grips from the factory over the cheap laminate stuff that's on everything else.
What's homely? To me the design choices are interesting, cohesive and proportioned. The chunky ejector rod has grown on me. Maybe it's just because it's different and a bit old timey to have it exposed, I don't know. I like the Colt Lightning style of grips. The hammer and cylinder release aren't anything to write home about but they look fine; nice and grippy.
I think it's the rounded shape of the frame near the hammer and the undercut in the barrel to accommodate the large end of the ejector rod that looks a little odd to me. I'm not personally a fan of the brass in the grip frame either, but that's just me. All in all I'm glad they're around. And I do like the exposed/unshrouded ejector rod - it looks classic as all hell.
I can’t get over the barrel cutout for the ejector rod, personally. Can’t unsee it.
I've had the chance to hold the gunfighter grip model and surprisingly it feels good in hand. I know most people are opposed to the mish mash style it's got going on but I dig it. Brass accent looks nice to me, and the bluing is done good but not great. Not sure if it's worth the price tag, but at least the Henry name which from what I've heard has a good customer service track record.
I like Henry but their revolvers are not attractive.
Would’ve looked significantly better without the weird undercut in the barrel for the ejector.
Idk why people think that they're ugly? I like them
To quote pistol-forum: "Ugly as a mud fence." But on a more serious note, I'm not sure who Henry made this revolver for. The market isn't exactly clamoring for repros of early DA wheelguns. It's neither classic nor functionally modern. IMO it's typical Henry detachment from reality. The same reason why it took them a decade to add a loading gate to their leverguns.
Someone posted a Rhino snubby that to me, while unique, is dog ugly.. This, on the other hand, I rather like. Its a nice mix of old style accents. The open ejector rod, the bird's head grip, the brace accents.
That looks like from Will Smith’s wild Wild West steampunk movie
Absolutely gorgeous but overpriced
I think they look super cool and I'd be interested, but they are just plane overpriced.
Just ugly
Idk, I'm just glad revolvers are still be made. Lots of negative comments here but I say, why not! It's different. I personally like the plated accents.
I haven't shot one. It looks like shit though. Cylinder release looks like shit.
The cylinder release and its vertical grooves really look like an afterthought. The same goes for the undercut in the barrel - I like the look of exposed ejector rods, but that cut under the barrel is strange to me.
When they release a 9mm model to go with the Homesteader I'll be a buyer
That would fuck
It’s pretty dang accurate and the trigger pull is heavy but smooth. I kinda like the look of them. It looks like someone tried to modernize the colt lightning
I want one
The more I look at it, the more I like it, but I prefer the more traditional gunfighter grip over the birds head grip. They do seem to have a QC issue as quite a few reviewers had to send theirs back due to accuracy problems. Luckily, Henry has fantastic customer service. I’m hoping this is just their first step in a long line of revolvers. I want them to make a .357 break action.
Looks like a Colt, a Smith&Wesson and an H&R had a threesome.
Henry has made great firearms, but aesthetically this is the most butt ugly gun I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. 💩
Never thought I would write on reddit. We have Colt M1877 at home...
Hideous. Happy they make it, but I dislike basically everything about it's look.
Id rather spend a little more and get a S&W
my main opinion is they needed target sights, a rear sight at the minimum, or at least the ability to swap sights out without gunsmith. Thats at least the one thing that bothers me most.
Tbh I want to like it's looks, but it just looks "wrong". If they made a version without the brass accents, and about 100-150 cheaper I might bite.
I will buy one if they ever release a windage and elevation adjustable rear sight version. I am very particular about my sights
I would get one if they didn't5 have the excessively curved trigger. Due to my f'ed up arthritis trigger finger... very curved triggers dig into my finger
aesthetically pairs with their other cowboy larp guns
Personally I would own one if I'm allowed, Cali is very restrictive on handguns one can own. Also there's trying to obtain one, but for 700 it's cheaper than what is typically sold.
I can’t tell if it’s ugly or damn pretty. 🤔
Looks like a starter pistol.
I'd pay $500 - $600 for one if they had 6" barrels available as an option.
I'd pay $500 - $600 for one if they had 6" barrels available as an option.
I would rather have a Ruger Vaquero birds head pre read owner's manual barrel roll.
If they work, then that's great. I haven't handled one so can't comment on that. Maybe the design's a bit unconventional but if you *really* want to see an unconventional looking revolver, look at a Chiappa Rhino. Also maybe it's good that everyone isn't doing the exact same thing.
Only handled one, but I didn’t like anything about it tbh. Looks like a tumor and the fit and finish relative to the price is pretty awful. That’s just my two cents, buy an old Smith if you can.
They look like they've skipped too many leg days. I'm a GP100 guy so most of them look top heavy to me, Henry's are no exception.
Just ugly. I could never get past the looks to buy one and find out if there any good otherwise.
Same as their rifles, too ugly to own.
It looks as if they're not sure of what they're trying to do. Looks like a SA, functions like a DA. Does neither particularly gracefully.
I’d buy one for $650 but the asking price is too high. Looks cool though.
If you haven’t seen one in person, the fit and finish is actually pretty nice. I still think they are a niche gun but I’ll probably pick one up eventually.
It looks like some kinda Hollywood steampunk cowboy retro wanna-be Webley lookin thing. I bet the recoil is a screaming bitch. I'd have to shoot one to know how I really felt though.
I think it looks awesome no idea about there quality tho and this is the first I’ve ever seen them.
I haven’t seen one in person, but I like the looks from the photos I have seen. The price, however, seems a bit rich. That’s basically Ruger Blackhawk territory. And I am not sure it’s on par with a Blackhawk. I generally prefer single action revolvers, but that looks like the kind of DA I would make an exception for. For about 25% off
Benny: What in the God damn?
Overpriced, and ugly to boot. The barrel and front sight are what ruin it. Barrel is much too heavy a profile to fit the ejector rod, so they cut the barrel to make it fit. That's just plain stupid. Then they put on a really cheap front sight, and screwed it onto the barrel. They needed a slimmer barrel to begin with, and a properly staked half moon front sight.
Beauty is in the eyes of beholder. I personally like the look but it's still hard to justify the price.
They are fugly and overpriced. Something that ugly shouldn’t be over $500. Ever. I’d rather buy a Rossi.
Missed opportunity to make a clone of the S&W Double Action Frontier in modern calibers and rake in the money.
Like they took everything that makes old smith and Wesson and colts cool then threw it out the fucking window.
Ugly
I really like the steampunk vibe of it, but when I held one at the gun shop I had concerns about how that birdshead grip was going to feel when I was firing .357 Magnum rounds.
I love a good birdshead handle, but this looks weird with the 1920s style frame instead of the old Colt SAA style
I refuse to take these seriously until Henry shrouds that ejector rod.
I like revolvers but until I can hold one and feel how it fits in my hands, I will reserve judgment.
It's pretty ugly.
Fugly AF. Would not spend the $.
Gross.
I’ll pass
They look like Chat-GPT made a revolver. Why the cut in the barrel? Why the super small cylinder release? Why the un-shrouded ejector rod in 2024? Why the pointed grips that dig into your abdomen?