Henry Receivers

Metal is called either ZAMAK or ZAMAC depending on the reference.

Base metal of zinc with amounts of Aluminum, Magnesium and Copper. It is NOT pot metal like used in matchbox cars. Used in lots of American made rifles and pistols for non stress parts. I believe the U.S. Standard is ZAMAC 3 which is in the mid range strength wise.

Unlike Pot Metal Zamak can be electroplated, wet painted, and chromate conversion coated also.

noremf(George)

 

"Seems like a high quality gun should be made out of steel but i don't know. "

What does "high quality" mean to you? I've worked as "quality" professional (QC Inspection, QA Engineer, Quality Manager, etc.) for forty years, and honestly, I'm not sure what "high quality" means. Usually, when quality is measured, it is a product's conformance to applicable standards and specifications.

The GB was designed to have a Zamac receiver cover; if your's has this Zamac cover, you got the "best" quality cover there is for a standard GB.

I never really thought of the Henry rimfire lever guns as "high quality" rifles. For the price, they are truly hard to beat, and I really like the ones I own. But if you have shot and/or handled any rifle in the Anschutz Biathlon Worldcup series, the term high quality will take on a whole new meaning.

Does the material really reflect the "quality"? I don't think so. Take cars for example: is a steel Yogo higher quality than a plastic Corvette, or an aluminum Acura NSX . . .

 

:yeahthat:

 

I suppose it's all about cost. Zamak 3 is ideal for casting. It's worth noting that many states (including where I live) prohibit pistols from being sold if the melting point of their frame is less than 1000 degrees (so-called "Saturday Night Specials).
That temp limit was chosen to eliminate Zamak 3, which has a melting point of 729 degrees, as a component of a firearm's frame...the reasoning being that if it's a pistol made from Zamak, it must be a cheap POS. If my Henry rifle was a pistol, it wouldn't be legal to sell in this state.

Some comparisons of Zamak 3 to T6061 aluminum:

Melting point 729 vs 1061
Hardness 97 vs 95 (Brinell)
Tensile Strength 268 vs 310 (MPa)

I like my Golden Boy, but it definitely has to be in the style-over-substance category when it comes to materials choice. It's a nice, stylish plinker, but far from being the pinnacle of the firearms art.

 

I suppose it's all about cost. Zamak 3 is ideal for casting. It's worth noting that many states (including where I live) prohibit pistols from being sold if the melting point of their frame is less than 1000 degrees (so-called "Saturday Night Specials).
That temp limit was chosen to eliminate Zamak 3, which has a melting point of 729 degrees, as a component of a firearm's frame...the reasoning being that if it's a pistol made from Zamak, it must be a cheap POS. If my Henry rifle was a pistol, it wouldn't be legal to sell in this state.

729 degrees huh. Learn something new every day. Cool stuff.

noremf(George)

 

Zamak 3 is 96-97% zinc,3-4% Al and some other trace elements. How many other guns in the US are made from this material. Could you name some? I know the GSG 1911-22, Walther P22 and I believe Hi-points. I have 2 Henrys a 001 and a Mares leg. They shoot well but they do not compare to my CZ's or Anschultz's

 

Nor do the compare in price, or for that matter what the intended use is for.

Lets keep this apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

 

Rck-F - interesting comments . . I enjoyed them!

I, too, am somewhat perplexed as to the definition of "high quality". After 60 years, I kind of look at it the same way as one does to describe "beauty" . . . it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

I'll use myself as an example . . . hopefully this won't ruffle anyones feathers. I shoot center fire as well. I usually prefer more "vintage" revolvers/styles and have shot SA most of my life. I'd always heard folks talk about the "Colt Python" - the "Rolls Royce" of the Colt line - a "high quality" revolver. Last year, I had the opportunity too purchase one that was made in the 70s - blued, 4" barrel - about 98% and very nice. I shot it and it was very accurate . . . but . . . it will probably be a "safe queen" and an "investment" . . . it's O.K. but it doesn't really "ring my bells". To be honest, if I were to choose between taking the Python or my Henry to the range . . . it would be the Henry every time. Just my personal preference and not intended to rattle any "Colt enthusiasts". "High quality" does not always translate in to "the best".

In regards to the Henrys, the receiver cover performs its intended function just fine. The rifles are attractive, very functional and very reasonably priced. Yes, the cover is an alloy . . . but as has been shown on this forum, it offers an individual the opportunity to "customize" their rifle a variety of ways. In my mind, the Henry is one of the nicest and most affordable lever actions rifles available. If such things as the receiver covers were made oiut of steel or solid brass, the cost would be much higher and put the rifle out of reach for many folks. And, Henry is famous for their excellent service IF you have a problem.

As Louie Sullivan said . . . "Form follows function." In my mind, the receiver covers function just fine and are visually nice regardless of the model. In the long run, I purchased mine to shoot . . and it does one heck of a job in that aspect. :bthumb:

 

Zamac

Don't want to get into quality/fit function/tensile strength cause in every post there is at least one good reason to use the Alloy, especially MONEY but IMO if anybody could ever figure out how to blue the stuff instead of "coat" it they would be rich and most folks would never even know that parts of their guns were not steel.

noremf(George)

 

Ain't that the truth noremf, some would just have to find something else to gripe about.

BTW, I'm not griping, its a dern nice rifle with a dern nice price.

 

Ain't that the truth noremf, some would just have to find something else to gripe about.

BTW, I'm not griping, its a dern nice rifle with a dern nice price.

Lots of people agree with you , thats why the Henry is so popular , I get so tired of people bashing products , if you dont like it dont buy it , my understanding is that who ever makes the gun all important parts that make the gun fire are steel other parts are just eye candle , sure if Iam not correct someone will correct me

 

As a QC expert myself, I totally agree with Rick on 'definitions' of quality. Some might argue that a wooden stock is better or less than a plastic/fiber stock. Either is sufficient for the job. A well machined Zamac receiver is perfectly acceptable for a 22, or 22 mag, where it might not be quite so for a 300 H&H magnum. And, I hate to admit it, but I have 2 of the handguns on the "Sat night special" list. Both function fine, both are 22's. I just don't carry them with me on Sat nights....