Big Boy Revolver

[MechAg94]

https://www.henryusa.com/handguns/big-boy-revolver/
I got an email from Henry this morning that mentioned their new revolvers.  Their site was down for a while.  Finally appears to be working for now. 

357/38 only for now it appears.  Nice looking blued revolver.

Maybe they wanted to get this out for the NRA Show this weekend, but I don't see any youtube reviews popping up, not even on their own web page.

[MechAg94]

https://fnamerica.com/reflex/?j=1007806&sfmc_sub=241413367&l=1134_HTML&u=30073330&mid=7296526&jb=6013

I dug this email out of my spam folder.  Looks like FN has their P365 competitor, the Reflex.  One or two videos out about this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL3NqQDukyI

[230RN]

Irksome:  Call dealer for price.  Motivation for that?

Seems to me it wouldn't be that hard to assess competition, add up costs, apply a profit factor, and supply a number.  Is it just a kind of "pre-market survey" to assess demand?

'Druther have a number and then call the dealer.

Irksome.

[Perd Hapley]

With a name like "Big Boy," I was expecting something more like a .44 Magnum or a .45 Colt.

[zxcvbob]

With a name like "Big Boy," I was expecting something more like a .44 Magnum or a .45 Colt.

Or even a .44 Special.

MSRP is $928.  Who knows what the real price is, but that sounds awfully high.

[Angel Eyes]

Or even a .44 Special.

MSRP is $928.  Who knows what the real price is, but that sounds awfully high.

Indeed.  What does a S&W 688 go for nowadays?

Also, not a fan of the sights on the Big Boy.

[JTHunter]

Also, not a fan of the sights on the Big Boy.

What sights?  All it has is a "notch" cut into the frame. 

[AZRedhawk44]

I want to know what lawyerisms are present in its operation.  Does it have a Hillary Hole?

[230RN]

What sights?  All it has is a "notch" cut into the frame. 

I was gong to remark on that, too.  I can :"make do" with fixed sights by holding off, but I don't like it.  At 25 yards, my usual fixed sight group is about 5" high and left of where I'm holding. Yeah, diagnose that as flinching if you want. (My younger son has the same holdoff.  Must be something in the 230RN genes.)  Anyhow, Terry said bloodthirstily, if I want a head shot I hold on the left collarbone. :evil:  For COM I aim for the spleen. <giggle>

But at 90% of a grand, I'd expect some kind of sledgehammer adjustable sights, but maybe they're looking at a "faithfulness" market.

Maybe "Big Boy" was a pet name for some cowboy movie star's gun or something.  When I was a kid, I named my BB gun...  wait for it...."Betsy."

Terry, 230RN

[lee n. field]

Aimed at the cowboy LARP crowd?  Not at the CCW user.

Not seeing a manual on Henry's website.  That, or an exploded parts diagram, would answer some of the questions I have.

That rear sight.  Yeah, wow.

[HankB]

Those ugly ass revolvers look like some sort of an AI-powered mashup of Ruger, Charter Arms, and old Colt revolvers, with maybe a little bit of RG thrown in. About the only thing good I can say about them aesthetically is that the cylinder bolt notches aren't directly above and in line with the chambers. Unless their performance (action and accuracy) are really exceptional, I don't see these as a marketing success at $928 when S&W L-frames and Ruger GP-100s start at less than $100 more.

[K Frame]

"Those ugly ass revolvers look like some sort of an AI-powered mashup of Ruger, Charter Arms, and old Colt revolvers, with maybe a little bit of RG thrown in."

Winner winner ugly assed chicken dinner.

No thanks.

[Hawkmoon]

I'm old enough to remember when Henry firearms were affordable, and worth more than they cost.

That was a while ago.

[RoadKingLarry]

Henry still makes a darn good rifle. I've had 2, recently sold the .45-70 to a nephew. Way too much for my Frankenstein's shoulders to handle even at Springfield load levels. My 1874 Sharps (Pedersoli) is still tolerable (for a few rounds) with 525 gr cast and 70 gr BP.
 If I had the want to I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Henry levergun.
But, that revolver is a hard NO from me. My "go to" for revolvers is S&W for DA and Ruger for SA. If Ruger ever gets up on plane with  the reborn Marlins I'd be a player there too.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't like the looks of the cylinder latch, or that relieved section above the ejector rod. Other than that, they're pretty.

.357 is just not the right cartridge for those guns, though. Should be something more interesting.

[AZRedhawk44]

.357 is just not the right cartridge for those guns, though. Should be something more interesting.

Yup.  Would have been cool as .38-44, or .44special.  The looks are very turn of the 20th century, maybe even 1890's.  Be cool to see another .38-44 on the market again.  I know modern metallurgy makes the heft of the old turn of the century S&W's in that chambering irrelevant... but it's that whole "second kind of cool" thing.

Given that .38-44 is effectively .357 magnum (shorter, but similar pressure), best to offer in .44 special.

[K Frame]

"Yup.  Would have been cool as .38-44, or .44special.  "

Do you mean the .38/44 Heavy Duty, the old S&W "I was Plus + before there was Plus +" cartridge, or .38-40, the old Winchester rifle round ported over to handguns?

[K Frame]

Just got a look at all of the pix on the Henry site.

These things look like some of the revolvers that were coming out in the 1870s and 1880s.

The Birdshead one looks a bit like the Colt 1877.

[AZRedhawk44]

"Yup.  Would have been cool as .38-44, or .44special.  "

Do you mean the .38/44 Heavy Duty, the old S&W "I was Plus + before there was Plus +" cartridge?

That one.

[zxcvbob]

That one.

Nobody will make a new .38/44 HD because the cartridge will fit in any .38 Special and is loaded to roughly twice the pressure.

[K Frame]

I really don't see the need to go back to the .38/44 HD round because modern revolvers, like this one, are perfectly capable of chambering the .357 Magnum.

The entire purpose for the .38/44 round when it was developed in the 1920s/30s is now moot.

[Pb]

I could be wrong, but those appear to be extremely ugly, expensive, and with bad sights.

[zxcvbob]

I really don't see the need to go back to the .38/44 HD round because modern revolvers, like this one, are perfectly capable of chambering the .357 Magnum.

The entire purpose for the .38/44 round when it was developed in the 1920s/30s is now moot.

The shorter cylinder would reduce weight more than you'd expect and the overall length of the gun.

.38/44 is also a nice round for a .357 Magnum levergun because you can fit 2 more in the tube magazine.  But if you're handloading anyway, you can accomplish the same thing by loading full-power .357 cast wadcutters, and those won't chamber in a .38 unless some idiot bored out the cylinder.

[K Frame]

"The shorter cylinder would reduce weight more than you'd expect and the overall length of the gun."

We've already got that with .38 Special revolvers that will shoot .38 Special +P.

Again, the .38/44's time has come, gone, and won't be revisited.

[zxcvbob]

"The shorter cylinder would reduce weight more than you'd expect and the overall length of the gun."

We've already got that with .38 Special revolvers that will shoot .38 Special +P.

Again, the .38/44's time has come, gone, and won't be revisited.

I'm agreeing with you    Just saying the round still has utility, even if it's not enough to resurrect it from history's scrap pile because of the liability issues.  The same thing happened to a rimmed 9mm cartridge; I think made by Federal.  It would chamber just fine in old top-break .38 S&W revolvers.