Henry Rifle Forums

First range report for my Henry H009B. These are at 50 yds, 150gr bullet. Used laser boresight prior to shooting. Vortex Striker 1-6x24 scope with 0.97in scope ring offset. These are free form, without bags or sled. #1. five shots low and to the right. 2nd from the top is nearly 2 in 1 hole. The shot low and to the left is from attempt #2 after scope adjustment (over adjusted way high and to the left from the lower target (not shown)).
#4 Final scope setting. #5 Final scope setting with 170gr bullet.

At 100yds so-so consistent. Need bags or sled to stabilize the rifle.

150gr bullet 170gr bullet

For the first time out x and "free form" shooting that looks like good shooting to me.
I truly appreciate the 30-30.

Ya I love my .30-30 too even after a sore shoulder from an afternoon of shooting. That .30-30 punches more than the 12 gauge I used later in the day to shoot clay.

Nice work.

I agree about the recoil of the 30-30. In the light Marlin and Winchester carbines I have shot, that recoil is sharp. I don't care what gun hack writers say about the 30-30 being soft to shoot.

The Henry .30-30 is this company's "flagship" rifle for deer hunters, partly because of the history of that bullet caliber. When I read it for the first time, I appreciated Henry's description highlighting this caliber:

"More than just another deer cartridge, the venerable .30-30 has been the king of deer calibers since the first rifle chambered in this ageless round was produced in 1894."

Very good off-hand shooting, Mags. Whenever I've been out deer hunting, I prefer to use my rifle shooting off hand. I cannot tell what size your targets are....I'd guess maybe 8" ones. If so, at either 50 or 100 yards, looks pretty certain that you'll have a deer harvested. Great range report and a very cool Henry rifle!
PT7

Four inch Targets. I usually shoot plastic buckets and cans and so wasn't sure how good these target results were considering how unsteady I felt my aim was. Thank you, I'm glad these pass muster. By next time I'll at least have a pair of sand bags with me.

Your Range Report just ramped up with those 4" targets, Mags! Shooting off hand, I'd take any of them at those distances. Actually, you've encouraged me to go from using my usual 6" rounds and try some 4-inchers. That will happen at some of my future range visits. Fun challenge!

I think shooting a rifle off hand does carry a certain amount of unsteadiness. It takes a lot to keep that muzzle still. But your closely-landed POIs reflect excellent shooting. In my view, if you were in a precision rifle competition, that is a totally different story than deer hunting. The main challenge when hunting is simply that the first bullet be on target.

Next fall if you deer hunt with your .30-30, make sure you take a quality hunting knife with you, because you'll need it! As long as one shows up in your sights, you'll have your harvest. Thanks again for your Range Report.

Mags wrote:Four inch Targets. I usually shoot plastic buckets and cans and so wasn't sure how good these target results were considering how unsteady I felt my aim was. Thank you, I'm glad these pass muster. By next time I'll at least have a pair of sand bags with me.

target sheet.JPG

.
Today's shooting setup. Reactive 5.5 inch flip around plates at 75 yds.
First time shooting Federal Power Shok 170gr. My Henry seems to like these better than the Winchester and Remington.
Vortex Strike Force 1-6x24 scope at 6x zoom.
Pole leans toward the shooter. Bullets hitting the plates are deflected into the ground. Pictures taken in upward direction since the pole leans forward. Shooting direction is actually down hill into bottom land.

Nice work, Mags! Very interested in your 30-30 work and comments, as it's on my short list (CCH?)!

Interesting, too, to hear you talk about recoil. You're right, the gun writers dismiss it as no big deal, so good to hear some real world comments.

That scope looks great on the rifle, too. Assume you're happy with it?

Fantastic shooting, thanks for sharing!

Nice setup.

ESquared wrote:That scope looks great on the rifle, too. Assume you're happy with it?

Yes I'm very happy with it. Not having an objective bell on this scope, I was able to leave the buck horn sight in place. Also, there is a battery operated reticle that is normally black when turned off, but when turned on is adjustable brightness red. Nice when the target is dark or in low light. The optics are very clear, have not noticed any imperfections even at the edges.

But I wish I had bought the 8x zoom model. The 6x zoom is ok for staying inside 4 inch groups at 100 yds, but for tighter groups really should have gotten the 8x. Going to take some fine tuning finesse practice and concentration to get tight groups with 6x at 100yds. Something to look forward to working on. Excuse for more shooting , ya that's it.

The other thing I should have done differently was not buy the packaged scope/ring mount deal. The ring mount was too high 1.5". Bought a set of rings at 0.97 inches. Much less hold over/under with the lower rings.

Today I didn't put that many bullets down range, so recoil I hadn't even given it a 2nd thought. Time before this one, that recoil added up over the course of the afternoon to a sore spot that made me wince with each of the later shots.

I prefer sand bags over a benchrest myself. It makes me feel like I’m actually shooting.

Mags wrote:

ESquared wrote:That scope looks great on the rifle, too. Assume you're happy with it?

The other thing I should have done differently was not buy the packaged scope/ring mount deal. The ring mount was too high 1.5". Bought a set of rings at 0.97 inches. Much less hold over/under with the lower rings.

I was wondering what you meant in your first post, where you wrote about "0.97" partial offset" (paraphrasing), that's how little I know about scopes.

I have much to learn if I'm going to get serious about this 30-30/Scope thing...

.
Not 'partial', not a word I used. Here is a clip of what I meant in height.

ESquared wrote:... I was wondering what you meant in your first post, where you wrote about "0.97" partial offset" (paraphrasing), that's how little I know about scopes. I have much to learn if I'm going to get serious about this 30-30/Scope thing...

Mags wrote:.
Not 'partial', not a word I used. Here is a clip of what I meant in height.

Ring Height.JPG

ESquared wrote:... I was wondering what you meant in your first post, where you wrote about "0.97" partial offset" (paraphrasing), that's how little I know about scopes. I have much to learn if I'm going to get serious about this 30-30/Scope thing...

Yep, "partial" was my word, don't know where that came from, other than 0.97" registers in my brain as "partial." Is the measurement of 0.97" the distance from "base to ring center" as laid out in your pic? "Offset" from what?

See how far I have to go?

Not to shabby, my friend. Especially for off hand.

Slugnut wrote:Not to shabby, my friend. Especially for off hand.

Thanks. Appreciate positive reinforcement.

Just so there is no confusion, there are 2 different range reports here. The first with the paper targets was off hand. The 2nd report was shooting the metal plate targets using the Vanguard fore-stock rest. The rest helped calm some of my shakyness. I've learned that I probably need to get a rear stock rest/bag to fully stabilize the Henry and me. I can see through the scope that I'm still moving around more than I would like with the stock held to my shoulder.