Side Gate vs Tube Feed

[clovishound]

I've tried side loading gates. Made me glad I have a front loader.

Loading handgun caliber cartridges through a gate is easy. Loading 30-30's is often not fun at all.

Actually, the Marlin I shot was a handgun caliber, .44. What a pain IMO.

[tx gunrunner]

Actually, the Marlin I shot was a handgun caliber, .44. What a pain IMO.

Most SASS/CAS shooter use a pusher to feed the gun . Makes it super easy on the fingers if you shoot a lot like in a match . The 1860 Henry has the best loading port . The only drawback with the 1860 is NO forearm and the shell pusher moving down the barrel to where you must move your hand .

[RanchRoper]

I'll have to practice loading the 1860 at a full gallop....uh, maybe not.

[Squib308]

at first I found the tube feed system to be a disadvantage to the HRA rifles. however over time and more extended use I've come to actually prefer the tube loading system because it's robust, simple and easy to clean. it's substantially easier to load while wearing gloves, at least for me. to me the only real advantage to side loading is that it can be done quicker and can load a +1 into chamber much more safely. with the HRA I'm not convinced there's any safe way to truly top off the gun, since that would require manipulating the feeding tube while a round is chambered....no thanks. however those are two very minor issues. in general I prefer the henry system and I never thought I would say that.

[red ryder]

This is something the range owner, Henry hater and avid SASS participant has told me. It sounds like one of those things that "maybe true, but sounds mighty strange". Loading the Henry tube with cartridges is dangerous. He has seen someone loading a Henry and a cartridge went off as it hit the next cartridge in the tube. It just seems that as the cartridge drops even if the tube is at 90°to the ground, the falling cartridge would not have enough momentum to go off. Has anybody ever heard of this? I doubt Mr. Imperato would allow such an obvious legal liability to exist. To quote my late mother: "Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see". Your thoughts are welcome.

[bdbrown66]

I'll believe that when someone shows me proof that it happened, with proper (ie. non-pointed) ammo.

[2fewdaysafield]

A lot of people seem to get their knickers in a twist over the loading gate vs tube load issue. I have both and neither one bothers me a bit.

[tx gunrunner]

I'll believe that when someone shows me proof that it happened, with proper (ie. non-pointed) ammo.

I'm with you .......... I prefer the side gate loading but there is no way with the correct bullet in tube feed will ever fire from sliding a bullet down a tube .

[BigAl52]

This is something the range owner, Henry hater and avid SASS participant has told me. It sounds like one of those things that "maybe true, but sounds mighty strange". Loading the Henry tube with cartridges is dangerous. He has seen someone loading a Henry and a cartridge went off as it hit the next cartridge in the tube. It just seems that as the cartridge drops even if the tube is at 90°to the ground, the falling cartridge would not have enough momentum to go off. Has anybody ever heard of this? I doubt Mr. Imperato would allow such an obvious legal liability to exist. To quote my late mother: "Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see". Your thoughts are welcome.

Im with the others prove it. This belief has been passed around for quite sometime.The only reason I believe its still passed around is because the person claiming this at the time hates tube feed so much hes looking for some lame excuse to never own one. Al

[red ryder]

[/quote]I'm with the others prove it. This belief has been passed around for quite sometime.The only reason I believe it's still passed around is because the person claiming this at the time hates tube feed so much he's looking for some lame excuse to never own one. Al[/quote]

I think you nailed it. The claim as I hope I indicated, is absurd.