Henry centerfire quality survey

[GFK]

... The spike in quality issues that many of us are either experiencing or hearing about is probably real ("where there's smoke, there's fire"), so the real question is, does it turn out to be a blip or a trend?

. . . . This is also a function of Henry's position in the gun market as a brand with great value. . . . Comparing my experience with other mainline and affordable brands with what I have been hearing about Henry issues, is that Henry QC is typical for the prices they charge and, in fact, it's probably better than average. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't complain when you get a defective gun. In fact, you should complain (politely, of course). Customer feedback is always important to any company.

I can agree. I do expect to get my money worth. Like most people, I expect to get as much as I can for the dollar. I did and do fine Henry to be of good value. But, I expect mistakes to be at a minimal. I was shocked to walk in to the LGS and fine a BB Silver very dull, not as nice and bright as the one in the picture. Is this a mistake or being in a hurry? I think one had to be close to blind not to noticed it. But, I will give them another try. Maybe, it was a bad day. By no means is that any comparison to a split stock. Just, what I pointed out is something that could very easily be addressed. No feedback or research required. Just, the will to do a good job. But in the end, money (profits) seems to drive a lot of things.

[ESquared]

I did 30+ years of corporate America, with both private and public companies, and Henry's biggest advantage is being the former. It's all about what Imperato will do to manage the growth. No doubt he's found a great price/value proposition and has positioned the brand very well. The old adage "You get what you pay for" was well spelled out in the Browning vs. Henry scenario, so it's undoubtedly true that the Henry loyalists will put up with an issue here and there, as long as Henry continues to deal with those issues in their exemplary manner.

I've had my highest priced Henry go back for a warranty repair, but I went out and bought another one, which, I imagine, is not that uncommon!

[Mags]

I retired from a well known high tech company. I started out in an engineering role decades ago, promoted through management and then did a career reset into Quality & Reliability because Q&R needed someone who could take internal and external excursion data and translate it into actionable engineering and manufacturing corrective actions, for our own problems as well as those foisted on us by our suppliers.

Henry has the outward symptoms of not having an outgoing formal Q&R program that includes a progressive 6-sigma outgoing quality sampling plan or even one to basic mil-spec sampling. Having such a plan should be especially important to HenryUSA given the length of their sales pipeline. That is date of manufacture to actual sale to consumers can be a year or more (see born date posts). That means HenryUSA can be building a lot of repeat defects in that 1+ year pipeline before detecting those defects from customer returns. From working with supplier Quality excursions I firmly believe HenryUSA is one of those who doesn't do a good job of tracking up front outgoing quality, that there is a lack of management knowledge and support for quality control processes, poor tracking (lack of how to do it) and basic cost impact understanding to their sales revenue by catching failures before they leave the factory vrs in customer returns. Having the knowledge and how to, does not require 100% outgoing test. Having a 6-sigma sampling plan establishes a progressive quantity to be tested based on the number of outgoing excursions found in the factory. Find a failure, increase the sample size to be tested along with implementing corrective action. Once corrective action has been demonstrated to be effective in the sampling, the outgoing sample size tested gets reduced.

[ESquared]

Right on, Mags! I remember different parts of the "Henry Factory Tour" video, and it seemed like so many of the machining-related processes were machine-controlled that it would be easy to make the inspection process pretty slippery. I was struck by how much it involved assembly of various parts at various stations, which seems typical, but the challenge is they can't figure out whether the rifle goes "Bang!" until the end of it all.

If everything seems to "fit together" as it all should, it just goes on down the line...

Today's labor market presents a huge challenge in such situations.

And, how does one inspect for a rear stock failure (other than making sure the grain is oriented correctly in the first place)?

[Redthies]

And, how does one inspect for a rear stock failure (other than making sure the grain is oriented correctly in the first place)?

That’s a simple test... just get a Nerf tree and smack the stock against it!

[shootinthecinders]

ESquared posted:

If everything seems to "fit together" as it all should, it just goes on down the line...

This is why I don’t understand how the inner mag tubes that are very difficult to latch make it out the door. It’s very obvious and immediately noticeable.

[GFK]

I have no intention of beating up on Henry. Like a lot of companies, it seems a matter of supply and demand. As long as there is a demand, Henry will attempt to met it with the best quality that time does not impact profit (get it out the door and fix it if it returns). As NGC pointed out, the big picture is managing for profit. Unfortunately, baby always seem to need a new pair of shoes, or papa wants a new car.

[Mags]

.
Managing for profit means catching defects before they escape. Managing customer found defects is hugely more expensive than containment. That is part of the point that people and many companies don't comprehend. Ship it anyway and let the customer sort it out eventually becomes bad for business, both expense and reputation.

I read earlier in this topic, that the forum members having issues aren't a representative customer base sample size. I wouldn't be so sure of that. Member found issues here might just as well represent the tip of the proverbial hidden iceberg.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Henry and I think the world of HenryUSA. They make a great product and have top of the world customer service. They just need to get their outgoing quality act together to be well balanced.

I have no intention of beating up on Henry. Like a lot of companies, it seems a matter of supply and demand. As long as there is a demand, Henry will attempt to met it with the best quality that time does not impact profit (get it out the door and fix it if it returns). As NGC pointed out, the big picture is managing for profit. Unfortunately, baby always seem to need a new pair of shoes, or papa wants a new car.

[GFK]

.
Managing for profit means catching defects before they escape. Managing customer found defects is hugely more expensive than containment. That is part of the point that people and many companies don't comprehend. Ship it anyway and let the customer sort it out eventually becomes bad for business, both expense and reputation.

I read earlier in this topic, that the forum members having issues aren't a representative customer base sample size. I wouldn't be so sure of that. Member found issues here might just as well represent the tip of the proverbial hidden iceberg.

I have no intention of beating up on Henry. Like a lot of companies, it seems a matter of supply and demand. As long as there is a demand, Henry will attempt to met it with the best quality that time does not impact profit (get it out the door and fix it if it returns). As NGC pointed out, the big picture is managing for profit. Unfortunately, baby always seem to need a new pair of shoes, or papa wants a new car.

I can agree. It is better in the long run to catch problems before they go out the door. But, lots of companies are concerned about the bottom line. Look at all the companies that file for bankruptcy or as the government for a bailout. I am not claiming it makes good business sense. I am just stating people do it. When I think managing for profit, I think the short game is being played: getting as much as you can while you can.

[Mags]

.
I don't think Henry is playing the 'short game'. I just think they are naive about Quality impact to their bottom line and how to go about quality check sampling.

I can agree. It is better in the long run to catch problems before they go out the door. But, lots of companies are concerned about the bottom line. Look at all the companies that file for bankruptcy or as the government for a bailout. I am not claiming it makes good business sense. I am just stating people do it. When I think managing for profit, I think the short game is being played: getting as much as you can while you can.

[GFK]

.
I don't think Henry is playing the 'short game'. I just think they are naive about Quality impact to their bottom line and how to go about quality check sampling.

I can agree. It is better in the long run to catch problems before they go out the door. But, lots of companies are concerned about the bottom line. Look at all the companies that file for bankruptcy or as the government for a bailout. I am not claiming it makes good business sense. I am just stating people do it. When I think managing for profit, I think the short game is being played: getting as much as you can while you can.

You may be right. But, this statement sticks out in my mind:

"From the numbers of replacement stocks shipped compared to 300,000 guns being shipped it is a very insignificant number"

Someone is keeping track of sales, and not necessarily quality of sales.

[Jimi]

ESquared posted:

If everything seems to "fit together" as it all should, it just goes on down the line...

This is why I don’t understand how the inner mag tubes that are very difficult to latch make it out the door. It’s very obvious and immediately noticeable.

Yep, after a test fire everything should be inspected. My Christmas present this year was a 45.70. I have a .44 Magnum, and now am skeptical of it. The 45.70 inner mag tube was almost impossible to remove. Henry sent me a replacement quickly, but it jammed also. The outer tube apparently deformed on test fire, but wasn’t caught. I took it back to Cabelas. One can expect problems after use, but not right out the gate. Yes, it could have been sent to the factory, but I would never be completely satisfied. Like a semi-auto pistol—not a case of if it will stove pipe or misdeed, but when.

[fortyshooter]

Well my .44 Mag steel carbine is my first Henry lever rifle and my 2nd Henry purchase.
So far only 100 rounds thru it and all is fine so far. Only little thing is to get the bit of wiggle out of the fore grip even when the screw is tight.
No feeding issues at all with factory or my reloads.

[CT_Shooter]

Only little thing is to get the bit of wiggle out of the fore grip even when the screw is tight.

You might try loosening the fore-end screw a bit, pulling the grip snugly toward the receiver, then tightening the screw again. This has worked for my H001 and for others who have reported the same issue.

[cruzerbotz]

Had a Henry 30-30 Steel. Great rifle. No issues. Even harvested a deer at 150 yds with it. Had been looking for a Ruger No 1 in 308 and found one after a year. Knew I wouldn't be using the 30-30 any more for hunting, so sold it. Now, I have a BBS 357 and no issues. Very accurate rifle. Also, got a 223 Single Shot and no issues with it, other than the heavy trigger, which I fixed. I have had both of these apart and can say they are well made rifles.

[Jlhusa1]

BBB 357. Probably put about 500 rounds through it so far. Action seems smoother than ever. Sweet gun. No issues at all. Great gun.