Quit badmouthing the AR-7!


PDA






B yond
September 9, 2006, 10:57 PM
I've read way too many bad reviews of the AR-7 rifle. There are a lot of "experts" out there posting misinformation about this handy little .22 that would lead the uninformed to believe that this gun is a "jam-o-matic" and can't cycle more than a few rounds without a problem. I've decided it's time to correct this.

The AR-7 is an amazingly adaptive weapons system from the same genius that gave us the AR-15, which is widely recognized as a brilliantly designed weapon. It can be a practically maintenance-free survival rifle, an ultra-light pack rifle, a medium to long range plinker, even a decent pistol. Just the fact that the USAF once issued it as a survival tool should dispell the rumors about it's unreliability.

The fact of the matter is, if your AR-7 isn't cycling what you're feeding it, you're feeding it the wrong ammo. These rifles are designed to eat high velocity .22LR cartridges, NOT ultra-cheap loose-packed bulk .22s. Sure, you can get them to shoot that junk, but it will not cycle.

Whenever I get a new firearm the first thing I do is take it to the range with as many different types and brands of ammo as I can find to see what it likes. To my delight, my AR-7 WILL NOT jam with high velocity ammunition. I mean ANY high velocity .22 ammo! It's not like I have to pay extra for Mini Mags, I can feed it Blazer or Remington Lightning for about the same price as that loose bulk junk.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the AR-7 IS a good rifle, despite popular opinion. Just feed her well and she'll give you years of trouble-free service. All those stories out there about how you have to modify the magazine, or file off part of the feed ramp, or do anything else to this well-designed weapon besides shoot and enjoy are 100% bull. It it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Just my $0.02.

B

If you enjoyed reading about "Quit badmouthing the AR-7!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
B.D. Turner
September 9, 2006, 11:08 PM
I have owned several Charter Arms AR7's all worked without any problems of any kind.

kevin387
September 9, 2006, 11:08 PM
Nice non confrontational first post:rolleyes:

I don't like them because the stock feels oversized to me, nothing felt tight and the one I shot did have a couple of problems with jams. I highly prefer the Marlin Papoose, a very similar in purpose rifle but IMHO more reliable. For the record I did have problems with original Papoose and had to send it back three times, they finally sent me a new one and I have had zero problems with it.

I'm glad you like what you got though, congrats.

Hacker15E
September 9, 2006, 11:11 PM
I have an Armalite AR-7, and I love it. It's very accurate, especially considering that screw-on barrel. It does occasionally jam up, and it seems to be due to poor magazines.

The Henry and Charter versions that I have handled appear to be more cheaply made than the Armalite version I have.

B yond
September 9, 2006, 11:12 PM
kevin,
Wasn't trying to be confrontational, I just don't want anyone to be turned away from this rifle because they heard that it will jam constantly.

I agree with you about the grip being too large on the survival stock, but there are other stocks available, some with very comfortable pistol grips.

Gewehr98
September 9, 2006, 11:42 PM
I had one from CharCo that wouldn't feed ammo worth sour owl poop, not with the original magazines, not with new factory mags, nor with aftermarket hicaps. I considered it a crew served weapon because it needed two people to pull the trigger, it was that heavy and gritty. Gunsmithing the trigger proved futile, the heat treatment of the lockwork was microns thin, and even simple polishing wore through that and caused significant wear. Too bad, because I had gone to the effort of the barrel shroud with HK ring front sight and rear micrometer peep, and AR-15 style retractable stock. It did prove to be a nicely accurate single-shot, all things considered.

So I took it to a local pawnshop, and used it in a partial trade on a Winchester 94. Maybe whoever bought it got it to work properly.

I can only hope that Henry/Survival Arms or whomever is making them now has a better eye for quality control. :(

R.W.Dale
September 9, 2006, 11:45 PM
The example of the AR-7 that I was involved with was a piece of garbage of the highest order. I especally liked the bent barrel, I wonder if it was engeneered that way as rather than being bent at one point the barrel had a nice radius throught it's entire length (an indication of the finest craftsmanship I've been told):neener:

I would refer to the action as a knife operated straight pull magazine fed single shot. Ammunition was rather expoenive for a .22lr as you always had to discard the mangled double fed round on each shot. Therfore you would shoot it once and go through 2 rounds of ammunition REGUARDLESS OF BRAND

All of this in a brand new in box gun. The moral to this story when your buddy who owns a pawnshop asks you to take this rifle home to see if you can get it to shoot right...DON'T bother

Nice first post, what's the matter you got a pallet of these to try to move?

ribbonstone
September 9, 2006, 11:56 PM
Going to have to come dwon on the "POS" side of this one.

Will admit that there do seem to be some guns that function fine and make good survival .22's....just has not been my luck to guy one of those. First one was an Armalite "Explorer" then two Charter Arms. Tried multiple replacement magazines...all the ammo types I could find (from top of the line match ammo to bottom of the line bulk-packs with all the types I could find in-between).

Just bad luck on my part...like the concept, but so far am much less than thrilled with the execution.
-------
That first Amalite (bown stock taht waqs supose to look like wood...looked more like a bowling ball) did work better than the rest...but it would gag once or twice every 50rounds....and killed itself by having a round set off before chambering fully. Case head blew...gas puffed up the side plate...mag. shot out the bottom to bounce off my foot.

But it floats...so after I got PO'ed and tossed it over the side, had to go back and fish it out as a hazard to navigation.

larryw
September 10, 2006, 12:08 AM
I'm glad you like your gun.

I don't consider a gun that is finicky with ammo to be worthy of the "Survival" label. Mine was a POS and was replaced by an M6 (hammer reliable).

Beetle Bailey
September 10, 2006, 02:09 AM
Well, I want to like the AR-7, but the two I've tried both had issues at some point.

On the first one (don't know the brand) every time I fired the gun, it would double. The last round failed to feed. The owner came over and said to me "I'm surprised you got thru the whole magazine without a failure."

Apparently he didn't notice that I only fired seven, so I informed him about the failure and he sighed. Then I asked him about the doubling, and he said "Oh yeah, it does that if you rest the magazine on your off-hand." To which I replied "Well, how the heck am I supposed to hold this thing?"

But, I still like the idea of a handy survival rifle like the AR-7 so when I found out a friend of mine recently got a Henry AR-7, I went over to his bench to check it out. He was doing just fine, shooting a 4" steel plate at 50 yards with it. He got about 40-50% hits from the standing position and bulk ammo.

I asked him if he had any issues, to which he replied, "Well, when I first took it out, it couldn't feed at all. 0% feed rate. Luckily I always carry a set of files with me so I made a feed ramp and now it's running great."

I told him of my past misfortunes with the other AR-7 so we both tried, in turn, to get this Henry to double-fire by holding the magazine in the off-hand. To it's credit, that gun performed perfectly the entire afternoon thru a couple hundred rounds of ammo. No doubling, no failures, nothing wrong.

When I go on THR to find out other people's experiences with the various AR-7 makes, it's not very encouraging. I am glad your rifle works, and I'd love to have one that works just as well. However, just because your rifle works great, does not mean everyone who has reported a disappointing experience has a vendetta against the AR-7.

All the best,
BB

rangerruck
September 10, 2006, 03:47 AM
I have tried/owned several , wanting desperately to like them. Now I am not speaking of the new Henry's , but all others sucked cheese off doorknobs. Will never get another one. Maybe a Henry though...

Double Naught Spy
September 10, 2006, 10:46 AM
Yeah, all y'all stop bad mouthing the AR7! You don't get to have an opinion on the matter if it isn't positive and you are hurting the AR7's feelings!

Don't get upset B yond as I am supporting you. The only problem is that I don't know what the heck you are talking about. You are upset because people don't like the AR7 because they have had poor experiences with it, but that since yours has worked so well that they all must be wrong?

The AR-7 is an amazingly adaptive weapons system from the same genius that gave us the AR-15, which is widely recognized as a brilliantly designed weapon. It can be a practically maintenance-free survival rifle, an ultra-light pack rifle, a medium to long range plinker, even a decent pistol. Just the fact that the USAF once issued it as a survival tool should dispell the rumors about it's unreliability.

Weapons system? What system. It is a single gun, either a rifle or pistol. What am I missing that makes it a system?

Stoner designed it, no doubt, but just because he designed the AR15 doesn't mean the AR7 is a great gun. Stoner had many gun designs that didn't come to fruition. You simply cannot evaluate one gun based on the success of another gun designed by the same person.

So the USAF once issued these as a survival tool, but that doesn't mean the gun was reliable. When the AR15 was first sent to Nam as the M16, it was crap. So the fact that it was issued by the military didn't mean it would be reliable. The gun went through several modifications before becoming the AR15 we see today. The military also issued flight suits with velcro flaps for pockets that turned out to be pretty darned stupid for shot down pilots because they could not clandestinely access the contents of their pockets without making the ripping velcro sound. This was a huge problem for Scott O'Grady when he was shot down over Bosnia as he could not get access to supplies whenever opposition search parties were near.

Think of it this way. The all mighty 1911 was the partial brain child of JMB, heralded as his masterpiece, but the 1911 isn't free of controversy.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the AR-7 IS a good rifle, despite popular opinion. Just feed her well and she'll give you years of trouble-free service. All those stories out there about how you have to modify the magazine, or file off part of the feed ramp, or do anything else to this well-designed weapon besides shoot and enjoy are 100% bull. It it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And therein is the problem. Folks had AR7s that were not working as great as you have claimed and so popular opinion has been less than great.

bowline
September 10, 2006, 11:03 AM
sucked cheese off doorknobs

:what: rangerruck, you owe me a keyboard... hehehe

deadin
September 10, 2006, 12:17 PM
I don't know about anything that I haven't experienced.
I bought one of the first AR-7's made by Armalite in the early '60's.
It was a POS. Wouldn't feed, inaccurate, awkward to handle, etc.
Got rid of it.
20+ years later the "cuteness" of the design got to me again and I bought a "new and improved" AR-7 by Charter Arms. Unfortunately still a POS. Same problems as before. (well, maybe a little improvement. This one was a little more accurate)

I figure I gave the design two chances to show me something worthwhile and it fell flat on its face. I won't be burned again.

Dean

22-rimfire
September 10, 2006, 12:27 PM
I feel that you should not have to carefully choose what high speed ammo you feed a 22 rifle-bulk ammo or not. I have no use for a POS that does not feed high speed ammo. Not going to buy one just to find out the reviews are true. Pistols are a bit different, especially target pistols. I am more forgiving of the target pistols. My High Standard Victor would jam sometimes with soft lead bullets, used copper coated and it works fine.

JustsayMo
September 10, 2006, 01:37 PM
I'll echo those who have actually had (bad) experience with the AR7.

By any standard or comparison the AR7 is NOT a quality made firearm. That is reflected in the price which has tempted me repeatedly to buy another.

The claimed accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. I have yet to see one that could put a magazine's worth in a quarter (maybe 40% of them) at 25 yards. My Papoose can put them in a dime with cheap Wally World Bulk Federals. My Ruger Single Six will outshoot any AR7 I've ever seenhttp://www.grovestreet.com/jsp/onepic.jsp?id=1061572

http://www.grovestreet.com/jsp/onepic.jsp?id=1061572

The Papoose has shortcomings too but it is far superior in everything but weight to the AR7.

I have never regretted paying too much for a gun that I like and use. I have regretted paying too little for a crappy gun though.

1911user
September 10, 2006, 03:09 PM
I'd like to have one that works. The one I bought used in the early 90's would misfeed 1-2 times per mag (using the factory mag) at best. I paid $35 for it and happily sold it for $20 a month later (and told the guy it was a jam-0-matic). It was a charter arms model. I have heard of much better results from the newer henry-made ones, but haven't bought one.

smince
September 10, 2006, 05:28 PM
Myself, B yond, and BD Turner must have gotten the only three that worked.:neener:

Mine (Charter Arms, bought in 1981) was as close to 100% reliable as any gun I've owned, with anything I fed it. Even the Explorer II pistol I got worked fine. As long as I used factory mags. Aftermarket or "hi-cap" didn't work, as is the case so many times.

jerkface11
September 10, 2006, 07:37 PM
I've got to say i've never seen a post bashing or even mentioning the AR7 before this one. So I suppose Byond's post had the opposite effect of what he hoped.

GunnySkox
September 10, 2006, 07:45 PM
Quit badmouthing the AR-7!

No.

:D

~GnSx

AJAX22
September 10, 2006, 08:45 PM
I had one of the new henry's, It was not a plesant rifle. the receiver developed cracks in it after less than 100 rounds. It had dificulty making it through a mag without jamming. and it did not like aftermarket mags at all.

The sick part is, I still want to get another one. (not a henry) I have a fantasy where I tune one into a reliable rifle.

also its light weight and compact design makes it a good loaner for small women.

If anyone has a cheap or broken one that they want to get rid of, I'll take it off your hands.

B yond
September 10, 2006, 08:47 PM
My AR-7 was made by AR-7 Industries, and purchased in 2003. I've noticed most of the complaints (if not all) about AR-7s are about guns made by other companies. Since mine functions flawlessly I'm led to believe that the problem is not with the design, but with the quality of manufacture. By starting this thread I was hoping to hear from others who were happy with their AR-7s, because there are very few positive reviews of this gun and I think it has gotten a bad rap because a few manufacturers cut corners.

Does anyone out there have an AR-7 by AR-7 Industries that is a POS?

Oh, and Double Naught Spy: It's a weapons system because of its adaptability. There are plenty of barrels, stocks, and conversions to change it to better suit different purposes. Much like the Mossberg 500, which is also a weapons system.:neener:

Sorry if my original post came off as confrontational or argumentative, I was just trying to add some positive reviews to the ever-growing list of negative ones.

B

spin180
September 11, 2006, 04:38 AM
Friend of mine has one of these. It's pretty neat I suppose, but it wouldn't be my first choice for any serious work.

Fun to plink with, though. And it's got unique movie appeal... remember Firestarter? :p

A few years back I offered to clean it for him, as it appeared that it never had been in its' entire existence.

It was really, really dirty, and as such I got the bright idea to detail strip the thing. It would be one of my first WECSOG projects.

Dissasembled the action/bolt, took off the side plate and removed the trigger workings...

You know, it's a really good idea to make note of how everything fits together before reducing the gun to a heap of small parts. I'm fairly certain I reassembled that thing a dozen ways the engineers would never have imagined.

:o

mainmech48
September 11, 2006, 01:27 PM
I had one of the early Armalite AR-7s for a good many years. As long as i kept it clean, didn't overlube it, and kept my support hand from bearing on the magazine when firing, it was very reliable. The trigger action was highly reminiscent of a Mattel cap pistol, but it was still easy to get minute-of-bunny/squirrel hits out to fifty yds or so.

I'd likely still have it but it was stolen, along with the rest of my camping/survival duffle and my spare tire, when someone popped my trunk while I was at work one night. It was replaced with an old Browning .22 TD auto, as I was given one before the check from my insurance company came through. Not quite as handy a package, but it served my modest needs perfectly well.

On a whim, I bought a new Henry-made example at a show a while back. I've been quite disappointed with it. While it feeds well enough when the same precautions as its grandpappy needed are taken, the overall quality of fit, finish, workmanship and materials are a cut or two below par, even for the modest price.

Right now it's on its way back to NYC to have the barrel assembly replaced. After a good deal less than a brick of ammo, the barrel sleeve casting cracked at the extractor cut. While Henry's CS folks assure me that it'll be taken care of under their "lifetime" warranty, I'm not real happy. FWIW, my old Armalite ate several thousand rounds without breaking anything.

I'm another who really likes the idea here, and see a lot of potential in the design - if it were it only executed correctly by building it to a standard rather than to a price.

Personally, I'm turning a Norinco Browning TD clone that I got in excellent overall condition for $35 because it had a broken extactor finger into my idea of an ideal compact "survival"/camping piece. I'm replacing the rear sight with a Lyman folding leaf with screw-adjustable windage, installing a receiver sight and FO front bead on a little hooded ramp. The money I get for the Henry once it gets back will probably pay for most of it.

smince
September 11, 2006, 07:10 PM
I'm fairly certain I reassembled that thing a dozen ways the engineers would never have imagined
I inadvertantly reassembled mine once to where it would have needed NFA registration, but I changed it back quickly:D

ilbob
September 11, 2006, 07:23 PM
I have a Charter Arms AR7.

It seemed to feed everything I put in it pretty reliably. Now and then it had a hiccup with certain brands of ammo but you can say that about a lot of .22s.

Not especially accurate. Trigger is about as bad as they get which probably contributes to the poor accuracy.

As another poster said, look closely at how the thing goes together so you put it back together correctly.

I haven't shot mine in a while. I used to take it to a range that had a plinking pond and would shoot hundreds of rounds at corn cobs and small blocks of wood floating out on the surface of the water 15-50 feet away. never had much trouble hitting 4 inch lengths of corn cobs 15 or 20 feet away, or 4 inch square chunks of wood 30 to 50 feet away. Seemed accurate enough for plinking purposes and lots of fun.

denfoote
November 12, 2006, 12:51 AM
Well, I'm gunna find out here in very short order!!
I'm the new owner of a Henry AR7.
I'm going to take it out tomorrow to see how it works. I have several kinds of ammo and I'll see what it does.

Jackal
November 12, 2006, 01:43 AM
I would never badmouth the AR7. I just hate it because it is the cheapest feeling POS I've ever handled, and I've owned a Jennings.

telomerase
November 12, 2006, 11:47 AM
I saw one that fed reliably in 1970. No luck since then.

Owen
November 12, 2006, 12:05 PM
I can't comment on the reliability, ecause I've never shot one. But dang are they ugly!

stolivar
November 12, 2006, 05:36 PM
I have owned 2. both would jame no matter what ammor or what mags. I would not own another......:cuss:



steve

Snap
November 13, 2006, 01:27 AM
My brother has one of the Henry ones. Runs pretty well, haven't tested the accuracy on paper, but it's easy enough to hit cans and such with. The only reliability issues I remember him having were with one of the aftermarket hi-caps, mostly 'cuz the feed lip design was different from the factory mags. Trigger pull is kinda funky though. You have to remember that it's a very specialized design, it ain't built to win matches, it's built for emergency subsistence hunting. Seems to me that the reliability varies widely from manufacturer to manufacturer, but that's just my observation.

borrowedtime69
November 13, 2006, 01:51 AM
i had a charter arms one that i bought at a pawn shop befor Henry started putting them out. i didnt pay much for it and ended up trading it in on a real gun. basically, i think they had a good idea that got developed by a group of blind, mentally challanged people with good intetions.

problems:

the barrel is aluminum with a steel insert. the paint is easily scratched off and the barrel can be bent kinda easily.

it has the worst buttstock of any known firearm

its far too light to shoot accurately, unless you have a rest of some sort, the sights will be bouncing with your heart beat.

trigger sucks.

cant scope it cause it wouldnt fit back into the stock

and last but not least, the AR-7's are over priced for what theyre made for and how they are made! with all the stamped parts, mags and such, aluminum barrel, and cheap plastic stock, i wouldnt pay more than $100 -> $120 and that would be new. new ones today are going for $200 + in stores.

the ultimate survival guns are as follows: SA M6 .22/.410, Marlin Papoose, Modded Ruger 10-22 with folding stock and hi-cap mags, or a ruger MK II pistol.

toecutter
November 13, 2006, 07:50 AM
So, not too long ago I bought an AR-7. It wasn't your normal "buy a gun" transaction. Someone said "hey, here is a box of parts, I think they're gun parts you take them". This was someone who I occasionally did handyman work for. Well, after looking at the parts for about an hour, I realized that there were probably enough parts to put together a gun, I just had no idea what gun. Another hour or two later and I ended up with an AR-7 and enough parts to make another sans reciever.

Not being shy, I ran up to the range the very next weekend to try it out. Within the first magazine I was disappointed and figured I had done something wrong. Because it would either jam, or wouldn't hit the primer hard enough to fire. I then looked at my "bulk bag of ammo" and sorted out the different types. I found that it worked the best with remington golden bullet hivel. But still about 1/4 of the time didn't hit the primer hard enough.

After this, I threw it in a bag and didn't touch it for a while. The other day, I tore it down, hosed it out with Mpro7. While looking at the firing pin, I noticed that it was stamped from steel. I also noticed it had a very creepy curve to it, like it had been punched from the side of a pipe.

I tore it out (you need to remove a roll pin) and stoned it down. I will probably take it to the range within the next week or two. Other than the light firing pin strikes, it has worked fairly well. I don't know why I put so much effort into it, but it's a neat gun, now if only I could get it to work right.

Bottom Gun
November 13, 2006, 11:42 AM
Mine is great!!!
I have had several Armalite AR-7ís and one made by Charter Arms. Every single Armalite rifle worked well, never jammed and was acceptably accurate.

I have owned my present Armalite AR-7 for 29 years and have NEVER had a malfunction with it.
One year, when I had it in my boat, my mooring cover leaked and the AR-7 spent several months floating in the bilge. When I discovered it floating, I was sure it was ruined but when I opened it, it was dry as a bone inside.
I was very impressed.

In contrast, I picked up a Charter Arms years ago. It was a real POS and gave me nothing but trouble.
If you compared the Charter to the Armalite side by side, the workmanship and machining on the Armalite was far superior. It was like comparing an investment casting to a sand casting.

Joe Demko
November 13, 2006, 12:18 PM
It's supposed to be a survival rifle, right? Its "mission" is to allow you to fill your belly by popping small animals and birds after your plane crashes/yacht sinks/zeppelin explodes. The whole dismantles-and-stuffs-inside-itself design was, IIRC, to fit it in the very limited storage space aboard a bomber. The same thing was accomplished with folding or sliding stocks on other designs. The floating is a nice benenfit of the AR-7 design.
So, given what it is supposed to do, one wants a survival rifle that is as accurate and easy to score hits with as possible. Ain't going to be no trip to Wally World for another brick of ammo. You're going to be hungry, maybe injured, stressed as hell, and_well_just feeling, you know, not quite so fresh while attempting to use it. My experience shooting several different AR-7's is that it isn't much of a survival rifle. Accuracy and general ease of use weren't there. Neither was reliability. The dismantling gimmick isn't important, once you're done space capsule crash surviving and commencing to wilderness surviving. You're going to put it together and leave it that way.
What are some better options? Well, Marlin got around the Papoose not being very buoyant by packing it in a floating carrying case. We can do the same with any survival rifle. All it takes is adding enough closed-cell foam to a nylon carrying case. Styrofoam, even, if you're cheap.
Now, to the gun itself. Autoloading isn't critical or even particularly desirable. A reliable manual repeater or single shot will serve just as well. Accuracy is important so we can make those head shots on squirrels, rabbits, and other edible vermin. That means good iron sights and/or an optical sight. The thing shouldn't weigh a ton, either, but should handle well.
So, just off the top of my head, I think I'd get myself something like an NEF Handi-rifle in .22lr and mount a 4x scope on it. Probably a nylon sling, too. With the barrel removed, the gun stores very compactly. Buy or make a floating case to hold the barrel and frame-stock assemblies. Add a box or two of good hollowpoint ammo, et voila...a reliable, accurate, easy to use survival rifle that doesn't cost an arm and a leg and is actually capable of doing what a survival rifle is supposed to do.

Anteater1717
November 14, 2006, 10:06 PM
i own one:)

they are realy fast shooting guns suprisingly

there stock is realy bulky too thats my ownly real problem with the normal gun

mines 30 years old it is coverd in rust and has bean in our barn for 25 years without my knoledge

i bought all the replacment parts on ebay

its gone through a ship reck and lived

and has not jammed once!!!:) :) :) :neener:

though mine is inacurate the rust has filled in the rifleing and i cant use a peepsight

i love it simply because it still works after all its gone through :)

arthurcw
November 15, 2006, 02:06 AM
I found this article a while back. It has a bit in there about making the ar-7 feed more reliably.

http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/ar7gm32.htm

I haven't tried it. I owed one a while back and it was a jam-o-matic. But I didn't know squat about firearms back then and did not do any type of break in or regular cleaning. I was 15. I was a doofus.

I intend to get another one and if it acts up, I'll try this trick and see if it works.

MCgunner
November 15, 2006, 11:19 AM
I've had two charcos, one got stolen. They both feed and shoot great, about as accurate as my 10-22. They have poor triggers, I'll grant you that! But, mine function great. I think some folks don't understand that the feed ramp for the barrel is in the magazine. Bending this ramp in or out with a pair of needle nose is all I've ever had to do with an AR7 to get it to feed and eject 100 percent. I've read that chamfering the chamber a bit can help, but I've not resorted to this on mine, just adjusted the feed ramp on te magazine until I got 100 percent feeding. I shoot bulk pack wallyworld federals in mine and it works great. What I've put in to making the gun function is far less than I put in on a pair of 1911s that were jammamatics until my gunsmith fixed 'em...:rolleyes: Even then, you talk about ammo picky!

The gun is NOT INTENDED to be the end all of .22s. It's a very compact gun that can go anywhere and serve. I bought mine originally because I'm on a motorcycle a LOT and it fits in a saddle bag very nicely. I have other .22s to get serious with, but this little gun serves a purpose. I've never actually hunted with it, but I could. When I've gone squirrel hunting on the bike, I've taken my TC contender 10" scoped .22LR. I like squirrel hunting with a pistol.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=46180&d=1160508249

B yond
November 15, 2006, 08:46 PM
Mine's from AR-7 Industries and works great, as long as I use Hi Velocity ammo. Accuracy is good enough to hit a squirrel in the noggin. The stock is awkward, but usable. I've got a cheapo airgun scope that for some reason perfectly re-zeroes itself on the AR-7.

I'm happy with mine.

eab
November 15, 2006, 10:47 PM
I don't like them cause I can NOT stand the standerd stock on them. Its way to light and plasticy and it just feels cheap. Don't know, never shot one, never really intend to own one. For a .22 I have my ruger 10/22. Put a folding stock on it and you have a pretty compact package. If I need something smaller, don't know..... I'll figure something out then.

Sir Aardvark
November 15, 2006, 11:16 PM
My friend had one and it was no good!

Well... there was one good thing about it - it FLOATS!

Might as well tie a fishing line to it and use it as a bobber.

Carl N. Brown
February 6, 2007, 06:06 PM
Troubleshooting AR7 magazines

If a thread is titled "worst gun" or "favorite gun" someone
is bound to mention, curse or praise the AR7 Explorer.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=52721&stc=1&d=1170799291
If there are problems with the AR7, they usually fall into
predictable categories:

1) the magazine feed lips are sprung or bent;

2) the feed ramp (on the magazine) is bent;

3) ammo is not roundnosed;

4) ammo is wimpy bulk-pack;

5) chamber has been peened by after-last-shot click-oops-I-am-dry;

6) chamber has been peened by dry fire;

7) chamber has been peened by 100s or 1000s of extractor impacts.

Number 8 came to me when I tried firing my AR7 barreled action
without the shoulderstock: if the buttstock is not held rigidly
to the shoulder, the bolt will not recoil correctly.
Veteran pistol shooters are aware of the phenomonon known as
"limp wristing" an auto pistol and causing it to jam;
AR7s are subject to "weak shouldering" and jamming: the bolt
needs something solid and immobile to recoil against.
I suspect a lot of recoil and blowback operated guns are subject
to limb-wristing (handgun) or limp-shouldering (rifle).

It seeems to me that the AR7 was originally designed for a
centerfire caliber available with FMJ Hague Accord compliant
ammo (6.35mm .25ACP or even 7.65mmm .32ACP) because the bolt
and action springs are heavy for a .22 rimfire and the magazine
is thick. Remember, the AR7 is the civilian version of the M5
AR5 Air Force survival gun that was not distributed due to the
numbers of M4 and M6 survival guns still in inventory.

My AR7 works best with .22 CCI Stinger and OK with round
nose high velocity ammo. It jams on flat-nose or weak ammo or
el cheapo bulk-pack. Even with 'bad' ammo most jams are the first
one or two of a full eight shot magazine. Even with weak bulk
pack or flat-nosed ammo, if I load five rounds per eight-shot
magazine I get acceptable reliabilty. Every aftermarket high
capacity magazine I have tried sucks, even for tin can plinking.
I would not bet my life on anything but an original 8-shotter
loaded to five.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=52722&stc=1&d=1170799269
Most problems with autoloading actions are with the magazine.
Most problems with AR7s are with the magazine. Cliche but true.

If you have more than one AR7 magazine, and one does not work,
well, use a good one as a template to fix the bad one.
Problem areas are usually the feed lips or the feed ramp.

AR7 feed lips are easier to repair than most: the AR7 feed lips
are flat and easily reshaped with smooth faced pliers. Do not
use pliers that will roughen the inside of the feed lip.
I got a pair of hemostats, ground the faces of the jaws flat to
remove all serrations, and use those to bend feed lips.

The AR7 feed ramp is part of the magazine. In other designs,
the feed ramp is part of the barrel, part of the receiver, or
both barrel and receiver (eg M1911). With the AR7, fixing a feed
ramp problem is relatively easy. A magazine is easier to fix--
or replace--than a receiver or a barrel. (In a similar manner,
the ejector on the Marlin M70 is part of the magazine, an
easy fix. A design built around a magazine that included ejector
and feed ramp would be low maintenance, indeed. The Marlin 70
ejector and AR7 feed ramp are just extensions of existing parts
of the magazine, which should be cost-effective in a combo design.)

The AR7 barrel is a steel liner in an aluminum shell. The image
above shows clearly the divide between the steel liner and the
aluminum shell (at least they had the good sense to include
the chamber in the liner!) It also shows the result of forty-odd
years of steel bolt slamming the aluminum barrel shell. Notice the
impact of the firing pin at 12 o'clock, probably after-last-oops
unless the previous owner dry-fired this rimfire. (I bought
this AR7 as a used-rack orphan.) The peening of the firing
pin and the extractor (at 3 o'clock) I relieved by using a steel
jacketed 7.62 bullet and a tack hammer to "iron" out the
projections into the firing chamber and to slightly chamfer
the chamber. I do NOT recommend cutting a feed throat in
the barrel face: the AR7 feed throat (ramp) is part of the
magazine FCOL.





FCOL fer cryin out loud

Marlin 45 carbine
August 12, 2007, 04:20 PM
I have the Henry made version and sent it back after it started acting up with maybe 100 rounds through, they completely reworked it and it does fine for now. I'm going to do the firing pin polish mod as insurance though. these are a 'specialty' type of rifle as they are lightweight, self-contained when broken down and FLOAT. very important on a canoe trip. I had some bobbles occasionally but overall I think ammo selection is very important and I was using bulk-pack stuff, likely not the best for this little rifle.

wnycollector
August 12, 2007, 04:34 PM
I owned one for a few years in the mid 80's. It was dead bang reliable with the factory mag...but I had ftf problems with the 2 aftermarket mags I bought. Truthfully, I kick myself for having sold it to pay some bills! Everytime I take a multiday canoe trip I wish I still had it!!!

Seven High
August 12, 2007, 06:45 PM
I also used to own a AR-7. It was very unreliable. It would not feed anything that I tried. I got rid of it and got a Marlin papoose. The Marlin works 100%.

Gator
August 12, 2007, 08:56 PM
No! I have one and it is junk.

But thanks for reviving this year old thread so we can badmouth it again. :neener:

Vern Humphrey
August 12, 2007, 09:46 PM
The AR-7 is an amazingly adaptive weapons system from the same genius that gave us the AR-15,
That, alone should condemn it. The AR 15/M16A1 which was were issued in the '60s was a POS. The current M16A2 and M16A4 are not the product of Stoner's genius, but of a couple of generations of product improvement.
The fact of the matter is, if your AR-7 isn't cycling what you're feeding it, you're feeding it the wrong ammo. These rifles are designed to eat high velocity .22LR cartridges, NOT ultra-cheap loose-packed bulk .22s.

I have a Ruger MKII auto, a 1938 Colt Woodsman, a Ciener Conversion kit mounted on a Fed Ord frame and a Colt Service Ace conversion kit mounted on an Argentine M1927 -- and they all eat bulk-packed Wal-Mart ammo just fine.

Max Velocity
August 12, 2007, 10:39 PM
That, alone should condemn it. The AR 15/M16A1 which was were issued in the '60s was a POS. The current M16A2 and M16A4 are not the product of Stoner's genius, but of a couple of generations of product improvement.

Actually as designed by Stoner, the AR15/M16 was a reliable firearm. The problems experienced were mainly because of McNamara and his Whiz Kids thought they knew more about firearms design and ballistics. The "product improvement(s)" were basically returning to Eugene Stoner's original specifications; plus proper maintenance.

The Armalite AR7 was an OK rifle. The Charter Arms version was not as good. The current Henry IMHO is terrible.

kBob
August 13, 2007, 12:32 AM
Many times I have heard that the AR7 was adopted as a survival rifle for USAF aircrew.....I would like to know when and where, see a military manual for such or a USAF equipment list that shows an AR7.

I believe the confusion comes from the actual adoption of the AR5 by the USAF.

Contray to what one poster wrote the AR7 is NOT a civilian version of the AR5.
The AR5 was a bolt action gun and used the .22 Hornet ammunition with a FMJ bullet from a removable clip that IIRC held five rounds. It did not float as its stock was a metal skeleton rather than a plastic sheath. It also had a 14.5 inch barrel so you do not see many.

Was the AR7 a Stoner designed gun? There were other engineers at Armalite. I beleive most Armalite projects were more of a team effort than many seem to think. Recall that the company started out making light weight center fire bolt action rifles.

I am guessing that the original AR7 work was as much about testing the concept of mating one of Armalite's Composit barrels ( they did such barrels for their bolt action center fires, I seem to recall the AR5 had a conventional steel barrel) with an aluminum receiver and a foam filled hard plastic outer skined stock. Its development may well have been concurrent with the poor selling two shot semi auto shotguns. I suspected that the AR7 was dusted off and made "for the Civilian market" when it became appearent that the name "Armalite" began to be well know as the designers of the AR15/M16 series rifles as a means to kee up cash flow.

A buddy that bought an Armalite in either the late 1960's or early 1970's seemed to like his. I shot it and liked it. Later I saw guns of other makes not doing so well.

I seem to recall that one company offered the gun breifly with an optional conventional wooden stock complete with thinner wrist and a fore arm that allowed the barrel to free float.

There was a French company that imported a break down .22 auto in the 1980's that looked like a small plastic port folio. Unique or DES I believe.

I have often wondered if their might be enough room in the AR7 floating stock for a dedicated suppressed barrel. That might be a good thing on a military survival rifle. That would be far easier to have though on a Papoos or Browning semi auto take down. I once got to use a Norinco Browning knock off like that and while the action did make more sound than a bolt gun might it was more than quiet enough for use in a military survival situation. The CIA had the right idea by arming U2 pilots with the WWII left over High Standard suppressed .22LR pistols, but I suspect most folks would do better with a rifle. The idea is to be able to poach animals with ut alerting the locals..... or to make a dog stop barking without the sound of a shot to convince the neighborhood that yess the dog was barking at something bad.....or to take out the soldier about to aprehend you with out alerting his buddys for a fewm minutes until they find his body and you have a little head start (though they may not take you prisoner after you shoot their buddy (s))

Unless I specifically wanted it for use in a boat or light plane I would not purchase an AR7 and to be honest the Papoose or Browning (Norinco) would be fine, and likely more reliable. For that matter a little bolt action with the action dismounted from the stock and an appropriate screw driver attached to the sling and dropped in a home made float bag like the Papoos's would work just fine as a compact survival package.

Whatever blows your skirts up....

-Bob Hollingsworth

Max Velocity
August 13, 2007, 03:47 AM
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/179/ar57sm3.jpg

kBob
August 13, 2007, 09:25 AM
Max V,

Thanks for your post, it would seem to clarify that the AR7 was NOT adopted by the USAF.

Dispite the text, one wonders how a semi auto rimfire could be consided the Civilian version of a center fire bolt action.

The reason I mentioned a metal open frame stock was......that's what the AR5 I held in my own little hands had. Its been years and it was just some guy on the range that had it. As it was one of those things you don't see outside museums very much it caught my attention.

Perhaps there were differnt models made to attract the government contract or perhads some one did and exce,,ent job of fanricating the metal stock to replace a lost floating one, but the metal was what was on that rifle.

If the USAF Armament Museum web site is back up perhaps there may be an example of the rifle there as it was puchased for testing.

I wish Armalite HAD made a civilian version of the AR 5 with the floater stock and a 16 inch barrel and bolt action either in .22 Hornet or .22 rimfire.

-Bob Hollingsworth

Essex County
August 13, 2007, 02:19 PM
When I was a stocking dealer I probably special ordered six or seven for customers after telling them it was a crude, not very shootable and not very reliable. It had no advantages over a single shot Marlin that I could ever see. I can build a case for most every firearm, but not this one. I hate to be down on any firearm.....However these are an exception to the rule. Essex

ec-10
August 13, 2007, 03:09 PM
I wish I could convert my (Henry) AR-7 to a bolt action, then maybe it would be worth taking to the range. :rolleyes:

Gator
August 13, 2007, 03:12 PM
As an aside, the Israeli Air Force reportedly bought some AR-7s to use as survival rifles. They were reimported and sold here. They had a metal frame buttstocks and flash hiders, but I don't know if the Israelis put those on or the importer. The buttstock had a neat clip that held a spare magazinze.

Lashlarue
August 13, 2007, 04:09 PM
Mine lived up to one of it's claims that it would float, in fact that's the last time I saw it was floating down the river after it fell out of the boat!

tkendrick
August 13, 2007, 04:16 PM
I had an Armalite made in the early 70's. While it always gave the feel of a cheap SNS, I never had any problems with it with any ammo I fed it, and it was scary accurate. Traded it off to a bush pilot in Alaska in '82. Always wished I had it back.

I don't know if it's wishful remembering or not, but the new ones I've seen don't seem to be nearly as well built (and that's a scary thought).

Gustav
August 13, 2007, 04:34 PM
Having gone through three of these in over 20 years while trying to like them in the end it was a failed attempt as none were close to reliable enough with a variety of ammunition tried.
Great concept in a neat little package (better met by a .22/20G Savage 24C) and a handy rifle to say the least but 90-95% reliable is not good enough for me especially in the boonies when I would need them to work and they would either jam or go click from too light of a primer strike.
The Explorer pistol version was no better either it was also a jammomatic!
If you have one that works and you like it great but most people I know sell these off and end up with something else.
A good alternative is a Ruger 10/22 with a folding stock and a leightweight barrel or a Browning .22 takedown rifle or Taurus pump action 62 (Winchester clone) takedown carbine.
JMHO

ceetee
August 13, 2007, 05:55 PM
I have a Charter Arms AR-7 that I bought back in the 80's . It's light, it's as accurate as I am, and has never misfed from the factory magazine. As a matter of fact, the only times it's ever malfunctioned have been when using an aftermarket 15 round mag.

Vern Humphrey
August 13, 2007, 06:30 PM
Actually as designed by Stoner, the AR15/M16 was a reliable firearm. The problems experienced were mainly because of McNamara and his Whiz Kids thought they knew more about firearms design and ballistics. The "product improvement(s)" were basically returning to Eugene Stoner's original specifications;
Nope. I shot the early AR15/M16 at Fort Bragg in '66 -- these were the original Air Force version purchased by Special Forces. They did not have the heavy barrel, fast twist, square front sight, etc., etc., all introduced later.

Sir Aardvark
August 13, 2007, 07:59 PM
They float!

So you could always tie some fishing line and a hook to it and use it to catch fish.

joplinsks
August 14, 2007, 12:56 AM
I've never seen a Charter Arms AR-7 that didn't have a piece of electrical or duct tape holding some part of it together :rolleyes:

Carl N. Brown
August 14, 2007, 02:22 PM
The Armalite AR5 was accepted as a replacement for the M4
which was a wire-stock, bolt action that fed .22 Hornet from
the same magazine as the Savage bolt action rifles.
The M4 action was adapted from a Mossberg bolt IIRC.

Now, the AR5 introduced the same style stock and takedown
as the AR7, but was not procured in any significant numbers
because SAC was well-stocked with the M4 and M6 survival
guns. AR5 had to fit within the 14" space under a bomber seat,
so if any AR5s are around, they are a rare NFA short barrel rifle.

AR7 is based the AR5, but AR7 itself was never adopted by the
Air Force as a survival rifle. AR7 has been used by Australia as
a military, silenced weapon; again that is limited use.

As others have pointed out, AR7s have probably seem more
issue in the movies (Firestarter, From Russia With Love, etc)
than in the military.

The AR7 has a pretty heavy bolt for a .22, and premium high
velocity ammo does improve reliability; also the feed lips of
the magazine and the feed ramp on the front of the magazine
are subject to deformation. I have a Cosa Mesa Armalite AR7
rifle and a Charter Arms Explorer II pistol. The rifle works best
with CCI Stinger, but the pistol is more accurate with Winchester
Super-X, for whatever that observation is worth. Given the
minimum and maximum chamber and cartridge spex, you will
find optimum combinations of gun and make of ammo. Rarely
will a gun work equally well with all brands of ammo, especially
.22 rimfire.

I had a Winchester 69 with the barrel bobbed at 17",
stock forearm trimmed back, scope mounted to barrel,
that could be taken down with a coin to fit in a 21"
carry case. That to me is a better option, since that
allows use of everything from .22 short CB to Stinger.

Carl N. Brown
August 14, 2007, 02:29 PM
The Armalite AR5 was accepted as a replacement for the M4
which was a wire-stock, bolt action that fed .22 Hornet from
the same magazine as the Savage bolt action rifles.
The M4 action was adapted from a Mossberg bolt IIRC.

Now, the AR5 introduced the same style stock and takedown
as the AR7, but was not procured in any significant numbers
because SAC was well-stocked with the M4 and M6 survival
guns. AR5 had to fit within the 14" space under a bomber seat,
so if any AR5s are around, they are a rare NFA short barrel rifle.

AR7 is based the AR5, but AR7 itself was never adopted by the
Air Force as a survival rifle. AR7 has been used by Australia as
a military, silenced weapon; again that is limited use.

As others have pointed out, AR7s have probably seem more
issue in the movies (Firestarter, From Russia With Love, etc)
than in the military.

The AR7 has a pretty heavy bolt for a .22, and premium high
velocity ammo does improve reliability; also the feed lips of
the magazine and the feed ramp on the front of the magazine
are subject to deformation. I have a Cosa Mesa Armalite AR7
rifle and a Charter Arms Explorer II pistol. The rifle works best
with CCI Stinger, but the pistol is more accurate with Winchester
Super-X, for whatever that observation is worth. Given the
minimum and maximum chamber and cartridge spex, you will
find optimum combinations of gun and make of ammo. Rarely
will a gun work equally well with all brands of ammo, especially
.22 rimfire.

I had a Winchester 69 with the barrel bobbed at 17",
stock forearm trimmed back, scope mounted to barrel,
that could be taken down with a coin to fit in a 21"
carry case. That to me is a better option, since that
allows use of everything from .22 short CB to Stinger.

Carl N. Brown
August 14, 2007, 05:51 PM
Weak shouldering:
Another thought about the AR7:

I tried firing mine without the stock: just the
barreled action. Function was lousy. Without
shoulder resistence, it failed to operate properly.
It was like the gun was recoiling with the bolt,
rather than the bolt recoiling within the receiver.
This reminds me of the problem some semi-auto
pistols have with "limp wristing" causing jams.
AR7s may be prone to "weak shouldering."

kBob
August 15, 2007, 11:15 AM
Carl N. Brown,

Thank you for your gentlemanly correction. No doubt I must have been shown an M4 from your discription. Thank you for not going the Neener-neener route.

-Bob Hollingsworth

SwampWolf
August 16, 2007, 03:23 PM
Concerning so-called survival firearms, does anyone remember or have experience with a firearm of this genre marketed by the Garcia Corporation during the sixties, dubbed the "Bronco"? Though it was a single-shot and didn't float, the gun weighed three pounds and, when taken down, measured less than 20". It was claimed that the one piece stock and receiver "can't rust" and it was equipped with an adjustable sight. It was chambered in either .22 rimfire or .410 gauge (caliber).

Max Velocity
August 16, 2007, 03:59 PM
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/5129/m4survivalriflexd9.jpg
M4
The M4 was built by H&R and was converted from the existing Model 265 series rimfire rifle. The magazine used was the same as the Model M23D Savage.
The M4 had a removable 14-inch barrel and telescoping stock. It was developed during WWII and superseded later by the M6 O/U .22 Hornet/410 shotgun also with a 14-inch barrel. IIRC the M6 was manufactured by Ithaca.

http://www.autoweapons.com/photosv/survat.jpg
M6

Max Velocity
August 16, 2007, 04:04 PM
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7873

Carl N. Brown
August 16, 2007, 04:45 PM
I have owned two Broncos (retained one) in .22 lr.
I have also seen them in .22 magnum single shot,
.410 single shot, and as a .22 lr/.410 over/under.
That is four versions (so far).

GeneralTJWillys
December 4, 2009, 04:56 AM
Just got done posting in another thread about the AR-7. Granted, it was an old thread, as is this one, and I apologize for digging this one up again as well, but I wanted to share some info regarding the jamming issue.
Go to this thread to catch what I wrote; http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=15375 It will be the 7th posting in that thread.

BHP FAN
December 4, 2009, 05:11 AM
I've had the Armalite,the Charter Arms and the Henry over the years,and all were fine for the intended purpose. They fit in a day pack, they float, they assemble quickly with just a little practice,and they allow you to carry...well,not a ''rifle'' really...more of a shoulder stocked .22 pistol with a longish barrel, really. Anyhow a compact portable little unit that stores unobtrusively under a Jeep or canoe seat,or in a daypack.

glockmon
December 4, 2009, 10:30 AM
I love Internet people who know everything. Very entertaining .

CZguy
December 4, 2009, 11:03 AM
I bought a Henry a couple of years ago. It runs well with any high speed ammo but did require a trip back to the factory for the worst trigger pull I've ever experienced. Their customer service is above reproach.

I am not able to shoot this gun accurately enough to use in a survival situation, due to it's extreme light weight. It is a fun novelty gun for plinking off of the deck so I keep it for that reason.

For a survival situation while hiking, I carry my M6 Scout. It may not float, but I can shoot it accurately.

salvo
December 4, 2009, 01:40 PM
My first rifle that I bought myself was a Charter Arms in the mid 70's, I think it was $75.00 or so. I shot the crap out of that rifle and still have it and it's always been reliable and plenty accurate, must have shot at least 200 black birds and a bunch of jacks with it.

Sheepdog1968
December 4, 2009, 01:46 PM
I wanted to get one but my local shop talked me out of getting one. Said all the ones he has sold had to go back to factory due to jamming. Glad to hear yours is jam free. If I could test fire the one I was going to purchase to ensure there was an ammo where it worked well I would buy one in a heartbeat. Therein lies the problem, I can't do this with a new gun. I would be happy to buy one used from someone at full retail price if I could test fire it with a hundred rounds of at least one kind of ammo to ensure it is not a jamming machine.

Onmilo
December 4, 2009, 02:03 PM
Let me say that I have owned examples of AR-7 rifles made by Charter Arms and Henry Firearms.
They are junk they are junk, they are junk.
Have a nice day.

salvo
December 4, 2009, 02:08 PM
The feed mechanism is as simple as it gets. It will feed if the bullets leave the magazine at the correct angle and the ammo has enough force to kick the bolt back all the way.

If you have a deformed/improperly adjusted feed lips or low powered ammo, you will have problems.

SharpsDressedMan
December 4, 2009, 06:58 PM
I have had several original Armalite AR-7's. All of them worked fine. I still have one, and have given two others as gifts. The rumors of poorer quality on the later brands has caused me to keep with the originals, even though they may demand a higher buck. I just never have problems with the older guns.

natman
December 5, 2009, 04:48 AM
The following applies to the Charco incarnation. I suppose it's possible that they have improved since, although I doubt it.

Great concept, poor execution.

The AR7 I worked on didn't have feeding problems only because it wouldn't fire. The "firing pin" was a stamped piece of sheet steel, the "receiver" was cast pot metal. Cheap, cheap, cheap junk from one end to the other.

If you are depending on one of these for "survival", then you might as well stick the muzzle in your mouth and hope it goes off, because you are DOOMED. :eek:

R.W.Dale
December 5, 2009, 04:53 AM
If you are depending on one of these for "survival", then you might as well stick the muzzle in your mouth and hope it goes off, because you are DOOMED.

That's classic sig material there!

stolivar
December 5, 2009, 11:05 AM
I have owned two of them... Both were junk


steve

amd6547
December 5, 2009, 11:51 AM
I am on my third Charter AR7...The other two got sold to friends when I took them to the range, and they saw how great they worked...Accurate, and reliable with good ammo.
I also picked up an "Exporer II" pistol version, which has also proven to be 100%reliable. In fact, I have two of the RamLine 25rd plastic mags, and the pistol will rip through them as fast as I pull the trigger.
One time, I took a shot at a groundhog which was standing on a hillside about 80yds away. I was young, and didn't hold high. The round landed right at his feet, surprising both me and him.

Boolit
December 5, 2009, 12:41 PM
Junk. I laugh when people will rather staunchly defend a POS gun than to admit they made a poor choice. No, I have never owned one, but my best friend did. Witnessing first-hand his horrorshow made me resolve to never buy one of my own. You want a survival rifle? Get yourself a Savage 24 or a Springfield Armory M6. ;)

KodeFore
December 5, 2009, 02:15 PM
I bad mouth the AR-7 because it was bad gun, my older henry went click more than bang, the little plastic nub that kept the barrel lined up broke off making it impossible to line up the barrel correctly, it rattled like a childs toy when stoyed in its stock.

( Btw the us air force never issued the ar-7, they original design was a bolt action gun in 22 hornet for taking game, that makes a lot more sence to me ) The Iraeli airforce did issue a modified version of the gun for a while.

The best part thing about the Ar 7 is that it will float away from you if drop it fording a stream

If you want your ar-7 to feel truly insulted, let it hang out with a marlin 700pss for a while...........

PS the ar-7 has a gadget gizmo appeal to it that makes me want to like it, but when I got the urge for a backpacking gun again I actually looked at & considered the new ar-7 generaly I am on the frugal side, but when I looked at the marlin 70 pss for 50$ more thats what I bought, no regrets. ( & if you happen to drop it, has this thing called a sling too keep it from getting away from you.... )

R.W.Dale
December 5, 2009, 02:50 PM
The best part thing about the Ar 7 is that it will float away from you if drop it fording a stream


Somewhat like another from of matter that the AR7 has much in common with.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
December 5, 2009, 02:57 PM
bad-dum-bump! Dunno why this thread was resurrected, but I think it's safe to say that the OP's original intent was not fulfilled here. :evil:

Speedo66
December 5, 2009, 09:56 PM
Generally, to own one is to hate one.

OK, so two got through that worked, that doesn't make it a great gun.

If you have one that works, you should play lotto heavily, you're one lucky SOB. :neener:

SharpsDressedMan
December 5, 2009, 10:04 PM
Buy the older ARMALITE. Take your chances on the others. Now, wasn't that easy?

CZguy
December 6, 2009, 07:32 AM
If you have one that works, you should play lotto heavily, you're one lucky SOB.

The other theory is, don't play lotto.............you used up all of your luck, getting one that works. :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Quit badmouthing the AR-7!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!