Do US marked Armalite AR7's exist?


PDA






mopar92
January 21, 2014, 09:28 PM
I know a US marked one will be pricey, but I am on the lookout. Do they even exist? Were they still referred to as AR7's?

If you enjoyed reading about "Do US marked Armalite AR7's exist?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dr.Rob
January 22, 2014, 03:26 AM
From what I have read, no. I can't find any evidence they were ever issued.

An Israeli issued .22lr version was made and re-imported at one point but it's very rare and it had to have a 3 inch muzzle attachment added permanently as the IDF rifle had a 13 inch barrel.

I have seen a few of the swirled plastic stock ones for sale, some for as high as $500--even if the stock is cracked.

W L Johnson
January 22, 2014, 08:54 AM
Always read they were never adopted but that doesn't mean there weren't some examples submitted for testing to the military. Even if they were it would be a handful at best and even then I doubt they would have mil markings.
BTW: AR-7 stands for ARmalite Design # 7 in the same way AR-15 stands for ARmalite design #15. Early issued full auto Colt ARs were marked Armalite AR-15 after Colt bought the rights to the design from Armalite.

Willie Sutton
January 22, 2014, 10:47 AM
The only military purchases of the AR-7 was the Israeli AF purchase, and these did not use the plastic stock, rather they used a wire stock and a FN FAL pistol grip. The US didn't even look at them for purchase, being happy at the time with the bolt action AR-5 and the folding M-6 survival rifles, both in .22 Hornet (and .410 as well in the case of the M-6). The .22 rimfire was not thought to be sufficient for military survival use. Added to that is the fact that the Geneva Convention requires full metal jacket bullets in combatant arms, and that were a .22 to be pressed into a self defense role with standard cartridges, it would place the user into a war criminal status. The US has made FMJ .22's for some specialized uses (suppressed .22's) but in general they have not issued .22's for survival use. The .22 Hornet fills the role far better, and was always the US Military .22 caliber choice for a survival rifle.

Survival rifles were not issued in large quantities in any event. They were only packed in seat pack survival kits for aircraft, and were never issued to anyone else. Nobody ever "saw" them on a daily basis, as the seat pack kits were not opened by the crews and were only inspected periodically by the life support shops. The USAF was the only customer for the AR-5 and M-6, and interestingly enough was the first customer for the AR-15, long before the Army purchased them.


Willie

.

W L Johnson
January 22, 2014, 10:56 AM
Added to that is the fact that the Geneva Convention requires full metal jacket bullets in combatant arms, and that were a .22 to be pressed into a self defense role with standard cartridges, it would place the user into a war criminal status. The US has made FMJ .22's for some specialized uses (suppressed .22's) but in general they have not issued .22's for survival use.
.

You're thinking of the Hague Conference, the Geneva Convention has more to do with the wartime rights of prisoners and non-combatants. The two are often confused.

Tirod
January 22, 2014, 11:38 AM
the Geneva Convention requires full metal jacket bullets in combatant arms,

And the Hague Convention does NOT "require" the use of full metal jacket. They attempted to outlaw the use of expanding point bullets that created larger wounds. In the late 1800's the state of the medical arts was still very poor, amputation still a significant treatment for major gunshot wounds. The idea was to reduce that.

The military still has a primary requirement to use a penetrating design in bullets, cover being still used as protection against gunfire. Bullets need to go thru walls, sandbags, and vehicles to reach the occupants. Our military kept the use of FMJ to meet that need, NOT to conform to an International Treaty. We didn't sign up, either.

In the '80s JAG came out with a legal opinion the use of open tip bullets designed for better aerodynamics was legal, which mostly affected long range snipers using Sierra match bullets. You don't see them issued willy nilly to soldiers because they have poor penetration on hard targets. Hollow points dump the energy without passing thru. Not what someone shooting back at a mud hut needs, but it does reduce collateral injuries, which doesn't affect the sniper much.

A civilian concept of what makes good ammo isn't what the military has in mind. The military doesn't need or want it, combat is that different.

There is now a school of thought the use of hollow points by our LEO's is being MORE humane - it takes less shots to stop someone, and they suffer less from one hollow point gunshot that 5 - 10 FMJ rounds perforating them. That increases the rate of survival, and not all of them were guilty, which is another advantage for the use.

Vet 22 years, this seems to pop up more now than years ago. The public myth about the Geneva Convention has become much more distorted since the days when 1 in 10 had served in the '60s. Now, it's 1 in 100, and military issues are largely misinformation and rumor.

Willie Sutton
January 22, 2014, 11:42 AM
"You're thinking of the Hague Conference, the Geneva Convention has more to do with the wartime rights of prisoners and non-combatants. The two are often confused".



^^ All correct, this is what happens when I am bored at a traffic light and hacking out replies on an iPhone... ;-)

Well corrected.


Here's a nice link to a small discussion of same:

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html



"And the Hague Convention does NOT "require" the use of full metal jacket."

Absolutely true. But it does prohibit use of projectiles that easially expand in the target, and .22 long rifle ammunition has been specifically addressed by the US Military as being non-conformal to the convention.

Of course we all know that official policy is changed whenever it's convenient to do so, witness the argument that hollow point match bullets are *mainly* hollow point for aerodynamic reasons and that any terminal ballistic results are an undesired artifact of that. That's nonsense and everyone knows it, but the "JAG Opinion" is adjusted when it's convenient to do so. After all, who's going to raise a complaint? The Taliban?
The Germans were another case entirely, and thus we witness the use of FMJ projectiles in .22 rimfire by the US during WW-II in High Standard suppressed pistols. Back then we knew an expanding projectile when we saw one.

The first bottom line is that the law is whatever we say it is when it's convenient to us, conventions or no conventions. Lawyers always rule.

And the second bottom line is that other than suppressed pistols furnished (or supposed to be furnished) with FMJ, we've never issued a .22 long rifle cartridge arm that might be fielded by a combatant.


So: There are no US Military Marked AR-7's.


Willie

.

Speedo66
January 22, 2014, 07:39 PM
Based on my experience with AR-7's, they wouldn't want the jam-o-matic POS anyway. :D

mopar92
January 22, 2014, 09:48 PM
What I can't understand is if the US ever used a firearm, underseat , under arm, cannon... It was US marked. Did they not put AR7's in US planes?

VA27
January 22, 2014, 10:05 PM
AFAIK, the US never purchased any AR-7's for military use.

The early -7's used the same red fiberglass stock that the -5 used. Then they went with the swirled color, injection molded stock.

IIRC, the AR-5 wasn't issued, only tested. It wasn't purchased because there were sufficent stocks of M-4's (a wire stocked bolt action 22H made by H&R) and M-6's (made by Ithaca) to cover their needs.

When I was a kid, the local hobby shop had a working plastic model of the AR-5 on the shelf. I was never able to get my dad to spring for it. I have never seen another.

Done correctly, I think a reproduction of the -5 would sell today.

rcmodel
January 22, 2014, 10:08 PM
Did they not put AR7's in US planes?

No, they did not.

As stated several times above, the AR-7 was NEVER an official U.S. military survival weapon.
And as such, it was never carried officially in a seat pack.
Nor was it ever U.S. marked.

rc

VA27
January 22, 2014, 10:34 PM
What I can't understand is if the US ever used a firearm, underseat , under arm, cannon...

Unsure of exactly what your question is. Yes, the US had M-4's and M-6's that were in the seat packs of some aircraft. AFAIK, the only calibers were 22 Hornet and 22 Hornet over 410.

The original S&W Model 12 was an aircrew weapon and they did issue those. As I recall they had problems with the aluminum alloy cylinder staying together and pulled them from service.

Colt had an AR-15 varient, model 608, that was proposed as a seat pack gun, but never purchased. Gwinn Firearms also designed the Bushmaster 'arm rifle' as a proposed aircrew weapon. They did produce those commercially and you can occasionally find one at a gun show.

mopar92
January 22, 2014, 10:46 PM
I guess I really should have asked this... " did the AR7" actually make it to a service person or vehicle. Sounds like the AR7 did not! Therefor couldn't have been roll marked US... Thanks guys!!!

mopar92
January 22, 2014, 10:47 PM
No, they did not.

As stated several times above, the AR-7 was NEVER an official U.S. military survival weapon.
And as such, it was never carried officially in a seat pack.
Nor was it ever U.S. marked.

rc


Yeah good copy. So much bad information out there. Thanks for clearing it up guys.

goon
January 23, 2014, 12:03 AM
Great thread. I've never heard of the M-5 or the M-4 before. I didn't even know they existed. Never ceases to amaze me what some of you guys know.

Float Pilot
January 23, 2014, 11:04 PM
Survival Rifle, M-4, Made by Harrington And Richardson. Caliber 22 Hornet.
Military 22 Hornet ammo is mark as have 45 grain BALL projectiles. There is a special warning about combat use with this ammo printed on the back of the box.


http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=194028&stc=1&d=1390537051

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=194025&stc=1&d=1390536209

Float Pilot
January 23, 2014, 11:16 PM
The M5 was made by H&R. I have never seen one. It was the same thing as the Ithaca M6.
There is also an M5 22 lr sub caliber training device.

Caliber .22/.410, M5 .22 Hornet cartridge)/.410 gauge H&R survival rifle/shotgun

Caliber .22/.410, M6 .22 Hornet cartridge /.410 gauge Ithaca survival rifle/shotgun

mac66
January 24, 2014, 11:53 AM
Even through the Armalite Ar7 was never adopted and issued by the US military they are still pretty collectable. A good collection would have at least one Armalite, one of the Israeli ones imported back into the US by Brickley, a Charter Arms and a Charter Arms Explorer II pistol, Survival Arms, Ar7 Industries one and a Henry.

Speedo66
January 24, 2014, 11:55 AM
Even through the Armalite Ar7 was never adopted and issued by the US military they are still pretty collectable. A good collection would have at least one Armalite, one of the Israeli ones imported back into the US by Brickly, a Charter Arms one, a Survival Arms one, an Ar7 Industries one and a Henry.
If I had a collection of that many guns that didn't work right, I'd cut my throat. :D

mac66
January 24, 2014, 12:05 PM
There was also an Ar5 bolt action which was really the transitional step between the M4 and Ar7

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/mac66/AR5A_zps5b9f87b7.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/mac66/media/AR5A_zps5b9f87b7.jpg.html)

The biggest reliabilty issue with the Ar7 is the magazine. The mags have a built in feed ramp. If that or the feed lips are screwed up the rifle won't work.

All of the Ar7s I owned or own work fine because I tweaked the mags.

mopar92
January 25, 2014, 04:32 PM
Were any AR5 bolt actions sold to the public?

rcmodel
January 25, 2014, 04:37 PM
No.

I believe there were only 12 of them made for Air Force testing.

rc

Detritus
January 27, 2014, 01:46 AM
I believe there were only 12 of them made for Air Force testing

Are they all accounted for??

As in is the final disposition of all twelve (or ever how many survived testing) known? and is it possible/legal for any of them to have been surplused or otherwise made it to the civvy market?

So, obviously none were ever made for the civilian market, but that doesn't mean none of the 12 made their way through whatever means into civilian hands.



I ask because the AR5 is one of my "pipedream" guns, and I just gotta ask lol :)

VA27
January 27, 2014, 11:02 AM
I only know of one. A few years back on a forum (it might even have been this one) someone posted pix of an AR-5 that was, and I can't remember the whole story, owned by a former Armalite employee who purchased it when the company folded. I think I grabbed those pix. If I still have them I'll put 'em up.

Well, they're in a backup file and I can see 'em but I can't get 'em out, can't even email 'em to myself. This may take longer than I had hoped. Anyway, it's an AR-5A, serial number 506. So there might be some out there, somewhere!

Here we go. I still say that if someone would build these, they'd sell.

mopar92
January 27, 2014, 10:26 PM
I've seen those on a forum.

RVH
January 28, 2014, 09:48 PM
mine is a armalite ar7 explorer 22 cal made in costa mesa california USA
serial # 60135 patent pending it has a custom wood stock with two pistol grips that
are made to look like a tommy gun Very fun to hold and shoot 8 shot clip

DPris
January 28, 2014, 10:14 PM
I had the toy version of that AR5 boltgun in about 1960.
The bolt & handle were plastic and the handle broke off.
Denis

If you enjoyed reading about "Do US marked Armalite AR7's exist?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!