CHARTER ARMS AR-7

Status
Not open for further replies.

HOWARD J

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
2,643
Location
S/E Michigan
I was given a Charter Arms 7
I was told all it did was jamb
I ran a yellow rag ( lead removal) into the breach just past the start of the rifling.
Then ran a 22 cal mop coated with Flitz into the same area
Ran the mop & yellow rag about ten times
Cleaned area with Barricade
Fired 40 rds of all types of 22's---NO FTF NO JAMBS.
CUTE LITTLE RIFLE
I have two Marlin 39-A's--- would jam on extraction
Gave them above treatment----both work fine now.
Hope treatment will last.
 
I was given a Charter Arms 7
I was told all it did was jamb
I ran a yellow rag ( lead removal) into the breach just past the start of the rifling.
Then ran a 22 cal mop coated with Flitz into the same area
Ran the mop & yellow rag about ten times
Cleaned area with Barricade
Fired 40 rds of all types of 22's---NO FTF NO JAMBS.
CUTE LITTLE RIFLE
I have two Marlin 39-A's--- would jam on extraction
Gave them above treatment----both work fine now.
Hope treatment will last.
I have a charter arms AR7 and it never jammed even with bigger mags and different ammo. contrary to internet "wisdom". a few other guys with them did not have problems. I love it.
 
Mine works fine as long as I use higher velocity ammo. It doesn't like standard velocity. Keep it clean it shoots fine.
 
Buddy of mine had one years ago; I don't recall him having any issues with it. IIRC it may have had some ammo preferences like ibob mentioned but lots of .22's have ammo preferences. I know my buddy would never fire much ammo without proper cleaning. I picked up a Henry AR-7 Survival Rifle last year; don't plan on shooting it much but they seem like nice little guns (mine seems to shoot very well). I was told the Henry folks made some minor design improvements over the older Charter Arms design but I have no idea what the differences are.
 
I have one from the early 90's and it has 3 steel mags. I don't know why in the article they make like their steel mags are something new. also in the 80's there was a big market for add ons for the rifle. due to internet bull they got a bad rap. I guess guys wanted to compete in the Olympics with the AR7 fire 300K rounds without a jam. shoot knats at 100 yds then saw it had no room for a 8-32x56 scope. mine never jammed more then any semi auto but as a survival rifle who cares if it jams after one shot the quarry is gone anyway
 
Last edited:
Mine was a jam-0-matic, wouldn't fire an entire magazine without one or two malfunctions. Two trips back to Charter Arms did nothing to improve it.

Traded it to relieve the frustration level. Great that some of you have functional ones, there were many that were not. I think buying a used Charter Arms would still be a crap shoot. I liked the concept, and it was surprisingly accurate for what it was. If Henry now has solved the problems, good for them, but still couldn't bring myself to buy another one.

Replaced it years later with a stainless takedown Marlin Papoose and couldn't be happier. Great running gun right out of the box with zero problems and similar accuracy.
 
My vintage Charter Arms AR7 was also very problematic. Rarely could get through a magazine without some sort of major tie-up. Accuracy was Minute Of Barn since by the time you got it up and running for a couple of rounds you were so exasperated with the gun that you really didn't care what kind of groups you were getting. Definitely not one of Charter Arms better offerings. Liked the concept of the AR7, just didn't care much for the performance aspect of it. Would be interested in the Henry version if they did indeed make some sort of functional improvements to it.
 
I wonder why if they were junk was there so many aftermarket add ons for them
 
Last edited:
These are quotes from the article praising the new model, do they sound as if the previous model was trouble free?

"Quality has greatly improved; some design changes have been incorporated, and manufacturing controls have produced big improvements in this one-of-a-kind rimfire. These changes include a new barrel bushing to improve feeding reliability. The magazines have been upgraded, which also improved feeding."

Even the new model doesn't sound trouble free:

"The few malfunctions I had were when flat-nosed bullets hung up on entering the chamber. Aside from those few glitches, the AR-7 fed and fired just fine."

From the manufacturer:
"The new black version is much improved. This is the most reliable version ever of the AR-7.”

If you've got a trouble free Charter Arms version, it's not the norm. Consider yourself very lucky.
 
I've owned the Armalite, Charter, and now the Henry AR7. I think the Henry is the best of them all considering workmanship and reliability. You need to experiment to find which ammuntion the gun likes best as with many 22s. My Henry works fine with just about any ammunition I've tried.
 
These are quotes from the article praising the new model, do they sound as if the previous model was trouble free?

"Quality has greatly improved; some design changes have been incorporated, and manufacturing controls have produced big improvements in this one-of-a-kind rimfire. These changes include a new barrel bushing to improve feeding reliability. The magazines have been upgraded, which also improved feeding."

Even the new model doesn't sound trouble free:

"The few malfunctions I had were when flat-nosed bullets hung up on entering the chamber. Aside from those few glitches, the AR-7 fed and fired just fine."

From the manufacturer:
"The new black version is much improved. This is the most reliable version ever of the AR-7.”

If you've got a trouble free Charter Arms version, it's not the norm. Consider yourself very lucky.
well it sounds more like Henry wants to sell their version. there is no trouble free gun. once every ten years I do have some luck lol
 
My Charter Arms AR7 was a huge POS; I tried polishing the chamber, keeping it impeccably clean and multiple mags but it wouldn't typically get through a magazine without a hangup. One of only two guns I've ever sold in my life. Glad you were able to get yours going!
 
I had a Charter Arms AR7 years ago. It ran trouble free as long as I used the factory 8 rd magazines. I put thousands of rounds though it without a single malfunction various using HV ammo.
The aftermarket 15 and 25 rd magazines always jammed unless I loaded 10 rds or less, then they worked fine.

The factory sights were lousy. I bought a sideplate to mount a scope and while being much better than the factory sights it was never very accurate and always produced one flyer or more to wreck and otherwise half decent group.
 
Feather Enterprise was one of the companies that offered all kind of stuff to dress up the AR-7 back in the 80's. Two weeks ago the table next to me at the gun show was an older guy who had some 22 rifles that kind of looked like the AR-7 with Feather Enterprise stocks and barrel shrouds, but everything was brand new.
He told me that he builds the rifles and that he had worked for Feather Enterprise back in the day. He's from Lafayette Louisiana.
 
I have an original Armalite AR7 from the 60s. It is in good shape as it was in the stock and inside a suitcase for many years. It doesn't jam on most ammo-ever.
 
I have a charter arms AR7 and it never jammed even with bigger mags and different ammo. contrary to internet "wisdom". a few other guys with them did not have problems. I love it.
Saying a gun is unreliable doesn't necessarily mean that every single one is unreliable, but that a higher percentage than normal will have issues. In the case of the AR-7 in its various incarnations, internet wisdom is right. If you got one that consistently works, go out and buy a lottery ticket while your luck is still good.
 
I had one that ran pretty well, except it wouldn't feed the last round in the magazine. I loaded an orange dummy round in the bottom.
What made me ancey about it was the MIM alloy goo that I was constantly cleaning out of the action.
Bond...........James Bond made a nice shot with one in From Russia With Love. :p
 
Last edited:
For what it is worth, I picked up a new Henry version AR-7 last week. So far, 100 rounds of CCI and no problems. (Though the sights are idiosyncratic--have to hold the middle of the front sight over the point I wish to hit at 50 feet). I know it's not a CA, just thought folks might like two data points on the new ones (second is a friend that got one and has run several brands through his successfully--don't know which brands, though).
 
Saying a gun is unreliable doesn't necessarily mean that every single one is unreliable, but that a higher percentage than normal will have issues. In the case of the AR-7 in its various incarnations, internet wisdom is right. If you got one that consistently works, go out and buy a lottery ticket while your luck is still good.
even if it jams here and there it is a survival gun not made to win the Olympics or hold off mass human wave assault. it is not a FWB or a water cooled machine gun. if you are lost and hungry you fire one shot at a time.
 
This thread got me interested enough to pull out the owners manual for my Henry Survival and even take mine out of its own stock and look it over again. The rear sight aperture has some elevation adjustment built into it by loosening the one screw holding it on and a choice of two apertures by just flipping it over, the front sight looks like it's drift adjustable for windage and that should address some of Thunderchickens concerns. The owners manual states that the gun will not cycle subsonic ammunition and also recommends using high or hyper velocity ammunition on one page and on a different page they say you can use either standard or higher velocity and that "We find that the gun functions best with 22LR high velocity". So to return to the original topic, the Charter Arms AR-7, could they also have had the need for the higher velocity 22LR ammo? Could they have gotten a bad rap when the problem was just that some ammo wouldn't cycle the gun properly? Like I said earlier, a buddy of mine had a Charter Arms AR-7 years ago and I don't recall him having any problems, but then again, I don't know what kind of ammo he was using and I'd bet he can't recall what he was using back then.
 
This thread got me interested enough to pull out the owners manual for my Henry Survival and even take mine out of its own stock and look it over again. The rear sight aperture has some elevation adjustment built into it by loosening the one screw holding it on and a choice of two apertures by just flipping it over, the front sight looks like it's drift adjustable for windage and that should address some of Thunderchickens concerns. The owners manual states that the gun will not cycle subsonic ammunition and also recommends using high or hyper velocity ammunition on one page and on a different page they say you can use either standard or higher velocity and that "We find that the gun functions best with 22LR high velocity". So to return to the original topic, the Charter Arms AR-7, could they also have had the need for the higher velocity 22LR ammo? Could they have gotten a bad rap when the problem was just that some ammo wouldn't cycle the gun properly? Like I said earlier, a buddy of mine had a Charter Arms AR-7 years ago and I don't recall him having any problems, but then again, I don't know what kind of ammo he was using and I'd bet he can't recall what he was using back then.
if you have a chance shoot 100 rds thru it and post accuracy and cycling results
 
I've had one that I bought in the mid to late 70's made by Charter Arms, never had a problem with mine jamming or failing to feed, fact is I still have it. The sights are terrible but kids seem to be able to use them just fine. Have had at least 5000 rounds thru it, and have cleaned it after every use as it has been my general routine. It's been designed to be a survival rifle for pilots that got shot down during the war from what I understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top