Posted on 12/26/2014 8:44:41 AM PST by Vermont Lt
Ruger makes a 10/22 (.22) that breaks down into two pieces for compact travel. Stainless steel, too.
I loved the idea of an AR-7 and bought one for much the same purpose you describe. In an emergency I am certain I could feed myself if there was sufficient game in the area. So, in that sense it is exactly as advertised and far better than nothing.
All that said, my AR-7 drove me nuts. I didn’t like how it felt and it was hard to find ammo it liked. It was frustrating to use because I was forever clearing jams. I would really hate to depend on the one I had for defensive purposes (obviously .22 isn’t intended for defensive purposes in the first place) for fear it would jam when I needed it most. In the end, I sold mine after about a year.
After I sold the AR-7 I found an experienced Marlin Papoose with a wood stock labeled $89 in a pawn shop. It had been in the shop a long while. When I showed slight interest, the owner offered it to me for $59 and I couldn’t resist. It came with the original nylon case and an extra factory magazine. Unlike the AR-7, the Papoose shoots true and it is very reliable. I don’t have anything bad to say about it. In addition to my regular carry pistol, whenever we go on trips, the Papoose goes, too. I only wish Marlin made a high capacity magazine for it.
Like half of the shooting public, I have had Ruger 10/22 forver. It’s a fun at the range with my kids and it has taken a few squirrels and rabbits. So, when Ruger came out with the Takedown 10/22, I couldn’t resist getting one of those as well. It’s just a great weapon and I love having the factory 20-round magazines available for a kit gun. It shoots as well as my regular 10/22, so I have no complaints.
In the end, I think my Marlin Papoose is slightly more accurate than either of my Rugers, but it’s close. If I could only have one, I would go with the Ruger Takedown due to versatility and after-market options.
FYI, now that I have both, I take the Papoose on trips because it was so cheap. The Ruger ran slightly north of $300.
I have a 3 of the Henry AR7’s. They serve their purpose fairly well. The sights aren’t what I would like, but overall they work well and are inexpensive for a compact unit. I’ve shot maybe 50 rounds total out of them and they would do the job, very light and self-contained. No problem popping squirrels out to 30-40 yards, assembles very quickly and easily, even in the dark. It’s also constructed using a lot of nylon so less things to rust up (not that it is waterproof or anything, there are still metal parts). It’s not a target rifle by any stretch, but I like them for what they are intended. That being said, I’ve never handled the take-down 10-22. I don’t know how much heavier they are.
I should have mentioned that Rossi makes a youth model combo gun that has both a .22 barrel and a .410 barrel. It packs down into a small nylon case. They can often be found new for $100 or less. I know someone that bought one of those for his truck.
Much heavier though. I have both and routinely carry the Henry AR7.
Get both. They aren’t very expensive.
It was on my list for years but I finally got a Nylon 66, unfortunately it was inherited when father in-law passed away. The thing is in near-perfect condition. Even has the box and the green plastic “case” that it came with. They still aren’t worth much of anything, but it was always a nostalgic thing with me because I remember grandpa always plinking out back, picking off ground squirrels and moles with one... he would sit out there in his chair, peeling an apple or whittling, waiting for something to move
Another advantage of the 10/22-Takedown over an AR7 is parts. There are a gazillion 10/22’s out there that could be cannablized for parts of needed, not to mention the thriving accessories market for the thing. I’m not sure how commonly available AR7 parts are, especially mags.
Just something else to add to the list of considerations.
Armalite began production on the AR-7 in 1959. Armalite sold the design to Charter Arms in 1973. According to some accounts posted by enthusiasts, this is when quality began to deteriorate. Barrels were said to have a tendency to warp. Other sources state that the first production at Charter had problems which were corrected in later production runs.
Charter Arms sold the design and rights to Henry Repeating Arms in 1980, and the Henry AR-7 has since regained a reputation for reliability. A Henry AR-7 is a quality rifle.
Production history
(Summary of information available in The Blue Book of Gun Values)
1959-1973: ArmaLite
1973-1990: Charter Arms
1990-1997: Survival Arms, Cocoa, Florida
1997–2007: Henry Repeating Arms Co., Brooklyn, New York
2007–present: Henry Repeating Arms Co., Bayonne, New Jersey
1998-2004: AR-7 Industries, LLC, Meriden, Connecticut (bought by ArmaLite in 2004)
There are lots of .22 rimfire rifles that breakdown, more or less, easily. Many of the older .22 rimfire .22 rifles use a knurled stock bolt, under the action, to hold everything together and to act as a take down bolt. Just unscrew it , and the rifle breaks down into two easy components. Put it in a slightly padded container, and you have a nice car/survival gun.
You can do Marlin 60 type actions this way, but the trigger stays with the stock. They are common, cheap, and work well.
Have you encountered a Nylon 66 that smelled good?
I fully appreciate there are numerous rifles besides the AR-7 that can fulfill the same purpose. However, I was addressing the reliability issues (feeding and jamming). These problems were associated with certain manufacturers of the AR-7. Henry Repeating Arms has gotten all the reliability bugs out of the AR-7, so I’d buy one if I was considering a cheap survival rifle.
Like others I would go with the Ruger 1022. For one thing 25 round magazines are widely available, making it a viable if not ideal self-defense weapon. There are extended mags for the AR7 but they are scarcer and the reviews suggest they don’t work too well.
I had one of those when I was a kid
Could you send me the Make and Model-I plain forgot them after I foolishly sold it
Thanks much
It just says Firearms Intl. Corp., Washington D.C.
22 short-long-LR
Thanks much
I always just called it the Coathanger rifle
I assume it is a pilot’s rifle, it hardly seems the thing for the general market.
Just did some research using the name you sent. The one I had in the 70’s was a Garcia Bronco. I remember it was advertised as a pack rifle
Here is an interesting link from the Gunbroker forums on the company. Look about 2 replies down
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=65074
That sounds like the accurate description, an economical pack rifle.
Here is some interesting information some individual posted about Firearms Intl. Corp., Washington D.C.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=65074
“The Firearms International firm was begun in around 1952 as a front for the CIA to obtain and ship, through supposed commercial sales channels, surplus firearms to allies of the United States during the Cold War. One of the major buyers for this new company was a then little known arms expert for the CIA’s Office of Sceintific Intelligence named Sam Cummings. Allan Dulles, then CIA director, gave Cummings the assignment to travel around Europe as a buyer for Firearms International and purchase huge quantities of WWII suplus firearms and equipment, ostensibly to be used in Hollywood war movies! The results were impressive to say the least; Cummings was able to purchase surplus military arms buy the TON and millions of rounds of ammunition. In reality nearly all of this equipment was going to Nationalist China, South East Asia, the Middle East (I’ll let you guess what tiny country we were supplying) and later to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The CIA divested itself from Firearms International in 1962 after the Bay of Pigs when it became pretty clear to everyone (including Congress) exactly what was going on. Cummings himself went on to start INTERARMCO and later Interarms and the rest is firearms history. This came from my old boss who knew (and STRONGLY disliked) Cummings from the old days as well as other information I have obtained from people “in the know”. Take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it. the rest of the Firearms International story is far more conventional.
During the 1960’s Firearms International were the official importers for such firearms as Rossi, Taurus, Star, Astra, and SAKO. They also imported a fabulous 12ga brrech loading saluting cannon which they retailed for $7.95. The little company did a good business but when the Gun Control Act of 1968 hit they fell on hard times. In 1969 the Garcia Corperation purchased Firearms International outright and set up a small factory in Accokeek, Maryland (ever heard of the place?). The idea was to manufacturer in the United States handguns which could no longer be imported due to the GCA-68 “sporting purpose” test. Garcia kept the Firearms International’s name on certian handguns, but most of their lines carried the Garcia stamp. These included Beretta, SAKO, FN, Musketeer, Unique, and some other Spanish shotguns and an interesting pistol called the Gaucho. This was a Spanish copy of the Colt Woddsman which looked so real that Garcia was forced to discontinue it under threat of legal action. All and all Garcia had a very wide selection of firearms, including many I did not bother to mention. later the Firearms International name was discontinued by Garcia completely...but the story does not end here.
In late 1978 Berreta’s import agreement with Garcia was going to expire and Beretta was interested in entering the US market under its own name. They were also interested in producing pistols like the Model 950, Model 20 and Model 21 in the United States to avoid the restrictions of the GCA-68, none of those models had been available for sale for a decade and there was a continuing demand in the USA for small pocket automatics and Beretta wanted a slice of that pie very badly. A deal was struck and they purchased the old FI/Garcia factory in Accokeek, Maryland. They used this small factory as a basis for their entry into the trails for a new 9mm service pistol for the United States in the early 80’s, the requirement being that the pistol selected must be assembled in the USA after a certain point in the contract. So there you are Paul, Firearms International is really behind the adoption of the Beretta M9 serive pistol, I’ll bet you never knew that. I hope you found something in here useful.”
Interesting stuff
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.