Skip to comments.U.S. Survival AR-7 Donít Leave Civilization Without One
Posted on 06/28/2012 1:59:11 PM PDT by OL Hickory
When disassembled, the pieces fit inside the impact-resistant, waterproof stock, which will float should it take a trip overboard. Assembly is as easy as attaching the receiver to the stock, inserting the barrel and screwing on the barrel nut. In just a few seconds, without the need for any tools, the Henry U.S. Survival AR-7 is ready for action.
(Excerpt) Read more at henryrepeating.com ...
I was given one of the originals that the Henry was copied from back in 1977.
It’s ok for a 7 shot 22LR, but even back then we had to make a steel spring guide to take the place of the cheapo plastic one it came with.
The one I owned was so inaccurate it defied the laws of physics.
I have one. It’s great, and solidly built. Has a scope rail.
(You can kill bigger things than a squirrel or a bird with a .22 LR.)
Had one. Unreliable, inaccurate POS.
Fun to play with, worthless as a lifesaving tool.
I know, I know...”Any gun is better than no gun”.
Srs, just about any gun is better than the AR-7.
JMO...and my experience.
My 12y.o. 2nd cousin can keep all rounds in a one inch circle with it.
Not bad for a short-barreled .22lr
Didn't 007 take out a helicopter with one of those in From Russia With Love?
“Owned one since the late ‘70s. You can treat them harshly and they live through it.”
Yes, but the trigger pull was atrocious.
There are more than one manufacturer of the AR-7.
As this is true, I would guess that some makers may have better, more accurate versions of their rifle than others. Better tolerances, and materials, and such.
My CA AR-7 is from the early years, and it's a tack driver.
I don't doubt your experience. I've heard it over and over from those that had one in the mid-80s to late-90s.
Looks pretty sweet.
Won’t take up a lot of room in my gun vault (Sadly lost in a tragic boating accident).
And, it’s a Henry.
I’m sold. Thanks for the thread.
Not only that but his was in 25 caliber. I have no idea if any were actually made in 25.
I bought one back when it was made by Armalite. Mine was OK, no real problems but for some reason I never liked it all that much.
I always thought the Remington Nylon .22 was about the perfect knock around .22 rifle. I wish they still made it.
A nice Ruger .22 pistol was more compact and just as accurate, maybe more so, tho the longer barrel would increase power.
If one wants to really get a compact .22, I think A Walther PP sport is about perfect, that or one of the clones.
If I could only have ONE .22 it would be my Remington Nylon 66.
Some of the AR-7s made in the 1980s were crap. I think it was Charter Arms that made them then as several companies had the rights for a while.
Not many people are aware that this is also a Eugene Stoner design :-)
Yeah, it was fun to throw it in a canoe or a back back and get out away from anything and try to shoot cans with it.
The kids enjoyed it too. They got a lot more fun out of the *crack* and the puff of dust than I got "oh craps" because the can was unscathed after a mag and a half.
"C'mon, quit fussing with the sights and let me just shoot it!"
I think the new Ruger 10/22 take-down model is a better choice. The AR-7 is interesting, but lacks the Ruger’s deep aftermarket support.
Getting tired of eating a particular diet, beat hell out of eating, ..NOTHING.
Springfield M6 Scout - .22LR/.410 combo
He popped the co-pilot/passenger who dropped the grenade taking out the helicopter.
I picked up a Ruger 10/22 recently along with twenty 30 round magazines.
I had been considering picking up a couple new versions, newly made AR-7s. But I’d probably rather if I had to get a 10/22 for not much more, if more at all. It can’t break down (the new breakdown versions are more than I’d spend) but for the accuracy, customization ability and larger mags I’d rather have that.
I believe that this may the the perfect FReeper rifle. Nowhere else have I heard of so many firearms lost via accidental sinking. Finally a solution!
“....so inaccurate it defied the laws of physics.”
LOL. Same as mine. Traded it off for a Remington hunting knife.
Watched the video at the site linked and it looks like the gun jammed a couple times. It may have just be the way they edited it but it would have been more effective if they had shown it firing a complete magazine. I think I’ll stick with my 10/22.
now that they don't make them anymore you can't touch a used one for under $700!!!
Down South, we like a varied diet. And if you have a cane pole and a hook or enough power to bring down a wild hog...you can eat, well, high on the hog!
A .22 LR isn't enough to kill a wild hog unless you hit him just right.
I’d like a 10/22 too. (Say that three times, fast!)
If I thought there’d be water involved I’d spring for the stainless version in the nylon(?) stock.
There are more than one manufacturer of the AR-7.
Right you are. I bought mine around 1981. It’s very accurate and I’ve never had a problem with it. It was made by Charter Arms and is an AR-7 Explorer. Unlike the chrome or stainless model Bond used to shoot down the chopper, mine is all black, with a rough matte finish on the barrel. At a gun show I bought two 30-round magazines, so I keep one in the gun and one in my pocket and store the small magazine in the stock, giving me 67 rounds.
Nice little survival item, if a bit inaccurate.
One piece of EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!!! advice: Do NOT rack the slide while the receiver is unattached to the barrel!!!
The bolt handle CAN and often WILL come out in your hand, releasing the bolt and recoil springs to fly out the front, while the recoil spring retainer buries itself DEEP in the receiver and becomes amazingly difficult to extract.
If this happens outdoors, the bolt and recoil springs may be impossible to find, while the recoil spring retainer becomes impossible to extract from deep - and I do mean DEEP - in the receiver.
Save yourself an incredible headache and mind this bit of very sound advice.
Painful experience talking here.
I have one of the original Armalites.
Can’t say I lost my guns in a boating accident... It floats!!
The AR-7 has more versions than 'Yesterday' had covers.
And just like covers, some bands did better than others.
Pay attention to serial numbers and manufacturers. Don't blame St. Eugene's design.
And yes... I'm the guy that posts the Stoner and Browning posts in January and November.
Why an AR-7 when you can have the most dependable .22lr rife ever built in breakdown form? I am about to pick up one of these next week:
I have been trying to think of a gun I bought back around 1979 at a Woolco store. It was $18 brand new, yes that price is right.
It was a little bit similar to a gun called the “Bronco” but was more cheaply made. Actually tho the gun was a piece of crap, the design was interesting and I believe if made of better materials and perhaps better workmanship it would have been a good rifle.
As it was, it still functioned OK and was not completely worthless. It was literally made of wire only slightly larger than a coat hanger. You twisted the action and barrel apart and manually pressed the extractor. It was held in battery only by a steel ball bearing which fit into a hole in a slight extension under the barrel. the fact that it was not very secure was not much of a problem as the strength was straight back not side by sde which you turned it to place a .22 cartridge into the chamer or empty the chamber.
I still think it was a good idea if it had just been of better quality. It still could have been cheap to make yet be a perfectly good gun.
Anybody remember it
USAF spent some money funding rifles that everyone hated... like the AR-7, the AR-15, and that mess of an over-under shotgun-rifle Scout thing.
Today, it's about the only thing I appreciate the AF doing after Korea.
For me, it’s a kind of neat-to-have thing.
My real .22 is a late 60’s Marlin mod 60 tube fed autoloader.
And an Iver Johnson 8 shot revolver/target pistol.
You will not be disappointed.
I always wondered why the universe would never let funding and availability align in my pursuit of a Marlin Papoose.
Now I realize it was because the angels were smiling down on me in anticipation of the 10/22 takedown model ;o)
Around 1965 I bought a Mexican single shot pistol which was a fascinating study in just how cheaply a gun could be made and still be reliable accurate and powerful, at least for a .22.
It was a Mendoza. It had an excellent quality barrel but the rolling block action was made of stamped sheet steel. The hammer was composed of 3 pieces of sheet metal welded together.
It was another of those guns with a good design but with just a little upgrade in quality could have been an excellent performer. It had a clip on each side of the frame to hold 3 extra rounds, giving it a bit of the same look as a six shooter.
As far as actually shooting, it was more accurate than most and that is saying something. I think it had a six inch barrel, maybe longer as the lack of a regular type action made the overall length much shorter than say a Ruger auto pistol.
My only criticism was that sometimes the empty cases would have a slight bulge. That is why sheet steel was probably not the best way to make a breech block.
Still I think someone in the USA could use the design to make a fine single shot target pistol at a reasonable price. I think I paid all of $12 for mine.
I’m talking about the current version, made by Henry and pictured in entry number 4, above - the one with the luminescent organge sight insert and inner compartment.
Parenthetically, I also had one of these rifles waaaay back in the seventies, made on the original plan, and never had that problem.
So, yes, you’re probably right.
Born and raised in the south.
The reply was to, a .22 rf is only good for birds and squirrels and would get tired of eating them.
I am 73 years old, I can well remember shooting hogs for slaughter in the fall with a .22, and it killed them DRT.
I also know from personal experience that a .22 LR solid will penetrate 16 inches of solid live muscle tissue.
Shame if they have fallen that far in their production.
Right up until that Monday morning when you have to qualify with it. Or the day you needed it to live. I'll take the AR-7. And I did, given the choice.
They are a mistake made by dumb purchasing officers.
If you don't go to the field to play with it, you don't have an opinion, and if you are Major or above... I may not listen.