PDA

View Full Version : Henry Arms AR-7 Survival Rifle?



Milo Christensen
08-26-2009, 09:26 PM
How accurate is this rifle and out to how far? (http://www.impactguns.com/store/619835002006.html) Assume that someone once asked the potential owner: "Do you want to try out for the U.S. Biathlon Team?".

bobbys
08-26-2009, 09:33 PM
I have one but have never shot it, My boy came by and took it so when he shoots it i will report back.

Its cool though

Tom Galyen
08-26-2009, 09:41 PM
I owned one many years ago. It is a survival rifle thats all. The scope on it is worthless. It is very inaccurate at any appreciable range. It was made to fold up and fit in the ejection seat of an aircraft to give the pilot something to have on the ground to help him hunt small game. That's all.

Captain Blight
08-26-2009, 09:44 PM
The action-barrel lockup looks iffy; I'd expect you could shoot about minute-of-rabbit out to 50 yards or so? Probably about as Mr Galyan said.

A Savage M24 would be a much, much better choice.

seanz
08-26-2009, 09:55 PM
Get a dog.

The Bigfella
08-26-2009, 10:04 PM
Sorry mate, when the August 15th Lord Destructor prophecy eventually comes true (in about the year 3009) then that toy just isn't going to cut it.

Phillip Allen
08-26-2009, 10:16 PM
very inexpensive...regardless of what they charge for it

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
08-27-2009, 01:37 AM
The drawback of the AR-7 is the variation at the juncture between the barrel and the receiver. If it is not accurate, it is useless. It would be more accurate if it used a long-eye-relief scope mounted on the barrel, or the barrel and receiver were a unit and just the butt stock removed.

A better choice is the Springfield Armory M6 Scout, a commercial version of the survival rifle issued to aircrews from the 50s through the 70s, recently out of production but still widely available. Check on Gunbroker.com (the gun equivalent of Ebay.) The M6 is an over-under with .22 LR or 22 Hornet (better, able to take medium game) on top and, and .410 underneath. The gun folds in half to 15" length, sights are fixed to the barrel. My only fault with the gun is that it has a hand-squeeze trigger to allow shooting with heavy mittens, it would be more accurate with a conventional trigger.

If compactness is less of a factor, a combination gun with .308 rifle on top and 12 or 20 gauge shotgun on the bottom would have much more capability. A 1-4x variable scope would be ideal sights, with iron sights as backup.

A shoulder-stocked pistol ("short-barrel-rifle" or SBR) in 9mm, with a frame mounted scope would also be ideal, but they are illegal under the gun control act of 1934. But not hard to fabricate, simply adding a fitting for a removable shoulder stock to the pistol frame, hence the foolishness of the legislation.

paladin
08-27-2009, 02:28 AM
I recently sold two of them that I kept aboard for survival purposes in the life raft. Not very accurate for serious shooting. squirrel and rabbit sized game at 35-50 yards, beyond that purely hit and miss. I replaced them with a pair of Browning take down semi auto gallery type guns. I did have the wood stocks removed and a local fabricator make carbon fiber stocks and fill them with foam for flotation. Super accurate and mechanically a much better weapon. The .22 long rifle will take down anything reasonable that you would need in a survival situation. Additionally, if you have a stable rest, it's good to 100 meters easily enough.

PeterSibley
08-27-2009, 07:07 AM
I recently sold two of them that I kept aboard for survival purposes in the life raft. Not very accurate for serious shooting. squirrel and rabbit sized game at 35-50 yards, beyond that purely hit and miss. I replaced them with a pair of Browning take down semi auto gallery type guns. I did have the wood stocks removed and a local fabricator make carbon fiber stocks and fill them with foam for flotation. Super accurate and mechanically a much better weapon. The .22 long rifle will take down anything reasonable that you would need in a survival situation. Additionally, if you have a stable rest, it's good to 100 meters easily enough.
That's precisely the rifle I'd recommend ,I've had two of them .Moderately accurate but nothing like a Brno .A good rabbit rifle , if you are a good shot before you start .If you're not a bolt action would be better .

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
08-27-2009, 06:35 PM
Norinco (China) used to make a pretty fair copy of the Browning semi-auto .22 Paladin is talking about, at about 1/3 the cost of the Browning. I had one for a while, picked it up very cheap (used) at a gun show, never had a chance to shoot it before I sold it (now sorry I did, all Norinco firearms were banned from import by the Clinton administration, but they are still sold in Canada). Was the most compact gun I ever owned. But had I kept it, I would have tried to find a scope mount that mounted to the barrel but cantilevered the scope over the receiver, it would be more accurate than mounting the scope directly to the receiver, due to the removable barrel.

As of late, I watched this show on Discovery channel where a group hikes out of the Alaskan wilderness, survival simulation. They had a 22/.410 over under, and they used the .410 much more often, for ptarmigan and squirrels.

paladin
08-27-2009, 07:27 PM
I used the .22 for Ptarmigan, aim for the head and dunno messs up the meat.:p

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
08-27-2009, 08:42 PM
I used the .22 for Ptarmigan, aim for the head and dunno messs up the meat.:p

I agree, but they only had open sights on the gun and not a scope, a bit of a tough shot for the average Joe. I used to be a great shot out to 1000m with aperture and post sights, but my eyesight is not what it used to be. I haven't shot with my new reading glasses, they should allow a crisp sight picture at the front sight, and I guess fuzzy on the target will be same as it used to be.

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:05 PM
I agree, but they only had open sights on the gun and not a scope, a bit of a tough shot for the average Joe. I used to be a great shot out to 1000m with aperture and post sights, but my eyesight is not what it used to be. I haven't shot with my new reading glasses, they should allow a crisp sight picture at the front sight, and I guess fuzzy on the target will be same as it used to be.

I think we're missing something Bob...the survival team is not suppose to represent the average Joe...

to my thinking, the scope makes it tempting for folks to try shots they should never try...similar to the GPS luring people off shore who aren't, otherwise, qualified to go there

PeterSibley
08-27-2009, 09:11 PM
Scopes are also good for low light and bad eyes Phil .

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:15 PM
Scopes are also good for low light and bad eyes Phil .

practice makes up for pretty poor eyesight...if it's so poor that it can't be made up for then you need a guide dog and let it do the shooting...you might be aiming at a kid

I have poor eye sight and can't win anymore...but still outshoot nearly everyone I encounter casually...prolly most on this forum (I didn't say all)

Paul Pless
08-27-2009, 09:21 PM
practice makes up for pretty poor eyesight...to a point...

cs
08-27-2009, 09:22 PM
I say BS. Poor eyesight cannot be made up for with practice. I used to shoot 38-40 and now I shoot closer to 35-37 because the target is a bit more unclear at range.

I usually don't have much use for gun threads despite the fact that I enjoy shooting. I'm looking a bit forward to going to the range and shooting the M4. I was sighting one the other day and it definitely has a different feel than the M16 and I do believe that it will be a better shooting rifle.

Chad

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:25 PM
I say BS. Poor eyesight cannot be made up for with practice. I used to shoot 38-40 and now I shoot closer to 35-37 because the target is a bit more unclear at range.

I usually don't have much use for gun threads despite the fact that I enjoy shooting. I'm looking a bit forward to going to the range and shooting the M4. I was sighting one the other day and it definitely has a different feel than the M16 and I do believe that it will be a better shooting rifle.

Chad

okay Chad...what do you think the "average Joe" will shoot and reconcile that back to your present score

PeterSibley
08-27-2009, 09:27 PM
practice makes up for pretty poor eyesight...if it's so poor that it can't be made up for then you need a guide dog and let it do the shooting...you might be aiming at a kid

I have poor eye sight and can't win anymore...but still outshoot nearly everyone I encounter casually...prolly most on this forum (I didn't say all)

My eyesight is a lot worse than it was as a boy , but a scope makes it just as good .Same as binoculars Phil ....we're talking rabbits at 50 yards here mate , not a gold cup .

The magnification also makes a huge difference in low light, again , just like binoculars while sailing at dusk .

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:31 PM
My eyesight is a lot worse than it was as a boy , but a scope makes it just as good .Same as binoculars Phil ....we're talking rabbits at 50 yards here mate , not a gold cup .

The magnification also makes a huge difference in low light, again , just like binoculars while sailing at dusk .

Peter...for me, it does not offset the need to carry more weight and bulk...I still use the "kiss" principal

cs
08-27-2009, 09:33 PM
Not saying the average Joe can shoot like I do, in fact he may shoot better. What I'm saying is that a scope would help me see the target better and more clearer.

Below is an image of the standard paper target that we qualify on. We shoot on a 25 meter range. The targets are scaled according to their range. The 300 meter target can be a challenge when it starts getting a bit fuzzy.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/39828/2/M16_Series_Target.jpg

One year I went to the range with a new pair of glasses. They were a smaller frame pair than what I was used to wearing. I shot a 26, the worst I've ever shot. After a bit I released what was happening. The frames were so small I was looking over the top of my glasses. Next time at the range with the same glasses I shoot a 37 because I kept in mind that and made sure I pushed my glasses up.

A scope would have allowed me to see more clearer. The rest is all technique and practice. On another note all the practice in the world and the best scopes that money can buy will not help some.

Chad

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:38 PM
Chad...I think the scope is a liability on a wilderness trip

cs
08-27-2009, 09:49 PM
I don't think so. Anything that lets you see the target more clearly is an asset. Modern scopes that I have seen, I'll admit I've not used many, are lighter and more compact and don't hinder, but rather enhance.

Here is a CCO scope for the M4 and weighs about 12 ounces.

http://www.lg-outdoors.com/images/SCRD-19.gif

Chad

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:52 PM
I don't think so. Anything that lets you see the target more clearly is an asset. Modern scopes that I have seen, I'll admit I've not used many, are lighter and more compact and don't hinder, but rather enhance.

Here is a CCO scope for the M4 and weighs about 12 ounces.

http://www.lg-outdoors.com/images/SCRD-19.gif

Chad

and it sticks up and takes up space...

when my eyes get bad enough that I cannot shoot without a scope...I will be further limited...the operative word here is LIMITED

PeterSibley
08-27-2009, 09:54 PM
Peter...for me, it does not offset the need to carry more weight and bulk...I still use the "kiss" principal

With a decent side mount you still have open sights , still simple , but I might hit something that way .

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 09:57 PM
With a decent side mount you still have open sights , still simple , but I might hit something that way .

gracious...how far away do you expect the target to be...remember we're talking .22 and a very inexpensive little rifle, on a river or at least in a river valley...lots of trees and growing things...all shots are gonna be close and likely moving

keep it in persepctive

PeterSibley
08-27-2009, 10:03 PM
With my eyes old mate keeping it in perspective is not that easy .I can't use open sights well with glasses and a scope stands in for glasses very well .

I don't try for running shots with a rifle , I like clean shots the kill .I don't like wounding .

Anyway , the bunnies here sit up and pose .

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 10:07 PM
oh well...have it your way
I wish we could get together and practice on some targets. I'll bet I could have you doing better than you expected to do

Captain Intrepid
08-27-2009, 10:09 PM
Chad...I think the scope is a liability on a wilderness trip

If a scope weighs too much to carry on a wilderness trip, what are you bringing a gun along for at all?

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 10:12 PM
If a scope weighs too much to carry on a wilderness trip, what are you bringing a gun along for at all?

well, that IS a consideration...still the scope is more just like a camp stove is more...all those mores add up

jbelow
08-27-2009, 10:50 PM
Taurus makes a nice take-down 22 magnum pump carbine in stainless steel. Should be a dandy.

andrewe
08-28-2009, 01:26 PM
A footnote on the AR 7: It was used by Bond in the flic " From Russia with Love" as part of of his '00' kit. His Turkish head of station used it to off a bad guy. And Bond bought down a Bell 47 of the 'opposition' with it.
A
Not sure if they called it a Henry Arms. IFIRR they said Colt or Armalite

Captain Intrepid
08-28-2009, 02:22 PM
well, that IS a consideration...still the scope is more just like a camp stove is more...all those mores add up

Indeed. There are some "mores" that are worth it. Like when everyone's eating their dried up oatmeal and and you haul out half a pound of bacon and eggs and start frying them up. :D I love those looks of hate beamed my way. :D

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 02:26 PM
Indeed. There are some "mores" that are worth it. Like when everyone's eating their dried up oatmeal and and you haul out half a pound of bacon and eggs and start frying them up. :D I love those looks of hate beamed my way. :D

we may be more alike than I thought... :)

you oughta try it with an air mattress after everyone else has slaved cutting spruce boughs for their beds...in a rocky, dry stream bed

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 02:31 PM
Indeed. There are some "mores" that are worth it. Like when everyone's eating their dried up oatmeal and and you haul out half a pound of bacon and eggs and start frying them up. :D I love those looks of hate beamed my way. :Drofl!!!:D

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 02:34 PM
ah...the joys of camping with your buddies :)

Captain Intrepid
08-28-2009, 03:08 PM
we may be more alike than I thought... :)

you oughta try it with an air mattress after everyone else has slaved cutting spruce boughs for their beds...in a rocky, dry stream bed

Oh these types of forums are better at showing people's differences in opinion than their similarities. Anonymity has that effect.

I actually prefer a hammock. There's a company on one of the Gulf Islands that makes a kind of combination tent/hammock, and they're absolutely brilliant. Super comfy, takes no time at all to set up, nice and small and lightweight. They get a bit chilly at -20, but all you need is a nice warm sleeping bag. I've even set it up on deck on a big schooner when we were in port and it didn't get in the way.

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 03:14 PM
Oh these types of forums are better at showing people's differences in opinion than their similarities. Anonymity has that effect.

I actually prefer a hammock. There's a company on one of the Gulf Islands that makes a kind of combination tent/hammock, and they're absolutely brilliant. Super comfy, takes no time at all to set up, nice and small and lightweight. They get a bit chilly at -20, but all you need is a nice warm sleeping bag. I've even set it up on deck on a big schooner when we were in port and it didn't get in the way.

I doubt the hammock would work for me...I toss and turn a lot and get miserable if I can't...for that reason I can't use a mummy bag

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 03:34 PM
Ah... luxury camping items... the main reason I don't climb or backpack anymore. I do all my camping out of a boat. I carry a padded cot from Cabelas, a deep cast iron skillet for cooking everything from eggs and bacon to frying catfish, and of course most importantly... a really big ice chest.:D

Surprisingly... as big a gun owner and advocate as I am; I've never carried a gun down a river or along the coast.

paladin
08-28-2009, 03:46 PM
Actually....I carried a couple or three knives....and sometimes my bow, not the big heavy powered one but the little 60 pound draw lightweight recurve...knives usually included the little buck skinning knife, a Buck folding camp knife and the Randall #1. There's about a dozen and a half arrows in the quiver, and all have convertible points so I carried a half dozen razor points for big game (white tailed deer), and a half dozen small game points and 2-3 fish points.

Wayne Jeffers
08-28-2009, 04:45 PM
...I toss and turn a lot and get miserable if I can't...for that reason I can't use a mummy bag

Iíve not had any problems like that. Iíve had a good mummy bag since the mid-1960ís and have used it almost exclusively.

The idea of a mummy bag is that you turn it with you. You don't spin around inside it.

Chuck Ė Did you shoot those ptarmigan in the head while they were on the wing? Flying directly away from you? ;) I used a .22 to shoot squirrels in the head while growing up in southern WV, but only when they were lying on a tree limb thinking they were invisible. Never running. . . . Or birds on the wing.

Wayne

George Roberts
08-28-2009, 05:30 PM
we may be more alike than I thought... :)

you oughta try it with an air mattress after everyone else has slaved cutting spruce boughs for their beds...in a rocky, dry stream bed

I remember taking a nap while on a kayaking trip. Pulled up on an island - wearing a rain suit and bug net. Found some large rocks that looked like a chair. Sat in them. Fell asleep in seconds.

A tired man sleeps anywhere.

I like the idea of hunting small game, but it takes valuable daylight to do so.

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
09-02-2009, 04:43 AM
I think we're missing something Bob...the survival team is not suppose to represent the average Joe...

to my thinking, the scope makes it tempting for folks to try shots they should never try...similar to the GPS luring people off shore who aren't, otherwise, qualified to go there

No the folks on this particular survival jaunt were an assortment of regular joes and janes, with limited training beforehand. This was not one of those shows with a solo expert. I know the shows you are talking about, pretty impressive stuff those.

Regarding scopes: I am a died-in-the-wool fan, and expert, with iron sights, and even I have to admit the superiority of modern scopes, especially in low light conditions, bad weather, and shots on the move (because I can focus on my target instead of the front sight), but with a few caveats: 1) I want good iron sights as backup. I don't need see-through rings, just the ability to take off the scope. 2) Don't overdo it. The scope has to go down to at least 1.5 power for a wide field for fast target acquisition, and anything over 4 power is a waste unless you get beyond, oh, 400 yards I'd say. Also, a low-powered scope is light and compact, yet will still have at least a 5 mm exit pupil to keep it bright. 3) Cranked up to 4 power, the scope will substitute for binoculars, for finding and determining game. By the way, the variable scopes are much more accurate than they used to be, the manufacturing tolerances are much better.