The Great Survival Rifle / Pack Rifle Experiment of 2016/17

[wayupnorth]

The Great Survival Rifle / Pack Rifle Experiment of 2016/17

Most people are intrigued by the theory behind the Survival Rifle, even more so when you start talking about a pack rifle or hiking rifle. We have seen an upsurge in different 22LR rifles over the last couple years that are vying to claim a stake in this unique market. I myself will admit that I am just as guilty about wanting a nice survival rifle – and who wouldn’t! With all the TV shows about prepping and ‘end of days’ not to mention the political turmoil around the world - it’s a very appealing market place because everyone’s mind goes to these bad situations when they lay in bed and sleep does not come for them.
Over the years I have tried to make my own pack rifle with some pretty good but limited success. Taking a 22LR rifle I own and swapping out the stock for as short and light of one as you can find and trying to shave weight where you can to make the rifle as portable and packable as you can. Everyone’s first attempt is usually a old Cooey that has been in the gun safe for years and no one would ever miss. My best attempt was in 1993 with a Stainless Ruger 10/22 that i swapped over onto a Butler Creek folding stock.

While these rifles filled the need they were missing the lightness and pack-ability.

Fast forward to today.
I find myself living in remote Northern Alberta. My down time from work I fill with a mixture of taking either my Inflatable boat out onto remote no road access lakes or my power boat up and down the local rivers or hiking and camping trips hundreds of miles away from the next human being with either my wife and kids or with co-workers and friends. I do these fun trips almost every weekend and I find myself needing a better pack rifle. I go out with the Canadian Rangers and we carry (currently) the old Lee Enfield 303 and while that is a perfect gun for bear defense and predator defense it is not a fun gun to pack through the woods and you defiantly could not use it to take down a brace of coneys or a couple Hungarian partridge for a nice campfire meal. There is a need in my life for a survival rifle and a pack rifle.
I have even been able to talk my wife into my need for one of these rifles. All it takes is wondering into a Black Bear a couple times while out on a hike or having the motor on the boat not catch when and you have to overnight in the true northern wilds to show a person the need for such a gun. Without being allowed to carry pistols for recreational use here in Canada we are left with 22LR pack rifles.

So here I sit. I go to the local gun store and they carry none of the ‘new and improved’ pack rifles. I look up reviews of these guns and you can only see so much on your computer screen. You can't see if the gun is made of quality product, you can’t see the quality control of the manufacturing. You can't see if they are accurate and repeatable in that accuracy. You can't see if they are reliable and will function and fit the need of Northern Canada, or on the river, or in the bush. I finally came to the conclusion that I was going to have to pick up a couple of these guns and test them. Originally my plan was to pick up 3 or 4 of them and find out which one I liked the best than sell off the others. We are friends or so I’d like to think, so I’ll tell you a secret that my wife likes to holds over my head......I can’t sell guns. I don’t know if it’s a hoarder gene passed down from generations of Scottish blood that won’t let me sell guns i don’t want or use or just a really deep seated fear that one day the banks and governments will fail and rule of law will leave us. I don’t know what it is but I can’t sell guns. So I knew even before i started this experiment that I would be keeping all these guns but now I needed to find what niche was best filled by each one of them. Which one will live in my Quad, which one my holiday trailer, which one in my boat? And so begun the test.

Question 1) Which guns and 2) at what price.

One good thing about living in the remote Northern Alberta – the pay is good and there is no place to spend your hard earned money so you get lots of time to stockpile money and buy toys! But I did not want a dozen pack rifles I wanted a couple or at least enough I that I could test them and compare them without catching a tongue lashing from the wife over the VISA bill.
I decided there were 4 rifles i wanted to test – I would say these are the 4 most readily available ones on the market right now and i feel they are the ones that the manufactures are pushing on us to fill this niche.

The first one being the Chiappa Little Badger, the second being the Ruger 10/22 Take Down, the third being the Marlin Papoose 70PSS and the last being the Henry US Survival Rifle.

Ideally I wanted to spend around $250-$400 on each gun and be into this experiment for about $1000-$1200 not counting ammo and optics. So I sat back starting in the fall of 2016 and I started to stalk these guns online watching for sales and waiting.
I was lucky going into the purchasing part of this test because I had already picked up a Chiappa Little Badger the year before and it was already sitting in my gun safe – so that took a nice bite out of this initial lay out of money. I picked up the Little Badger for $225.70 and I verified that the price is still the same today and if anything you can pick them up for a little less than that.
My next break came the week before Christmas. One of the larger gun stores had a nice early Boxing Day sale the week before Christmas and I was able to pick up a Henry US Survival Rifle for $291.36 down from the regular price of $370. As luck would have it the next day the same sale saw the Ruger 10/22 Take Down on sale and I struck again and picked one up for $446.27 down from its regular price of $525. My luck would hold out and on Christmas Eve day I received a flyer for the same company and the Ruger 10/22 Take Down was going on sale for ever CHEAPER on Boxing Day. I called and voiced a complaint and was given the super sale price of $367.49.

Everything was looking good, I was 3 guns into the test and waiting on the Marlin Papoose to come on sale. Now is when my luck did change. I waited and waited and I even called and begged.... I tried to use my 20 years as a Paramedic and my 20 years as a Volunteer Firefighter and my current status as a Reservist with the military and I could not shake loose a sale price on the Papoose. I set an end date of the end of January – if no sale I would buy at full price – my Scottish blood be damned! The end of January came and I called my father down in Calgary. I gave him marching orders. Go to the LGS and pick up the Papoose and send it up. As luck would have it my dad had a $20 off coupon and I had sent him a Gift Card I had for $75 for the same store so I did get $95 off the gun – total price before that was $440.90.
So I down had all 4 guns and was into them all for $1325.45.
Now the testing began.

I had put pen to paper and came up with a couple questions I wanted answered about these guns than I asked on Canadian Gun Nutz if anyone had anything they wanted answered about these guns and modified my testing criteria to add some of their questions. In the end I have what I think is a very good comprehensive list of what I want this experiment to answer. So with the boring preamble out of the way let’s go into the testing!

the guns:

Chiappa Little Badger

Henry US Survival Rifle AR7

Ruger 10/22 Take Down

Marlin 70PSS Papoose

VIDEO!

 

[wayupnorth]

Test 1
Initial disassembly and inspection of each gun followed with a cleaning and reassembly. Initial inspection of the quality of materials, craftsmanship and fit and finish. What works and does not work with this gun and what is missing and should be on this gun. Are the guns worth what I paid for them? Are they plastic and cheap plastic at that or are they metal? If Metal is it cheap pot metal or aluminum? Are there tool marks and burs left from the manufacturing?
While I’m calling this test 1 chronologically I did this in the middle of test 2 so the guns did get a couple hundred rounds through them before I took them apart.
Each gun got 50 rounds put through it the day it arrived so I was sure I didn’t get a lemon and that the gun functioned fine. They all did.

Henry US Survival Rifle AR7 H002B
Regular Cost Price – $370 my purchase price $291.36
Year Introduced – 1959 -> Henry started making it in 1980
Tools needed to disassembly – Flat head screw driver
Made from – Barrel metal with plastic shell on outside, receiver metal, stock plastic.
Notes: out of all the guns the AR7 feels the cheapest. I am concerned about all the plastic used in this gun not because its plastic but because of the temperature changes from hot to cold where I am I fear it may make the plastic brittle over time. Upon consideration the gun needs the plastic to be able to float.
PRO’s – Very simple construction of the inside and outside of the gun, barrel attaches with hand tightening of the barrel nut no tool needed for that. Can open up the receiver with a dime if you needed too. Bolt comes out with no tools. For field cleaning gun requires NO TOOLS. Magazines are all metal. Front site is high visibility rear site is peep site build into the receiver.
CON’s – Metal is pot metal, looks to be painted not anodized or blued. LOTS of plastic, entire butt stock and the barrel is coated in a plastic shell. Front site moves really easy -> too easy.
Part and Warranty in Canada – Gretch Outdoors in Ontario is Parts and Warranty.
Conclusion – of the 4 guns this one is my least favorite and has me the most worried about breakage and failure just due to all the plastic and cheap pot metal. That said the gun goes together and comes apart very nicely and all the parts work together nice. I miss the stock under the barrel to hold.

Marlin Papoose 70PSS
Regular Cost Price – $440.90
Year Introduced – 1986 -> PSS in 1993
Tools needed to disassembly – Barrel Wrench (coin), T20 screwdriver
Made from – Stainless Steel barrel and receiver, plastic stock.
Notes: impressed with this gun, solid metal gun and dense plastic stock. Quality build.
PRO’s – metal magazines, nice high visibility front sight hooded for protection. Nice stainless steel all parts are fit nice and tight, no tool marks, no burrs, the stock while plastic does not feel cheap like the AR7 it is dense and has weight too it. Like the bolt spring up the middle and not up the one side like Ruger has. The inner mechanism of the receiver is a package and comes out as one. Double ejectors on bolt.
CON’s – why does the barrel wrench not fit in the back stock of the gun? Why is the other end of the barrel wrench not have a T20 pressed into it since you need that to take down the gun? The inner mechanism of the receiver is a package and comes out as one, LOTS of little springs and split rings and captured springs and such, a lot going on with this piece, long travel bars running length of assembly.
Part and Warranty in Canada – Gravel in Quebec is Parts and Warranty for Canada.
Conclusion – I have high hopes for this gun, very impressed initially with the gun, good quality and solid gun. Only a couple things I don’t like, 1) to keep the barrel right ya need the wrench. 2) why is there no storage on the gun for the wrench? 3) I don’t enjoy the feel of the gun i miss having a stock on the front under the barrel to hold.

Ruger 10/22 Take Down Model 11100
Regular Cost Price – $525 my purchase price $367.49
Year Introduced - 2012
Tools needed to disassembly – flat head screwdriver, T25 screwdriver.
Made from – stainless steel and plastic.
Notes: gun is identical to all ruger 10/22 guns but has added the take down mechanism so you could put on pretty much any aftermarket parts you wanted. All internal parts are same as all 10/22’s. Gun is solid good stainless steel receiver and barrel and plastic stock is solid and feels good. Good quality build.
PRO’s – uses all 10/22 aftermarket parts. Rotary magazine. All pieces are nice and big easy to use.
CON’s – why 2 different screw types for take disassembly? Inside of receiver was a little ruff where the bolt moves around – overspray?
Part and Warranty in Canada – Snapshot in Quebec is Parts and Warranty in Canada.
Conclusion – of the 4 guns this one is my favorite going into the test. I like Ruger 10/22’s and I have a few of them, I know the parts and system well and have used them for 34 years with great success. I like how they made the take down version and kept all the parts original to the Ruger. Interchangeability is great with aftermarket parts and gun feels like a gun when you shoulder it.

Chiappa Little Badger
Regular Cost Price – $225.70 my purchase price $225.70
Year Introduced -2013
Tools needed to disassembly – 2 flat head screwdriver, T20 screwdriver. Small punch for firing pin.
Made from – metal.
Notes: simple construction simple gun. Not a whole lot to go wrong if you keep it simple. Gun is all metal except for the rails added onto the front are plastic.
PRO’s – super simple construction. 3 springs and 3 pins and 3 parts.
CON’s – pot metal, rail on underside near grip is not standard size can’t use aftermarket pistol grips on it. Threaded barrel cap is super cheap plastic and breaks on first use.
Part and Warranty in Canada – Murray Charlton Enterprises in B.C for Parts and Warranty in Canada.
Conclusion – smallest and lightest footprint of the 4 guns. While being the smallest and lightest it feels more solid than the AR7 because of the lack of plastic and all metal construction. Simple gun, very little moving parts to go wrong. No magazines to jam but that also could be a CON as it takes time to reload and get a follow up shot.

VIDEO!!!

 

[wayupnorth]

Test 2

Cold weather testing. Living in Northern Alberta we see some very cold weather a couple times throughout the year all the way down to -50 at times. Any survival rifle that is to be used in this climate must be able to function in cold weather reliably or it will not be worth anything and fail to be useful. This test will be done twice. First test the guns will go out to the range after spending 24 hours outside buried in snow. They will be cleaned off and fired and checked for reliability. Second test will be the exact same as the first test but the guns will be cleaned and treated with a cold weather oil prior to test to give them optimal chance at working. My wife asked why I was doing the test this way and my answer is simple, while all my guns are treated with G96 so they run reliably in cold weather I might not have access to my guns when out in the bush and not everyone uses cold weather oil on their guns so this test will show how the guns run stock and how they run when treated properly for cold weather use.

Talking about this test is boring.
Doing this test was FUN!
For the first test the night the guns where put outside in the snow it was -28 and down into -34/-36 overnight, when the test was done out at the range the weather was still -26 and down around -30 with wind-chill.
For the second test the weather was a couple degrees colder and the wind chill was even lower which I feel made for a super good condition for the cold weather oil to show what it could do.
I will not lie I was very concerned about the AR7 for these test as it is made of a light plastic and I feared the brutal cold with the shooting would break or shatter the plastic.
The results from Cold Weather Test 1.
The triggers and bolts on all 3 semi autos where full of ice and snow but with a simple brush from the glove all 3 came clean and worked good.
The Chiappa was a surprise the entire gun was covered in ice and i had to scrape it off with a ammo box, the trigger and break open where both froze and the trigger would not engage the seer so the trigger would not stay back. I had to warm up the gun in my hands for a minute before it would work. The Chiappa had 1 light strike and no failures.
The AR7 both the charging handle and the mag release where very hard to use because they where froze. The charging handle can be pushed into the bolt for storage and froze in place, had to pry it out. The magazine release is external on the front of the trigger guard and was gummed up with ice but worked after playing with it for a second. Could not open the read of the gun because the plastic cap on the butt was frozen and contracted. Had a couple failure to ejects due to sluggish bolt just like the papoose bug seemed to run better once it started running. One the gun fired one or 2 rounds it warmed up the gun and it would run fine.
Papoose the mag release hangs down and was gummed up with ice but worked. Couple stove pipes due to the bolt moving slow due to sluggish oil. Once it started to run it warmed up and ran fine.
The Ruger was sluggish to work the bolt – the oil it shipped in must be very light. One dud round. Ran best out of the 3 semi auto’s with no failures to eject.

All guns went home and fully disassembled and cleaned out with G96 and put back together.
Guns sat for a couple days and absorbed the G96 than I did the test again.

Test 2 results!
Day I did this there was a extreme weather warning out due to cold weather.
FREAK’N cold!!!!! -28/-30 with wind-chill -36
Chiappa Little Badger: flawless run.
Ruger Take Down: flawless no failures.
Marlin Papoose: one light strike, I think this was due to the mag release – otherwise flawless.
Henry AR7: one stovepipe per mag otherwise ran good.
CONCLUSION: running a good high quality cold weather oil in your gun is critical!!!!

VIDEO!!!

 

[NHunter]

bon chance

 

[wayupnorth]

Test 3

Shooting open sights at 22 meters / 72 Feet.
Set up the bench and spend a couple minutes to start shooting some targets. Did an initial sight in of the guns to make sure the open sites where dialed in than I did a go/no go shoot.
Very simple test, 3 x 3” dots on paper and each gun took 20 shots, 5 for the top, 5 for the middle and 10 for the bottom dot off a bench using a couple bags on the front and rear. For a shot to count it needs to be touching the red dot. At the end all shots are counted and best score wins.
If anyone is wondering why I did this test at 22 meters the answer is for small game with my old eyes I would not be shooting much past this distance unless I absolutely had too. This was my comfort distance to shoot with open sites.
Sighting in the Ruger was hitting a little high. The Papoose was shooting low and to the left. Was able to dial them in with a couple mags.

Results from test.
Chiappa Little Badger: 4/5 Head, 5/5 Heart, 10/10 Gut = 19/20
Henry AR7: 4/5 Head, 4/5 Heart, 9/10 Gut = 17/20
Ruger Take Down: 4/5 Head, 5/5 Heart, 10/10 Gut = 19/20
Marlin Papoose: 4/5 Head, 3/5 Heart, 6/10 Gut = 13/20

Conclusion:
The Chiappa and the Ruger shot excellent on this round tied for 1st with 19/20. The AR7 came in 3rd just behind with 17/20 – all 3 rifles i was very impressed with.
The Papoose fell behind here scoring only 13/20 BUT I did notice the barrel nut was loose after the test which I’m assuming (and I’m giving the gun the benefit of the doubt here) caused it’s crappy shooting. I did use the barrel wrench and i did crank that barrel on tight and it still worked loose. I will keep an eye on this going forward and we will see if the Papoose will do better on the scoped tests.

VIDEO!!!

2nd Video - from the 2 GoPro's that i had set up - video will be posted eventually, editing split screen is a PAIN!

Detailed Pics of Target with measurements using OnTarget:

Chiappa Little Badger

Henry AR7

Ruger Take Down

Marlin Papoose

 

[wayupnorth]

Test 4

Scope Shooting Accuracy @ 25meters

Shooting Scoped at 25 meters / 82 Feet.
As with the other times I set up the bench and spend a couple minutes shooting some targets. Did an initial sight in of the guns to get the new scopes dialed in than I moved on to the accuracy challenge.
This time I had printed off large targets the filled the 8 ½ x 11 piece of paper and set up 3 targets for each gun. On the paper the target had scoring labeled with 10 being a bull’s-eye (being 1 ¾”) and falling off from there heading out at about 1” intervals dropping in points as they went further out – typical target.
As I was shooting 10 shots at each of the 3 targets for each gun that would give each gun the possibility of 100 points per target with a combined total of a possible 300 points per gun at the end.
Results from the accuracy test;

Chiappa Little Badger: 289/300 (1st Place)
Target 1: 108/110 (1.563”)
Target 2: 105/110 (1.479”)
Target 3: 76/80 (1.248”)

Ruger Take Down: 287/300 (2nd Place)
Target 1: 96/100 (2.299”)
Target 2: 95/100 (2.828”)
Target 3: 96/100 (2.681”)

Marlin Papoose: 275/300 (3rd Place)
Target 1: 91/100 (2.454”)
Target 2: 89/100 (3.031”)
Target 3: 95/100 (2.352”)

Henry AR7: 259/300 (4th Place)
Target 1: 92/100 (4.337”)
Target 2: 87/100 (3.259”)
Target 3: 80/100 (3.266”)

Some things to take note of from this shoot. Apparently I can not shoot a gun and count at the same time. I noticed when counting the targets that for the Little Badger I shot 8 shots on 1 target and 11 shots on 2 other targets. Also, one of the Papoose targets I shot like 14 times instead of 10, for the Papoose target I calculated it out of 140 then deducted 40 off the total to get it down to the 100 point mark, which seemed fair to me.
Also, I dropped one of the Papoose magazines into the sand and that made it all but useless for the rest of the shoot, fine sand is not good for a magazine as it turns out! And with the Ruger TD I brought out a 2nd magazine to use for the test and that magazine was brand new out of the package and the spring was noticeably much tougher to load and I also found it caused a couple stovepipes during the test so I stopped using that magazine as well.
I noticed the AR7 would shoot bull’s-eye for the first couple shots then would fall down and start shooting lower for the rest of the magazine. I’m not sure why it was doing that but my speculation is that the black plastic coupled with the heat from the shots and the high heat at the sand pit (almost 30’) was causing some issues???
Both the AR7 and the Papoose I kept a good eye on the barrel nut and checked it after each magazine and neither of them came loose at all during the testing.

Conclusion:
The Chiappa Little Badger won this round of testing with the Ruger TD nipping at its heals. The Papoose lagged noticeably behind and the AR7 did rather poorly.
While it’s interesting to note that the Little Badger did win with the highest scope and also sported the tightest groups – if the Ruger TD did not have 1 flyer on each of its targets it would have been the likely winner as its groups where very tight and pretty much all in the bull’s-eye as well.
The Papoose did a much better showing this time than it did in the open sight shooting but still patterned like a shot gun IMHO. I don’t know if it’s the fact that Remington now makes the Papoose and they changed something or if I just got a lemon (which happens) but either way the Papoose certainly did not live up to all the hype I had heard about it.
Lastly the poor AR7 and its dismal showing which I cannot explain at all. After such a good job in the open sight shoot I had high hopes for it with optics. I wonder if maybe the Papoose and the AR7 which both have dovetail slots for rings are what lead to all the issues with them and optics and their less than perfect shooing? I did have a dovetail to picatinny rail adaptor on both guns and for both of them they needed the built in riser to clear obstacles – on the AR7 the optics needed to clear the built in rear sight and on the Papoose the scope had to be elevated to clear the rear sight of the open sights on the barrel.

At the end of the day the Chiappa Little Badger won.
But I think a strong negative to the Little Badger winning is that it took just as long to do ALL the 3 other guns that it did for me to single load and shoot the Little Badger - so speed was defiantly not calculated into the totals of this test.

Ruger 10/22 TD

Marlin Papoose

Henry AR7

Little Badger

Video of the shoot.

 

[wayupnorth]

Test 5

Scope Shooting Accuracy @ 100meters

**Cancelled**

 

[wayupnorth]

Test 6

Conclusion and Wrap-Up.
comparing all guns side by side and discussion what was found what worked and what didn't.
size, weight, rate of fire, magazine capacity, after market goodies, return to zero, water resistant, float-able, pack-ability, ease and speed of assembly, different ammo types (fps vs sub sonic),

To Be Done.

 

[Daver_II]

Was looking forward to this.... And certainly not disappointed.

 

[Sherlock Gnomes]

Excellent write up. Looking forward to the victor

 

[Mikehan]

Well done!

 

[Craftsman]

Thanks for sharing. Great looking shooters table!

 

[Zen_Seeker]

Interesting. Have the double badger and find it shoots well, just stiff to open still. Look forward to the final opinion.

 

[Halifax Bob]

awesome job! thanks for sharing your experiment

 

[ruffbird]

Is the whole receiver on the 10-22 takedown model stainless steel or just the part that locks the barrel?
Thanks for the interesting thread & I too look forward to the ending....

 

[wayupnorth]

Is the whole receiver on the 10-22 takedown model stainless steel or just the part that locks the barrel?
Thanks for the interesting thread & I too look forward to the ending....

The entire receiver is metal.
It is in fact a totally stock ruger 10/22 recieved just they add a part onto where the V block is that allows the barrel to snap on and off.
While I haven't tried it yet I would assume that all I would need to do to swap out the receiver is remove that part and put it on to any 10/22 type receiver.
I just got home from night shift and am going to have a sleep, when I get up tonight I'll go and have a look and see about pulling that part off to see for sure.

 

[Kevin M.]

Neat review. Always interesting to read about things nobody usually does reviews for.

 

[grelmar]

 

[kodiakjack]

Test 7: (for when all the other tests have been done) Which rifle can be used as a hammer the most effectively.

 

[G.Mitchell]

Excellent review so far.

I've been debating those same rifles so I look forward to your results and conclusion.

Thanks for undertaking and sharing this project with us.