Henry US survival rifle *final opinions upon arrival*

mikeystew

mikeystew

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
51   0   0
Location
Beautiful BC
O.K., i just bought a Henry US survival rifle (AR-7) which i expect to arrive tomorrow. I know these "guns" have a terribly sordid reputation and it appears that there are more people who hate them than love them.

I have read that the new henrys are better than the charter arms version for reliability and they are made from a tougher ABS so less likely to crack than the CA version that was made out of brittle plastic.

All things considered i don't intend to depend on it to save my life nor do i expect it to be a tack driver... im just thinking a gun that can be collapsed down to 16" and stuffed into a backpack, with a weight of 2.5lbs will be fun to take camping or on day hikes for plinking cans, when carrying around my nice rimfires just seems impractical.

If you own one or have used one i'd like to hear your thoughts on it, and if possable include who made the one you mention. and i've no intention on dropping nearly $400 on a papoose so don't bother suggesting i sell it and get a papoose.
 
Last edited:
I find both my AR7's ( charter and henry ) work better than my Papoous.

I keep them well lubed and use Hyper Velocity ammo and they work great and yes they float! They big thing is good ammo.

Enjoy the Gun.
 
I've had two, both Charter Arms mfg.

They were (are) 100% reliable when clean, oiled, and with most HV 22LR ammo.

When they get dirty, they can start to jam.

If you consider they are engineered to be a stand-by, emergency use weapon, and not a go-to plinker, I consider this to be completely acceptable.
 
One thing I've noticed with the Henry is that :wave: - apparently for "legal" ;) (read: lawsuit-chill :stirthepot2: ) reasons - the springs are made incredibly stiff....:(...this is supposedlly to "prevent" their version of the compact AR-7 from cycling with the "quieter" .22 ammunition (as a way to ward-off the deadly ".22 assassins" :rolleyes: , no doubt! :D ).....anyhow :p , the end result is that the higher-velocity .22 ammunition must be used if you wish to cycle a rifle that - in the first place b: - really is among the lightest .22's out there weight-wise.....:redface:...so yes :nest: , there does become a trade-off between accuracy and "the ability to cycle" the little runt....:evil:.....



Some of the more astute members here :cool: have stripped-down the Henry AR-7 and re-assembled it with only one of the 2 stiff factory springs in an effort to get it to cycle with just about anything (with good success :rockOn: , I might add! :D ) - so it may just boil-down to a matter of understanding a firearm and its design :pirate: before p!$$!ng all over its reputation.....:stirthepot2:
 
mikeystew said:
O.K., i just bought a Henry US survival rifle (AR-7) which i expect to arrive tomorrow. I know these "guns" have a terribly sordid reputation and it appears that there are more people who hate them than love them. I have read that the new henrys are better than the charter arms version for reliability and they are made from a tougher ABS so less likely to crack than the CA version that was made out of brittle plastic.
Click to expand...

That sounds like something out of a Henry brochure.

All things considered i don't intend to depend on it to save my life nor do i expect it to be a tack driver... im just thinking a gun that can be collapsed down to 16" and stuffed into a backpack, with a weight of 2.5lbs will be fun to take camping or on day hikes for plinking cans, when carrying around my nice rimfires just seems impractical. If you own one or have used one i'd like to hear your thoughts on it, and if possable include who made the one you mention. and i've no intention on dropping nearly $400 on a papoose so don't bother suggesting i sell it and get a papoose.
Click to expand...

In my experience, the Henry is inferior in every respect to the Armalite, the Survival Arms, and the Charter Arms product. The most obvious example of this is the plastic barrel which Henry brochures and some (paid-for/bought-off) so-called gun writers have described as "improved".

Improved, my butt. It's a warped plastic piece of s**t. (But YMMV.) Fortunately, you can buy a barrel from somewhere else and it will fit your Henry just fine.

I'd start looking for another barrel now.
 
.. They're definitely NOT Target rifle's ! But for the intended purpose/ design they're good. Higher velocity ammunition solves most, if not all, the "cycling" reported. "problems". I had one of the very, very early AR7 versions, and the only problem I had was the two "fingers" that the receiver fits between, on the Butt stock got squeezed, and one broke. When I got the replacement, I then made a point of using a filler between the two "fingers" to prevent a re-occurance. .... Make sure the magazine is firmly in place, and you're good to go ! .... David K
 
i got the gun today and at first i was hugely dissapointed, and it is worth mentioning i got it used and someone had already chamfered the lower end of the chamber. the first mag had 6 out of 8 shots stovepipe, so i took my gerber tool to the feed lips and re-contoured them and removed and re shaped the little spring that holds the bullets firm in the mag because upon the bolt closing the bullet would slam into the feed lip and pop up due to the misshaped retaining spring, jamming into the top of the chamber.

Next mag, every round fed fine but half the spent cases wouldn't eject... so i removed the bolt and inspected the ejector and it was really loose. one turn of the loose reciever cover plate screw and it snugged right up.

Next 6 mags, no FTF's or FTE's.

the only issue it has left to resolve is the bolt won't catch the last round in the mag due to a poor mag spring design.

All in all it is a pretty cheaply made gun with a plethora of potential problems. however, luckily it landed in the hands of someone who repairs small machines everyday and is willing to work out the problems, and im certain im nearly there in one afternoon...

Final impression, it's just ok. i have no regrets because i make a living making things that don't work properly, work properly... but i can now understand why so many people hate it.
 
Last edited:
Yup! Most people expect things to function most of the time out of the box without having to be a machinist.
 
ponts said:
Yup! Most people expect things to function most of the time out of the box without having to be a machinist.
Click to expand...

I agree stuff should be made to just work out of the box...

I was looking at 2 of them in a gun store the owner even said I shouldnt buy it because alot of people dont like it and its not very relabile.. I wanted a gun that could be taken down and well its hard to find one..

I have a windchester model 63 and love that gun was trying to find the remake by tarus.. but a friend bought it not the best gun for the money but its not that bad as most people make it seem..
 
well mine now shoots 99% flawlessly aside the fact that it wont strip the last round from the mag. it seems to have a weak spring in it, but i contacted henry and they are sending me two new mags at no cost. we'll see how it goes from there.

Again it's not the most solid rifle, but it has all the qualities i was looking for in a very compact, lightweight semi auto .22 that i can easily carry into the woods in my pack when fishing/hiking/camping etc...
 
I have owned a AR7 from Henry for a few years now and have never experienced an ftf or fte in the 500 to 600 rounds I put through it. My biggest complaint stems more from the lack of after market parts in canada. I am in the process of making a new stock for mine as a fun project. I would give up my second born for a all metal barrel for it but that is a personal choice. I have had decent accuracy out of it (have chased a pop bottle or two around at 25 meters)so I can't really complain. I might take it out with me next deer season to use on grouse.
 
mikeystew said:
well mine now shoots 99% flawlessly aside the fact that it wont strip the last round from the mag. it seems to have a weak spring in it, but i contacted henry and they are sending me two new mags at no cost. we'll see how it goes from there.

Again it's not the most solid rifle, but it has all the qualities i was looking for in a very compact, lightweight semi auto .22 that i can easily carry into the woods in my pack when fishing/hiking/camping etc...
Click to expand...

Good on them:)
 
bosley said:
Good on them:)
Click to expand...
henry apparently has the best customer service going... i bought the gun used and just e-mailed them to inquire about the part # and cost of replacement mags with a breif description of my problem, and they replied asking for the serial # and said they would ship me 2 at no cost to me regardless of it's used status. pretty dam good service if you ask me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom