Ruger 10/22 Takedown Vs. Henry U.S. Survival AR-7

Was just out in the bush with my buddies AR7. I was concerned when it jammed after every round with federal ammo but fed winchester super x with no jams. He carries it in a backpack when out for deer to use if he spots grouse. For his purposes the ruger seems too big. That being said I have several 10-22's and love them so just depends on your intended use.

Was the AR7 a modern Henry one?
 
I have a henry ar7 and went shooting today with it. It's an emergency gun only and I'm fine with it. Out to 50 yards it can be pretty accurate but the sights truly suck on it. Cycles Remington bulk ammo no problem.
 
I'm a long-time fan of the Henry AR-7 (sorry :rolleyes: , "US survival rifle" :p ), but I think the OP would be better-off with the 10/22 take-down.....:yingyang:.......those plastic 25-round AR-7 mags are immensely difficult to scrounge-up !....:(


My Henry AR-7 (the "older" model, with "only" one magazine-slot in the buttstock) usually "rides around" in an '18-inch laptop' bag. It's cute, and has room for the hi-cap mag, easy-off red-dot sight, and gobs of CCI Mini-Mag ammunition (the older Henry AR-7's seem to love that stuff).


On a side-note :) , the BC side-folder stock for the 10/22 is still incredibly "grin-inducing" to me.....:evil:
 
You can't compare the charter arms version to the improved Henry one.

Yeah you can compare. The stock is the same Disney cartoon contours, it takes down the same way, and uses the same magazine latch design.

Did they finally put some room in the stock for a spare mag and a box of ammo? If not, then it has not been improved there.

The rear sight was crap, the front not much better, but OK for grouse, rabbits, and squirrels at a few feet range. Scope mounts stop the rifle from being stored in the stock.

The original concept was reasonable, the end design was pretty craptastic, but was better than not having a firearm at all. As designs go, it was and is, a survival kit gun that was meant to be stored more than used.

That leaves aside all the functional issues that came out of the various manufacturing problems from doing the design as cheap and lightweight as they could make it.

So, yeah. I can compare the design in general, as well as the experiences I had with my Charter Arms version.

Cheers
Trev
 
Yeah you can compare. The stock is the same Disney cartoon contours, it takes down the same way, and uses the same magazine latch design.

(1) Did they finally put some room in the stock for a spare mag and a box of ammo? If not, then it has not been improved there.

The rear sight was crap, the front not much better, but OK for grouse, rabbits, and squirrels at a few feet range. (2) Scope mounts stop the rifle from being stored in the stock.

The original concept was reasonable, the end design was pretty craptastic, but was better than not having a firearm at all. As designs go, it was and is, a survival kit gun that was meant to be stored more than used.

That leaves aside all the functional issues that came out of the various manufacturing problems from doing the design as cheap and lightweight as they could make it.

So, yeah. I can compare the design in general, as well as the experiences I had with my Charter Arms version.

Cheers
Trev

(1) The first-gen Henry AR-7 had room for one spare mag in the stock :) , and the current one has room for two....:yingyang:

(2) Just use easy-off scrope rings ?.....:redface:
 
Yeah you can compare. The stock is the same Disney cartoon contours, it takes down the same way, and uses the same magazine latch design.

Did they finally put some room in the stock for a spare mag and a box of ammo? If not, then it has not been improved there.

The rear sight was crap, the front not much better, but OK for grouse, rabbits, and squirrels at a few feet range. Scope mounts stop the rifle from being stored in the stock.

The original concept was reasonable, the end design was pretty craptastic, but was better than not having a firearm at all. As designs go, it was and is, a survival kit gun that was meant to be stored more than used.

That leaves aside all the functional issues that came out of the various manufacturing problems from doing the design as cheap and lightweight as they could make it.

So, yeah. I can compare the design in general, as well as the experiences I had with my Charter Arms version.

Cheers
Trev

The Henry design has made a few reliability improvements from the reviews I've seen and read.
 
I went through this a few years ago, the AR7 or the marlin 70pss papoose (ruger was not an option at the time). I did get, and still have the papoose. Its shot about 5000 rounds, has been taken apart about 50 times. All in all, I'm very happy.

As stated, the AR7... I looked at it in the store and have it back almost immediately. As stated, its for those few hours from plane crash to rescue... and as such... it would be an excellent survival tool only.

Looking forward to seeing the 10/22 take-down in real,

Cheers,
 
Was the AR7 a modern Henry one?

It was the new modern one. Took it to the range to test it out for my buddy. Used 8 different brands and fed 100% with all except one (win bulk). With CCI mini mags I got a 8 round one inch group off a rest at 25yards. I was impressed frankly. I was wacking golf balls off hand at 20 yards nearly 100% which is about right for head shooting grouse.
 
I went through this a few years ago, the AR7 or the marlin 70pss papoose (ruger was not an option at the time). I did get, and still have the papoose. Its shot about 5000 rounds, has been taken apart about 50 times. All in all, I'm very happy.

As stated, the AR7... I looked at it in the store and have it back almost immediately. As stated, its for those few hours from plane crash to rescue... and as such... it would be an excellent survival tool only.

Looking forward to seeing the 10/22 take-down in real,

Cheers,

Actually the Henry version is not meant for downed pilots at all, not sure where that info is from. When used with the proper ammunition and held properly, little issues should be had. It can be carried one handed on LONG hikes at no more inconvenience than a hiking stick. The thing weighs nothing.
 
As a side note; the AR-7 has the advantage of being able to be modified to suit your need. Trow away the stock, add an homemade wirestock or woodenstock and you've got a different beast more easily conceal but you loose storage factor.

Also I don't think the AR-7 was made as a use and discard gun simply as a cheap and light foraging weapon. The success (or lack of) of the AR-7 was due in great parts to the inability of the first pany that made it ; first armalite (more bent on military contract than civilian sales and marketting, the the next company charter arms had quality issues and money problem,then a quick run with us arm supposedly the worst if memory serve me jammoamatic come from there and finally Henry rep,arm way better and company service is very good. From the start this desing did not suit well with hunter who hadvery different taste than this plastic stick. But the desing is sound and for it's intended purpose fill the bill. Again YMMV but mine is accurate and with HV round no feeding or ejecting problems.

The take-down Browning desing is good too and Norico has a copy at around $199,00 at sponsor store. Not the quality and finish of the real Browning but they don't stay too long on the shelves..that may tell you something!
 
Back
Top Bottom