Ar-7 Survival rifle

Does anyone know if AR-7 Industies makes a good AR-7 Survival Rifle

Well, last I knew, the holder of the rights for the AR-7 was Henry. Their's was not a bad production, but rememebr the limits inherint in the AR-7. First and foremost of these, is the lack of accuracy- short range only. If it comes apart easy, it won't be as accurate. Heck, I've seen Browning Buckmarks and Ruger Mk IIs that performed as wel or better from machine rests. <br><br>

AR-7's are crap, pure and simple. you might be able to find a good one but it isn't likely. they don't feed many types of ammunition reliably, aren't inherintly reliable by design, inaccurate, and i find the grip to be uncomfortable. as stated, you'd be better off with a good 22pistol, i prefer the buckmark (but carry an extra recoil spring assembly cause i had one pop apart once), or even a marlin papoose, or M6 scout. + virtually all of the youth model single shot bolt action 22's that i've seen at the range can be broken down and are very accurate. Sorry to rain on your parade though!

Hi Seth,<br><br>Take a look at a modified Ruger 10/22 with the Butler Creek Ruger 10/22 Takedown PACKER STOCK <br>Add a short 16+" Carbon fiber Butler Creek barrel and you have a lightweight breakdown package that will outshoot the AR-7 with both eyes shut and reliability should be no problem with the 10/22.<br><br>I have some thoughts about making the Butler Creek PAcker stock even more "in business" for the outdoors and have send Butler Creek an lengthy email with some proposed modifications for the Packer Stock but haven't heard ANYTHING back from them.<br><br>I proposed making the stock with several cutouts (3-4) where standard 10/22 10 round clips would securely click-in. <br>Also make the stock with a central cutout that would hold a 'closable watertight box that could be filled with "survival" goodies / spare ammo etc. when fitted with the removable goodies box it would form a noirmal closed stock.<br><br>Even a space that would hold a simple cleaning kit / ramrod (even the rope type would be OK) and even small spare parts (extractor/firingpin/spring(s)<br><br>I really think that the above modifications would make that Packer Stock a real Outdoor Preparedness Stock that could boost the Ruger 10/22 into a real nice basic Survival 22.<br><br>Pitty that to Packer Stock probably makes the Ruger into an illegal gun in the Netherlands as it allows for a rifle to break down into smaller pieces to fast :(<br><br>Best Scouting wishes from Holland,<br><br>Bagheera<br>

i much prefer the ruger mark II government to the ar-7, the ar-7 never seemed to fit me right when shoulderd. where as the ruger has been totaly reliable and superbly accurate.

I'll second what Bagheera said. I picked up a Charter Arms version of this rifle back in the late '70s, and it's never been reliable, despite having been worked on by highly regarded gunsmiths twice. It's a "jamomatic", and I don't think I'll ever trust it.<br><br>Every Ruger 10/22 I've fired has been absolutely reliable (they do have other shortcomings- trigger and sights- but they can be fixed, and for survival use, reliability is the main concern). With a carbon fiber barrel and Butler Creek take-down stock, you can have a very accurate, reliable, and small/packable package that weighs about 5 pounds or less. It's the way I'd go. And may.<br><br>I like Bagheera's ideas about the extra magazine wells also. Was that inspired by the Steyr Scout?

>crap, pure and simple<<br><br>For an awful lot of people in the world today, all you have to say, is "it's a Stoner design".<br><br>

I think many have forgotten the key reason the AR-7 was developed, and why it has been successful despite poor manufacturing in the past. The weapon was designed as a simple but effective food gathering and defensive tool. It was not intended for benchrest (match) accuracy; however it was intended as a go anywhere, put together quick, get the job done rifle. One more thing... It floats! How many Ruger Mark II's and Buckmarks can say that? <br>No, it is not an "ideal" rifle, but it is fine for its intended purpose and I am glad I own one.

I own one- I mentioned the pistols to point out the lack of accuracy inflicted by the take down system. <br><br>In a pack, I'd probably carry one of the pistols, as it is slightly more compact than a broken down AR-7. But for an item that would be seperate from a pack, such as in a car or plane, the AR-7 would towards the top of my list. But with the accuracy limits firmly in mind at all time. <br><br>Those limits are also the mechanical maximum. Pistols are harder shoot than rifles, it's that simple. A Ruger or Browning with a long barrel is practically as accurate as an AR-7 is, just because a stocked platform is more stable. Just like (illegally) mounting a 10" barrel and stock on a TC Condender will be as accurate, or more so, than mounting that Contender with a 16" (or even 21") barrel and a pistol grip. <br><br>As to thier lack of reliablity as mentioned by others, I'm almost ready to state that some are just naughty and will never be reliable, while others shoot right. Not very logical or mechanical, but they seem that quirky.

I don't know about the AR 7. However, I have had a Ruger 10-22 since ca 1984. I've fired about 30,000 rounds (guesstimate) through it. It has NEVER malfunctioned in any way. Thus its reliability far surpasses all of my other guns.<br><br>On the other hand, accuracy is mediocre. I guess I have one of those notorious Ruger barrels. Very possibly rebarreling could solve that. Even the longer Sporter stock with a 1" pad added is a little short for me (6'2", 34" sleeve). Bagheera's new stock, hmm? The sights were an easy fix. I scoped it, but have considered putting on a Williams aperture. I have the Williams groove-mounted aperture sights on my Savage 24s and love them. A good gunsmith can improve the trigger pull. My original trigger pull was both heavy and creepy. The gunsmith lightened the pull to about 3# and reduced the creep. <br><br>Overall, I like the gun very much. I just wish Ruger would incorporate the above improvements into a factory gun. I guess I need to remember that we don't get new guns; we get new gun projects.<br><br>John

Hi Presumed Lost,<br><br>Nope, the extra magazine wells are not inspired by the Steyer Scout, I have never seen a Steyer Scout.<br><br>I just like playing around with designs, if the rifles of Biathlon sporters can have clips stored in the butt stock I find it only normal that such a feature exists in an Survival/Outdoor type of gun(stock).<br><br>We'll see perhaps Butler Creek finds time to reply to my email if suddenly the packable stock has been modified to hold extra clips I know they have listened ;)<br><br>Best Scouting wishes from Holland,<br><br>Bagheera

The "Scout Rifle" concept was developed by Jeff Cooper a long time ago (remember, I'm probably one of the younger guys here, so for me, long times are shorter than they are for some of ya'll ) as a "go everywhere, do everything smaller than a water buffalo" gun. For the true believers and desciples of Cooperism, it is the last word in long-arm technology. (Can't tell that I don't always agree with the good Colonel, can you?)<br><br>It had to be a light, resonably accurate (1-2 MOA) rifle, with a smooth bolt action that ejects reliably, fitted with a VERY long eye relief scope mounted forward of the action along with iron sights, and with a light sling. The magazine must have a cut-off, so that it may be single-loaded normally, with the loaded magazine only being tapped if needed for emergency, rapid fire. Along the way, the ability to carry at least a basic reload within the magazine was added, along witht he option of a light bipod.<br><br>http://www.recguns.com/IIID3a.html<br>http://pw1.netcom.com/~chingesh/scoutrifle.html<br><br>The most interest part of the scout rfile concept is the far forward mouthed, low powered scope, which supposedely can be (with practice) brought onto target much more quickly than a normal scope and with both eyes open. Don't know, the only time I've shot anything with optic that far forward, it was a holosight, and I didn't notice any changes in time compaired to normally mounted red dots and holos that's I've tried. With a telescopic sight, maybe. <br><br>The iron sights are included for defensive shooting against dangerous animals (two and four legged), and for very close or snap shots on game, along with the normal backup. These are usually of the "ghostring" type, which is deisigned to be used with both eyes open as well, and lines up FAST once you know the sight picture you are looking for.<br><br>The Steyr Scout is an interesting little piece of engineering. 2.5x scope, 5-shot detachable box mag in .308 or 7mm-08, 7 pounds and just over a yard long. The synthetic stock holds a spare magazine, and the forarm has fold-down panels that act as a bipod. Very spify and futuristic looking.<br><br>http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/english/smg3150.htm<br><br>Also expensive as hell. There are a number of other manufacter's doing Scout packages that are a lot less expensive, and aren't too far behind Steyr in quality of finish (that tolerance may be a draw back for the Scout, actually), along with custom ones. Springfield was doing a Scout package for the M1A bush for us semi-auto fans, and there have been a number of custom Scout-type rifles made up on lever actions, particularly in things like .45=70, .444 Marlin and the new .450 Hornady, all of which have good reps on big, grumpy critters near and above the Artic Circle. I've also seen a picture of a pump action, 20-ga slug gun fitted with a Scout-type mounting, but I don't know anything about that item's history.<br><br> The Scout concept wouldn't be a bad one for places where a .22 is too little gun, actually, if made with a fiberglass stock and titanium or stainless action, barrel and scope. There is a stainless lever gun from Marlin, in .450, that some guy in BC is turing into a take down gun with a Scout-scope, for pilots. I'm sure if people were to find him (sorry, I don't remember his name), he could do such a rebuild on a .30-30 or .44Mag winchester or Marlin for those of us who don't need to stop a charging grizzley or Caddy. Add a good hard all weather finish (Ro-bar does good work), and you would have a good "up grade" from the Explorer.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. Here's my take on Scout Rifles:<br><br>I've built 3 Scout rifles for my sons. (I built them, not a gunsmith.) Not Cooper's ideal, but even he would call them "Scout Rifles". I used M96 Mausers as the basis, and left them in the original caliber, 6.5x55mm Mauser. If it were me, I would bend the bolt handles, but the boys REALLY prefer them as-is - and I agree that they are faster to cycle that way. One is on a synthetic stock. I have many (new) Swedish stripper clips, and they work perfectly with the rifles. Both Leopold and Burris Scout Scopes (Intermediate Eye Relief) are in use. I prefer the Burris (Colonel Cooper spins madly, I'm sure). They are a tad longer than he stipulates, because I quit amputating the barrels at about 21.5" because they are extremely accurate at that length - why tempt fate? I have some cool pics we took during the building of the first two, but alas! My ISP is changing and I cannot post to my website again yet. On a page of Ashley Outdoors is a pic of a M98 that looks very similar to the M96 we built with a synthetic stock - click on the Marlin Guide gun and scroll down.<br><br>And they are extremely accurate. My boys are deadly on prairie dogs with this - out to 250 yards on the first day, and by the time our trips are over, out to 400 yards (100 gr Hornady HP @ a tic over 3,000 fps over the chronograph). I confess that I am not that good with them because the magnification is so little. But it's what they are accustomed to. (BTW, they are even more accurate with heavier bullets - go figure.)<br><br>There is absolutley no question in my mind that these are far faster to aquire a target than conventionally mounted scopes. If I was not so stuck in my paradigm, I would build one for myself. These are really, really cool and VERY practical. I could tell you about an elk and... but that's another story. It is a real shock to put one to the shoulder at first... until the first time you shoot a group, and then this big grin will begin to appear... it actually works! Most definately a natural "both eyes open" rifle, even for those accustomed to squinching one eye closed. (I shoot both eyes open all the time with everything, but I had to learn to do that.)<br><br>The Steyr is the cream of the crop, with pretty much all the features. Quite a package, and IMHO well worth the money IF it's to be your "one rifle". Savage also sells a "Scout Rifle" for about 1/4 the cost of a Steyr, and it's supposedly quite a bargain, if somewhat ugly looking (to me). There is a variant of the Steyr in an extremely powerful propriatory caliber, but Cooper's definition excludes anything more potent than the 308 Winchester, I think. <br><br>Regardless, if I was to build an all-out Scout Rifle for myself, I would take a long, hard look at the new 308 caliber short beltless magnums. The Winchesters are a tad long for a true short action, but the Remingtons are designed to fit short actions... I would load them to something accurate between 30-06 velocities and a couple hundred fps faster and be set...<br><br>Cooper's ideas seem to be shaped by dangerous game to some extent (2 legged being the most dangerous). With that in mind, I cheerfully conceed that he has hit on something very practical for someone who uses only one rifle for everything. Come to think of it, when I reach for a rifle, there is one that I always grab from habit... hmmm. <grin> Nah, I'm not ready for a Scout Rifle myself.<br><br>But my boys are thrilled with them and measure everything else against them. The eldest has a monster-thumper - Marlin 1895 Guide Gun 45-70 (never polluted with a factory load) - and it will be wearing a forward-mounted scope when he can afford it - it already has Ashley ghost ring sights.<br><br>BTW, it's Wild West Guns in Alaska that builds the "Co-Pilot". <br><br>My 2 cents worth...<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom

Some info for the curious:<br><br>Budget Scout Page<br><br>Scout Rifle Archive<br><br>About the Steyr by P. G. Kolalis<br><br>Scout Rifle Taxanomy<br><br>Do a Google search if you want more...<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Scouter Tom

While I’ve been intrigued by a lot of the features of the Steyr Scout, I’ve yet to handle one… none of the local dealers that I’ve been to is inclined to stock one (understandable). They’d be happy to order one, of course, but then I’d be ordering it sight unseen… it seems a little steep for that. I’ve been more tempted since they came out with the “tactical” version with a decent bolt handle.<br><br>One of the things I’d very much like to check out is the unusual angle of the buttstock. It actually looks like it has a touch of “rise” as opposed to “drop”, and it’s not clear from the pictures how that would work, especially with the “iron” sights. Has anyone tried it? I see that someone has cloned the shape (but not the features) for a Mauser stock.<br>

Hi, Bagheera,<br><br>I see that others have posted a wealth of information about the Steyr Scout. I wasn’t aware that Biathlon rifles had spare magazines in the buttstock as well- I’ll have to try to find a picture on-line.<br><br>I wouldn’t be surprised or dismayed if you don’t hear from Butler Creek. Because of the ever-increasing litigious atmosphere in this country, and the fact that anyone can sue anyone, for anything, with almost no risk to themselves, many companies make a point of not even forwarding such suggestions to their design teams, for fear that if they do incorporate a suggestion, even if they have been working on it for years, the person offering the suggestion will then claim it as their “invention” and demand some form of payment. If the courts were consistent about such nonsense, no one would bother, but the courts here are not consistent about anything- so, with no downside, they figure it’s worth a chance.<br><br>Best wishes to you, and to Holland, so often in history a bastion of freedom.<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It actually looks like it has a touch of “rise” as opposed to “drop”<p><hr></blockquote><p>I believe that is an optical illusion. Lay a straight edge on a good picture - I believe it is a straight-line stock. In any event, the center-line of the iron sights is fairly close to the same as the centerline of the 'scope, which would have to be the case in order for both to be efficient with the same stock. Anyone who has used a conventionally mounted scope-sighted rifle with both factory iron sights and 'scope can readily appreciate that one or the other (scope or iron sights) takes a different head position and one of the two is awkward -either the scope is too high or the iron sights are too low.<br><br>Two other items of note about the low-mounted scope - just something to consider: <br><br>The lower the sights are, the less the influence of cant. If a high-mounted sight (the M16 comes to mind) is canted, the point of impact is markedly off, so keeping the rifle in exactly the same position (assumed to be level) becomes much more critical than with a low-mounted scope. That might be significant in situations under duress. <br><br>On the other hand, a high mounted scope gives the EFFECT (on practical targets, not paper) of a flatter trajectory. That translates to an effective "point blank range" that is farther out. The geometry is self-evident if you carefully sketch it out on paper - too tedious to explain here in words. If the target is very tiny - say, a prairie dog's head peeping over the mound at 250 yards, that is a drawback if it's not very near the actual zero range. If the target is a larger - say the vital areas of a deer or larger animal - the higher mounted sights can help compensate for range estimation errors within the effective range of the rifle system.<br><br>Neither way is "better" - there are just different factors and effects to consider. YMMV, but that's the way I see it. Personally, I try to keep sights as low as possible for a number of reasons - stock design is usually part of the limiting factors.<br><br>BTW, I'm not knocking the M16A2 and its varients. They are very good for the use they are meant for. I have, however, concluded that there are better calibers than 5.56mm for those uses... an efficient 6.5 or 7mm would be dandy, but an efficient 6mm would be OK... gee, I think they concluded that in the 30s after doing all sorts of testing... go figure... my personal experiences afield sport and otherwise have borne that out. (OK - I prefer 30 calibers, but they're not gonna come back to general military use for a number of reasons, most practical and some political).<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Scouter Tom

>> I believe that is an optical illusion.<<<br><br>Could well be- the unusual shape makes it difficult to tell. It does look like it would be hard to get the head low enough for the sights, but then again, it’s really not possible to judge things like that just from a picture.<br><br>>>Anyone who has used a conventionally mounted scope-sighted rifle with both factory iron sights and 'scope can readily appreciate that one or the other (scope or iron sights) takes a different head position and one of the two is awkward -either the scope is too high or the iron sights are too low. <<<br><br>I agree, unfortunately. I’m one of those retrogrouches (I love that word, from the bicycle world) who insist on having iron sights. I like scopes, I just don’t trust them much- too fragile, too much stuff going on there for me to want to wager even dinner on it, if I haven’t eaten in awhile, much less higher stakes. Still, my experiences with “see through” scope mounts have pretty well convinced me that they’re a poor compromise for the reasons you state. The Steyr Scout idea of pop-up “metal” sights is an interesting approach that might help the alignment problem, even if it is not as fast as a backup.<br><br>This sort of thing came up again just recently when I started to check out air rifles. The current trend appears to be to eliminate iron sights and incorporate very tall Monte Carlo cheekpieces that would just about prohibit their use anyway. My general impression is that this, combined with ever-increasing reliance on “support” technologies (PCP, bulk C02, compressors, SCUBA tanks, electronic sights and scopes, and even electric triggers) is steadily reducing the number of air rifles that might be useful in a survival situation. Regrettable.<br><br>I agree with your positions with respect to 5.56/.223- I own them, for obvious reasons, but it wouldn’t be my first choice- despite the weight/load difference, which is much more a apparent when going over a mountain than some might suppose from an armchair. I’m less diplomatic than you about the M16A2. Despite the fact that it is much improved over it’s predecessors, I cannot get past the number of good lives that were spent to prevent a bureaucracy from having to admit a mistake, and I still feel that having combustion gasses act directly on a bolt with seven locking lugs is just never going to be sufficiently reliable for combat- the seven lugs alone is dubious. I think the fact that we’ve now compounded the mistake by forcing our young men in arms to use a sidearm round that has proven inadequate for almost a century is a disgrace.<br><br>Outside of the military and police, of course, anyone pays their money and makes their own choices, and they’re free to stake their lives on any hardware they like.<br>