What does /k/ of the AR-7?
It's a smart concept, a 35 inch survival rifle that collapses to half that. It's surprisingly accurate for peep sights and its able to hold 16 rounds of .22 LR (in 2 mags) It's use in the military has partially diminished but as a last resort squirrel sniper, it's not a bad concept.
>>29571190
It's alright, does what it's supposed to.
>inb4 some faggot who had a Charter Arms one comes in to say "had one and it was a jam-a-mattic so I sold it"
>>29571190
Ruger takedown is way better.
It feels cheap to me. The stock is unwieldy account of the fact that it has to be large to accommodate the parts. It's good at what it does, but I'd rather go with a Chiappa Little Badger/Double Badger as a survival rifle.
>>29571232
Browning sa-22 is better
>>29571256
Chiappa is the way to go, the AR-7 feels like a cheap bb gun, not a $150 .22 rifle
>>29571190
We have these threads all the time and the consensus is that the Charter Arms ones blow, the Henry ones are good, and Ruger takedowns are comparable and may perform a bit better but don't collapse and store as neatly.
They're not awesome but they're cheap, they shoot, and they have their purpose.
I bought one as my first gun and I've only had one malfunction as of yet. It stovepiped with some shitty bulk stuff.
Use good ammo and they can serve you well.
>>29571301
>>29571232
I don't think you guys understand. As a survival rifle, easy enough to fit into a backpack, neither of those compare.
>inb4 "takedowns can be compacted"
Yeah when compacted they're still twice the size of AR-7
>>29571354
This nigga gets it
>>29571354
as a not gun its great
as a gun its pretty shitty but better than no gun at all
as a plinker you made a horrible choice
>>29571190
>It's surprisingly accurate for peep sights
Are peep sights usually bad? I would think peep sights would always be preferable to open sights
>>29571190
UGLY
G
L
Y
>>29571429
peeps can be good if done right
if done crude as fuck like they are on the ar7 or mac10 they suck worse than open
>>29571190
Make one in 17 HMR, 22 WMR, or 22 hornet and I will buy it.
>>29571417
>as a plinker you made a horrible choice
It's not made to be a plinker, though you can get aftermarket steel barrels (at higher weight)
>>29571526
This.
There's actually a decent amount of bubba-ish shit you can do to them if that's your thing.
>>29571190
They require high quality ammunition if you don't want then to jam every 10 rounds. Also their accuracy is crap past 25 yards. I'd rather have a Browning Buckmark or Ruger Mk2.
The Marlin Papoose and the M6 scout are both superior survival long guns.
>>29571574
I hate that gun
>>29571354
Please explain how a ar7 is half the size of a 10/22 take down
16" is the minimum for length
So I'll go ahead and assume the both are
The ar7 has a stock that is significantly wider to make it float for whatever purpose that serves. The ruger stock is thinner if your concern is that the fore end is still to large.get rid of it and they will be nearly identical in volume in fact I would put money on the 10/22 having less volume.
Add in that the 10/22 takes 25 round mags and is both very reliable and accurate compared to the ar7.
The ar7 is very cool but I wouldn't opt for it over a 10/22 takedown or the m6 scout
If you configure it like pic related and it was equally accurate and reliable as a 10/22 then it would be cool as fuck
>>29572326
>Please explain how a ar7 is half the size of a 10/22 take down
well youve got the whole front end of the 10/22 to deal with you still have to put that somewhere
vs just this
the 10/22 is a fairly fat gun for a 22lr to begin with cause of the rotary mags
the stock section are roughly the same size
>>29572470
If you ran your barrel down the side of the stock it would be about as thick as the ar7 stock
>>29573814
actually now that i think about it the stock should be more compact anyways since the action is in it
50% might be an overstatement but its something like 60-70% less
>>29571190
I have one and it's a fun gun for plinking. I do however loathe the peep sights with a passion. I even bought a cheap red dot sight to use instead.
>>29571232
Marlin 795 is way better
>>29571484
.25acp
>>29572326
For the purposes of a survival gun 25rd mags are stupid expecially the dildo sized one's ruger makes. It'll only take one or two shots to get you some squirrel bacon.
>>29571329
That's the other thing about them, they are very picky about the ammo.
Good ammo and no hollow points, they won't cycle.
I have the black one. Newest model as far as I know. It's in my emergency bag right next to all of my medical supplies and safety gear. It's a gimmick. A fun gimmick to shoot. It's like a toy at the range next to the other rifles. A fun toy. If you have 400 bucks to throw at a bunch of semi-useless shit, buy yourself one 500 .22lr and a milkshake.
>>29571574
false, mine eats cheap shit flawlessly
last I checked Aguila isn't exactly quality ammunition
>>29571190
Isn't the barrel basically just plastic lined with metal on the inside?
>>29575110
>dildo sized magazines
>>29571301
Mah nigga
>>29571190
Depends VERY much on who the manufacturer is
Some are total shit.
I got my hands on a 7 the other day in a store.
It is definitely neat, but seems like no fun at all to shoot, felt really akward...
But as an actual hardcore survival gun I agree it is lighter and more compact, volume wise.
I ended up buying the 10/22 takedown with threaded barrel, since I was really looking for a somewhat compact plinking gun. No regrets, but again, I wanted a plinker.
>>29576261
The awkwardness in the hand is the only reason I don't own one.
