Cold Steel
Active Member
I was in Dick's the other day and I'd been reading an old magazine article from the 80s. In it was an extensive article on the old Charter Arms AR-7 rifle. The article began by saying that if you had an airplane, boat or camper and didn't have one of these guns, you were an idiot.
It was a unique lead to say the least, but it stuck with me even though I don't have a plane, boat or camper. I liked the gun. And the magazines, receiver and barrel all fit into the stock! Not only that, it floated (assembled or unassembled). So I asked the guy behind the counter if there was any such rifle being made today and he pointed to the counter, and there it was in all its pristine glory. But even better, it no longer was being made by Charter Arms, but Henry Rifles, a significantly better company in my view.
It sold for $249 and was the only one they had, so I bought it.
It's amazing. And I looked for reviews on the Internet and they were stellar! And what's more, many of them said, whatever you do, don't buy any of the old Charter Arms models. Many of them jam and all of them aren't very well made, something I'd come to learn as an FFL holder in Virginia. Every Charter Arms revolver I'd ever gotten was junk, except for one Bulldog I had, and I didn't shoot it much. In fact, people said, "If you buy one, make sure it works properly, but don't shoot it regularly. They don't hold up." And I tend to agree with that. They also tended to bind for apparently no reason.
And talk about corners, if there were corners, Charter Arms would cut them and cut them until it was round! They were all about profit and $$$. I found that Rossi put out far better stuff, so a Ruger Speed-Six replaced my Bulldog and I got six shots instead of five, and better stopping power.
The Henry is much better from the Charter Arms version I'd seen back in the 80s. And the fit and finish of the parts were better. I also checked the weight. The Charter Arms weighed two pounds, but the Henry AR-7 comes in at 3.5 pounds! Not a significant difference in survival terms, but the quality of the parts was much better. Plus the rear sight aperture could be easily changed by rotating it, something the Charter Arms didn't have. Finally, the Henry rifle lets one load rounds into the slots in the stock -- something the Charter Arms didn't do.
Haven't shot it, but I recommend the gun highly! Especially when I saw how the gun worked online.
No, I don't have stock in the company, but I might just buy some after this.
Check out the video. What do you think?
It was a unique lead to say the least, but it stuck with me even though I don't have a plane, boat or camper. I liked the gun. And the magazines, receiver and barrel all fit into the stock! Not only that, it floated (assembled or unassembled). So I asked the guy behind the counter if there was any such rifle being made today and he pointed to the counter, and there it was in all its pristine glory. But even better, it no longer was being made by Charter Arms, but Henry Rifles, a significantly better company in my view.
It sold for $249 and was the only one they had, so I bought it.
It's amazing. And I looked for reviews on the Internet and they were stellar! And what's more, many of them said, whatever you do, don't buy any of the old Charter Arms models. Many of them jam and all of them aren't very well made, something I'd come to learn as an FFL holder in Virginia. Every Charter Arms revolver I'd ever gotten was junk, except for one Bulldog I had, and I didn't shoot it much. In fact, people said, "If you buy one, make sure it works properly, but don't shoot it regularly. They don't hold up." And I tend to agree with that. They also tended to bind for apparently no reason.
And talk about corners, if there were corners, Charter Arms would cut them and cut them until it was round! They were all about profit and $$$. I found that Rossi put out far better stuff, so a Ruger Speed-Six replaced my Bulldog and I got six shots instead of five, and better stopping power.
The Henry is much better from the Charter Arms version I'd seen back in the 80s. And the fit and finish of the parts were better. I also checked the weight. The Charter Arms weighed two pounds, but the Henry AR-7 comes in at 3.5 pounds! Not a significant difference in survival terms, but the quality of the parts was much better. Plus the rear sight aperture could be easily changed by rotating it, something the Charter Arms didn't have. Finally, the Henry rifle lets one load rounds into the slots in the stock -- something the Charter Arms didn't do.
Haven't shot it, but I recommend the gun highly! Especially when I saw how the gun worked online.
No, I don't have stock in the company, but I might just buy some after this.
Check out the video. What do you think?
