Henry AR 7 vs. Marlin Papoose

While there are a lot of rifles that have been created for survival or backpacking, two of the most popular are the Henry AR 7 and the Marlin Papoose. Terril Hebert, writing at AmmoLand, tests and compares both of these rifles in his article, "Battle of the Best 22 Survival Rifles: Henry AR 7 vs. Marlin Papoose." What sets these two apart from other survival rifles is that they are both semi-automatic and can both also double as general purpose .22 rifles.

    Before anyone gets excited about Hebert not including the Ruger 10/22 takedown, Hebert explains that he left it out of his consideration because of its weight and size. He writes:

The Ruger 10/22 Takedown is a newer and perhaps stronger contender. Certainly, the 10/22 Takedown is better in many ways but it loses out to the other two rifles in size and weight. These are obvious factors when loading out for a weekend adventure but even more important once you [sic] found in a prolonged ordeal. So, in the end, the Ruger was off the list and I purchased both the Papoose and the Henry to see which one is better.

In any event, Herbert tested the rifles for accuracy, reliability, and even whether they floated. The latter test, by itself, would have disqualified the 10/22.

    To give a brief background on these rifles, the AR7 was originally developed in 1958 by Armalite as a survival rifle for the Air Force, and was designed by Eugene Stoner. Production of the rifle has passed through several companies since Armalite, including Charter Arms between 1973 and 1990, but is currently manufactured by Henry. It is takedown style rifle that dissembles into three main groups: the stock, the barrel, and the receiver. The stock is a thick and hollow with compartments to hold the barrel and receiver when disassembled. When the parts are sealed in the stock, the whole thing can float (I believe it can also float when assembled so long as the butt piece is in place). It takes a proprietary 10-round magazine and, as mentioned above, is semi-automatic. Although older versions do not have this feature, it appears that the current version manufactured by Henry has a Picatinny rail along the top of the receiver to mount an optic. It comes standard with a peep rear sight and bladed front sight.

    The Marlin Papoose is a takedown version of the Marlin Model 70 (Hebert says it was derived from the tube-fed Model 60, but that is not wholly accurate) and will accept any magazine that will work in the Model 70. It breaks down into two main pieces: the barrel which unscrews from the receiver, and the receiver/stock section. Hebert indicates in his article that it comes from the factory with a 7-round magazine, but larger capacity magazines are available (including factory 10-round magazines). Newer versions of the Papoose, such as the one tested by Hebert, are in stainless steel with a polymer stock. Older versions were a blued steel with a wooden stock. The rear sight is a buckhorn style open sight. The newer versions of the Papoose come with a fiber optic front sight protected by a hood. Older versions used a simple polymer blade. The Papoose uses a grooved receiver for mounting standard .22 type optics. The Papoose comes in a nylon case with a polystyrene mold that both holds the receiver/stock section and provides flotation. The barrel slips into a sleeve in the case. The case also has a sleeves for a tool used to tighten or loosen the barrel nut which--at least with the one I owned--could also fit one or two extra magazines.

    I won't go into detail about Hebert's test results other than the two rifles were fairly evenly matched, although he gave an edge to the AR7. His conclusions:

    Like I said previously, I went into this little test expecting the Marlin Papoose to win. I put seven hundred rounds between both rifles, tested them in hot and humid conditions–and later at freezing with plenty of water, cow dung, and who knows what else. In the end, the Henry Survival Rifle despite its uninspiring feel and lack of features is the winner by a small margin.

    The most obvious advantage of the AR-7 is it’s ability to collapse and store into its own buttstock. Whether this takes up less room than the padded case arrangement of the Papoose is up for debate  The actual weight difference between the two rifles is marginal. The sights on the AR-7 are a little easier to read, especially in lower light and are not as prone to being bumped out of alignment, which is what happened with our Papoose. I would make the case for some Locktite after sighting in on either rifle, but the fact remains that the sights on the AR-7’s sights are simpler. The AR7’s trigger is more predictable and has a loud audible reset, while the Papoose has a little bit of take-up.

    Both rifles were more than ample in the accuracy department but I did feel the Papoose should have done better. The only knocks on the AR-7 are two: the manual safety and the number of malfunctions. The safety catch was prone to going on without a touch when reloading the rifle. I have taken aim only for nothing to happen and then I realized the safety is on. A minor inconvenience here but a game-costing mistake in the field. My general experiences with Henry’s AR-7 have been warm. These guns are far more reliable than their Charter Arms predecessors and the AR had fewer malfunctions right until it met many failures to feed from Federal Automatch. This is offset by the fact that the Marlin had fewer malfunctions overall. The lesson is to pick your ammo wisely as not all 22 LR ammo is created equally. They also don’t print as tightly or in the same place. Testing ammo has to happen before heading out, not during.

    I like the AR-7, but that doesn’t mean the Marlin has no merit. Getting extra magazines and accessorizing is easier. The inclusion of sling studs is a nice touch along with good, proven controls. It helps that the gun can be disassembled with an optic attached, if you so feel inclined. There were fewer malfunctions with the Marlin overall and I would feel better about having a Papoose stowed aboard a boat as it’s stainless steel construction wards corrosion better. The few steel parts in the AR-7 can rust if neglected.

    I have owned a Marlin Papoose (one of the older models) and done some shooting of an AR7 (albeit, an older version--probably one of the Charter Arms models) and thought I would give a few of my thoughts on the two.

    First, the stocks. The Marlin Papoose uses a cut down version of the Model 70 stock. If you like the stock on the Model 60s and 70s, you will probably like the one on the Papoose. The stock on the AR7 is larger and thicker since it also acts as a case for the rifle. Unlike Hebert, I actually liked the stock on the AR7 because it was not proportioned for youth (like the Papoose) but felt more in line with that of a full-size rifle. 

    Second, reliability. Reliability on the rifles has probably varied over the years. When I purchased my Papoose, Marlin was still turning out good quality rifles, but their quality started to slip badly in the years before they were purchased by Ruger. Thus, my Marlin Papoose ran very reliably--better than a 10/22 that I owned about the same time--even with minimal cleaning. The AR7 ran well for about 100 to 150 rounds and then would start having issues related to getting dirty. But, based on what I've read, the Henry versions are better functioning.

    Third, accuracy. Both of the rifles I shot did fine as far as accuracy went, although I really liked the peep sight on the AR7. I didn't like the black-on-black of the original Papoose sights (I ended up lightening up a bit of front sight blade), but the fiber-optic sight on the newer models would alleviate that issue. I can say that my Papoose shot just as well as a stock Ruger 10/22 that I owned about the same time.

    Fourth, convenience. I purchased my Papoose at a time that I was travelling long distances between my parents place and attending college out of state, and wanted something that I could easily carry in a vehicle. Broken down, the case was not very long and it was fairly thin and it worked well for packing it into the small car I owned at the time. And because the town in which I was living while at school at a small indoor public shooting range, the case made it convenient to carry to use at that shooting range. I didn't have an opportunity to use the AR7 for travel. I suspect, however, that because everything fits into the stock, the AR7 would have been better for a backpacking rifle--i.e., something that could be slipped into a pack until needed.

    As mentioned above, both rifles also worked fine for a general use .22 rifle. Although I have since passed my Papoose on to a relative, it was my go-to .22 rifle for over 20 years. 

    Finally, I would note Hebert's comments about the AR7 having issues with the Federal Automatch ammunition. I don't think that it is necessarily an issue with the rifle. I have had more problems with Automatch in a variety of .22 rifles and handguns than any other .22 ammunition I have used such that I will no longer buy it. It was not always this way: I found it to be excellent ammunition when I first started using it as I mention in my review of it back in 2011. But I found that the quality started to decline several years ago, including one box where about 1/3 to 1/2 of the rounds were duds.