The Charter Arms Explorer II Pistol

At one point during the time  Charter Arms was making the AR-7 survival rifle they introduced a pistol version called the Explorer II. A lot of hobbyists and collectors- myself included- bought one, based on the Mauser Broomhandle-like appearance and the inexpensive price. It came with a 4", 6", or 10" barrel, though I seem to recall that mine came with two barrels.

The receiver wasn't identical to that of the rifle version in that you couldn't attach a shoulder stock, and the alignment lug for the barrel was different from that of the rifle version. This was to prevent someone from intentionally or accidentally mounting a shoulder stock on the pistol or attaching a short barrel to the pistol, either of which would have resulted in a violation of the National Firearms Act (and not incidentally the commission of a Federal felony.)

What many owners discovered was that the Explorer II pistol had all the faults of the AR-7 rifle, like problems with feeding and mediocre accuracy. In addition, it would fail to cycle reliably if you limp-wristed it. Still, it's a pretty neat pistol, and I can't help but wonder if it might sell well if Henry, who now make the AR-7, came out with an improved model. I'd sure buy one.

The AR-7 Explorer

Just about every shooting sports hobbyist I've ever known has owned one of these at one time or another; I've owned three, at various times. It was designed by Eugene Stoner at Armalite for the civilian market as a semi-automatic .22 version of the bolt-action AR-5, a .22 Hornet survival rifle that Stoner designed for the USAF. Armalite sold the tooling and rights to Charter Arms, who made most of the guns that are out there now. Charter Arms had a reputation for uneven quality back then and the AR-7 was certainly no exception. The guns were often fussy about ammunition,  magazine feed lips often needed tweaking, and owners reported numerous jams. As a survival weapon it had questionable value, as the sights were crude and the waterproof stock, which was designed to hold the disassembled rifle, often leaked. I sold my last Charter Arms gun, complete with original box, for around $125.

The rights to the design passed to Survival Arms in 1990, who I don't think made very many. In 1997 Henry Repeating Arms, who do have a reputation for quality,  picked it up, and improved it, using a new ABS material for the stock, and supplying new guns with two magazines. The gun itself is Teflon coated for better moisture resistance, and the receiver is grooved for a scope. The barrel is steel, covered with a synthetic coating. All of this makes for a much more practical and reliable rifle that you might actually consider packing for a backwoods trip. For me, personally, my preferred survival gun is my customized Ruger Mk-III hunter. It's more rugged, and more accurate- but it did cost almost three times as much as a new Henry AR-7.

Dan Wesson Revolvers

The very first centerfire revolver I owned was a Dan Wesson. So was the second. I had a pair in .357 and .44mag, respectively, back in the late 1980s, and like a lot of guns and guitars that have passed through my hands, I'm sorry I sold them. These guns were of exceptional quality, and had a novel feature- interchangeable barrels- that was part of the reason they were also some of the most accurate revolvers ever made.

The actual barrel was a threaded, rifled tube  that was surrounded by a shroud. One end of the barrel screwed into the frame. The shroud was slipped over the barrel, and a nut was then screwed on to the end of the barrel, holding it in tension between the frame and the end of the shroud. A feeler gauge was used to set the barrel-cylinder gap. You could get a wide range of barrel lengths and shroud weights, as well as barrels and shrouds with an integrated muzzle brake. (My .44 had an 8" bbl with brake.)

Back in the 1980s my eyesight was pretty sharp (I was in my 20s), and I used to regularly shoot my .44 off a sandbag at 50 yards at my local outdoor range. At that distance, using handloads and iron sights, I could easily keep all my shots in the black at 50 yards. 

The company that made these great guns made the decision, after a few changes of ownership, to concentrate on making 1911 clones,  and revolver production was de-emphasized. CZ bought the company in 2005, and luckily (for us) they've decided to bring back the original Dan Wesson 715 interchangeable barrel revolver.  Prices start at around $1160 for a stainless .357 with 6" barrel.

Ruger SP101 in .22LR

Wouldn't you know it? Just after I buy a new Beretta Bobcat, I learn that Ruger is introducing a .22 caliber version of their SP101 revolver. At $600 list, it's $159 cheaper than the S&W Model 317 Kit Gun, and Ruger's quality is certainly right up there with Smith & Wesson's. (Ruger does the investment casting of the Walther PPK and PPK/S frames for S&W.) I've owned at least four Rugers in my time (three .22 auto pistols and an Old Army) and I never had a moment's trouble with any of them.

The .22LR revolver is the classic sportsman's sidearm, and before State and Federal laws made it difficult to do so, it wasn't at all uncommon for every hunter and fisherman to carry a pocket .22- just the thing for bagging a grouse, or a slow rabbit, for the dinner pot. But with the surge in "shall issue" laws across the country, it's now relatively easy to get a carry permit, and I suspect more outdoorsmen (and women) are carrying a sidearm in the field. While it's always been legal (in most states) to carry a sidearm exposed, in a holster, while carrying a hunting license, a lot of us prefer to keep it concealed for various reasons. Among other things, it's less confrontational these days, when you're increasingly likely to come across people in the woods and streams who aren't comfortable around guns.

Although I own a few semiauto .22s, I think the revolver has a lot of advantages for the sportsman. Accuracy (in single action fire) of a high quality revolver can be every bit as good as with an auto. A quality revolver is the most reliable handgun you can find, short of a single-shot pistol.

There aren't nearly as many quality double-action revolvers in this country as there used to be. H&R quit making their low-end revolvers years ago. There's Charter Arms, but their stuff is pretty low end. That leaves S&W and Ruger. The general consensus is that S&W guns are better finished, and the Rugers are stronger. S&W uses forging, which requires more machining and hand finishing, while Ruger uses investment casting, which produces a ready-to-assemble, but less highly polished, frame. Both make guns that will last a lifetime.