A new packable .22 coming soon

[CitizenQ]

Even more packable - Marlin 39TD!!! I have been looking for one (unsuccessfully) for a number of years. If Marlin could see fit to reintroduce this one, especially in matte stainless with their laminated stocks, they' have a hard time keeping them on the dealer's shelves...

All Marlin 39's are takedowns...that is what that big screw on the side is...and that screw is one of the only complaints that have ever been lodged against the 39: the screw is ugly and (in some opinions) ruins the otherwise fine lines of the rifle. The 39M (Mountie) is the smallest 39...I think it has an 18 or 20 inch barrel.

 

[BillyJoeBobJim]

Others have mentioned my favorites, but I'll post anyway.

The Marlin Papoose is excellent for a "lightweight, packable rifle" at just over 3lb. Excellent!

The Taurus Model 62C (or 72C .22WMR) is excellent at just over 4lb.

The Chipmunk is great.

I highly recommend a Ruger 22/45 with a Tactical Solutions upper or a Browning Buckmark with a Tactical Solutions barrel for a lightweight .22.

 

[BillyJoeBobJim]

All Marlin 39's are takedowns...that is what that big screw on the side is...and that screw is one of the only complaints that have ever been lodged against the 39: the screw is ugly and (in some opinions) ruins the otherwise fine lines of the rifle. The 39M (Mountie) is the smallest 39...I think it has an 18 or 20 inch barrel.

Owners of a Marlin 39 tend to indicate what an exceptionally accurate rifle it is. I concur. I also have two of the model 1897T. I prefer the straight stock.

 

[CitizenQ]

When I was having my "gonna havta walk off Long Island when The End Times come" fantasy I purchased a Keltec Sub2000 9mm carbine. It folds to something like 16" x 7". At 4 pounds it's immensely "packable" and the ammo is light too (although it's not all that accurate a rifle). On the upside it's very light and deploys from the folded position in a heatbeat...and it's black and evil looking!

 

[Andrew Colglazier]

When I was having my "gonna havta walk off Long Island when The End Times come" fantasy I purchased a Keltec Sub2000 9mm carbine. It folds to something like 16" x 7". At 4 pounds it's immensely "packable" and the ammo is light too (although it's not all that accurate a rifle). On the upside it's very light and deploys from the folded position in a heatbeat...and it's black and evil looking!

I have one of those as well, it's one of my BO guns. I wouldn't carry it in place of a centerfire handgun, though. I should add that mine's a .40.

Andy

 

[CitizenQ]

...I wouldn't carry it in place of a centerfire handgun, though. I should add that mine's a .40...

I'd agree with that call Andy. But if you had to walk a long way (250 miles for example) with one rifle: (1) what would you choose and (2) How much ammo would you carry?

 

[Andrew Colglazier]

I'd agree with that call Andy. But if you had to walk a long way (250 miles for example) with one rifle: (1) what would you choose and (2) How much ammo would you carry?

It would depend on why I was walking and why I would need the rifle.

If I was walking through wilderness and needed to feed myself, I would select a lightweight 12 gauge pump shotgun (probably an 870) with iron sights, IC bore, and a selection of slug and birdshot loads, probably 75 rds of birdshot and maybe 25 rounds of slugs.

If I was having to walk from a disaster-struck city to my home in the boonies, and had to deal with panic stricken and un-prepared citizens, I would want a tested M4 style AR with at least 4 thirty round mags, paired with a Glock 17 with four magazines. I would want a very compact version of the rifle to make it as concealable as possible, but I would want the range of the .223 round.

I have the Kel-Tec Sub2000 in .40, paired with a Glock 22 as they both use the same magazines as my "out of town" combo, but if I could get a compact .223 in a similar sized package without having to spend an arm and a leg, I'd go that route instead.

Andy

 

[blake g49]

All Marlin 39's are takedowns...that is what that big screw on the side is...and that screw is one of the only complaints that have ever been lodged against the 39: the screw is ugly and (in some opinions) ruins the otherwise fine lines of the rifle. The 39M (Mountie) is the smallest 39...I think it has an 18 or 20 inch barrel.

I know that they all take down - the 39TD is the same as the Mountie (20" barrel) but with an 18.5" barrel. I have a Mountie already and want a 39TD - actually if I find the TD the Mountie will probably go on the block...

 

[CitizenQ]

Of course blake g49...sorry if I was perceived as rude...didn't mean to be

 

[Pritch]

Here is a little more info on this rifle. First, the mfr's website: pakrifle.coml

Second, here is a brief review by Ryan Jordan, founder of Backpacking Light. (Note: It is kind of interesting to see some guys I thought would be fundamentalist granola crunchers, such as Ryan and David Olsen of OWare Tarps, talking favorable about carrying a firearm on the trail.)

Finally, here is a rather lengthy thread arguing about the merits of this rifle on BPL.

-- FLIX

 

[Stainz]

I love my CZ .22s, a pair of 'Super Exclusive' models - with 28.8" barrels - and a 'Special' - with a 25.4" barrel - all three a bit large. They have a 'Scout' model with a short barrel, single shot bolt action (magazine adaptable), 12" length of pull, same adjustable trigger, sights, etc. Great squirrel gun - ~4-5 lb. CZs have tight 'match grade' chambers - some of the hotter hunting CCI rounds won't make it with the bolt closed.

My choice would likely be a S&W revolver. My 4" 10X 617 is fantastic - but at ~40 oz, a bit heavy. The 5" 8-shot J-frame 63, at 28 oz, is more tote-friendly, albeit with a stock trigger up there near my ancient 1895 Nagant revolvers - miserable. Mine responded well to some lighter springs and TLC - and, properly holstered, would be great company, not to mention protection from hordes of feral ferrets or the dreaded lifeless/mindless (and drooling...) Zombie tree rats. Seriously - a revolver -DA-capable - no ammo worries - adjustable sights, too. My 63 sports a larger after-market Hogue square conversion J-frame monogrip.

Yeah, like you need a reason to buy a DA-capable rimfire revolver. Seriously, everyone needs one! Now you have a bonafide 'need'!!

Stainz

 

[Toucan Oasis]

Remember the AR-10? It was almost a decent pack rifle, except — at least on the one I owned — it was incapable of hitting anything smaller than an elephant.

You mean Armalite AR7 ?
That's like an AR15 for mall ninjas.
I bought a nice house working on that kind of crap.

But a http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/SelfLoading/70PSS.asp. It wont be the choice for hiking the AT in panty hose and slippers but when you drop the hammer it'll GidRdun.
Buy Wheaties . She is " heavy" :jerkit:

 

[dawsonbob]

You mean Armalite AR7 ?
That's like an AR15 for mall ninjas.
I bought a nice house working on that kind of crap.

But a http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/SelfLoading/70PSS.asp. It wont be the choice for hiking the AT in panty hose and slippers but when you drop the hammer it'll GidRdun.
Buy Wheaties . She is " heavy" :jerkit:

Yep. That's the one — the Armalite AR-7. Back in about '65 or '66, while I was still in the Marine Corps, I bought one to use on a backpacking trip while I was on leave. I liked the concept (still do) so I bought one at a local gun shop. I should have taken the time to test it before we went out in the boonies, but I didn't. Big, big mistake. Not only was it the most inaccurate pice of junk I ever bought, but it was unreliable, to boot. I left it with my dad to sell for me when I went back to Vietnam. He bought a Ruger 10/22 with the money he got for it. Now that was a far better weapon.

I still like the idea of a take-down survival rifle, but the AR-7 was an abysmal failure. I don't know if it was just the one I bought, or if they were all like that.

 

[mtwarden]

j frame (or similar) revolver and lots of time at the range- makes good sense for a small, light and packable .22

I haven't shot one, but that Marlin does look pretty nice

 

[Toucan Oasis]

Yep. That's the one — the Armalite AR-7. Back in about '65 or '66, while I was still in the Marine Corps, I bought one to use on a backpacking trip while I was on leave. I liked the concept (still do) so I bought one at a local gun shop. I should have taken the time to test it before we went out in the boonies, but I didn't. Big, big mistake. Not only was it the most inaccurate pice of junk I ever bought, but it was unreliable, to boot. I left it with my dad to sell for me when I went back to Vietnam. He bought a Ruger 10/22 with the money he got for it. Now that was a far better weapon.

I still like the idea of a take-down survival rifle, but the AR-7 was an abysmal failure. I don't know if it was just the one I bought, or if they were all like that.

They were, and are, all like that............There is only one rifle on earth that is a bigger piece of chit.
The Remington Nylon 66 :barf::barf::barf::barf::barf::barf::barf:
The 1022 is up there with the classics. Great Gun.

 

[koyote]

I'm seriously considering trying to track down an 8 or 10 inch S&W .22 K frame. I do love my H&R, except the sights could be a bit better. I may take it to a machinist and get a new rear blade .05 narrower with a ranging step.

I put 90 rounds of aguila subsonic 60 grain .22LR through it today, pulled 1.25 inch groups at 25 yards, and the aguila actually shoots closer to point of aim, I only had a slight holdover. Big ragged hole at 7 yards, go figure.

But I'm thinking 8 or 10 inches of barrel would be the way to go. If I need a long gun I'll just take a long gun. a 10 inch revolver is packable without take down!

 

[ashtxsniper]

Remember the AR-10? It was almost a decent pack rifle, except — at least on the one I owned — it was incapable of hitting anything smaller than an elephant.

You mean the AR-7. The AR-10 is a 308 (7.62x51) version of the AR-15 and it is capable of sub-moa accuracy.

 

[dawsonbob]

You mean the AR-7. The AR-10 is a 308 (7.62x51) version of the AR-15 and it is capable of sub-moa accuracy.

You are absolutely correct. I don't know how I typed AR-10, since I'm familiar with both weapons. I think sometimes my fingers work faster than my brain. Yes, I did mean the AR-7.

 

[tholiver]

I had an AR-7 (Charter Arms) for 10 years or so, mine at least was fairly accurate.
The notable quirks were
A)Would only reliably feed lead round nose ammo.
B)None of the aftermarket magazines would work in it.
C)Also needed to always check to make sure the barrel ring was tight after shooting 3 or 4 mags. Not a range gun, not meant as a gun to shoot hundreds of rounds through in one session.

Once you get used to its quirks it was a reasonably accurate lightweight gun.
Meant for plinking and backpacking/ survival hunting only.
Not in the same class as a Ruger 10/22 at all.
But comparing an AR-7 to a Ruger or a Marlin is like comparing a Mora to a Busse.
Don't get me wrong I like/own Moras but i don't expect to cleave trees asunder with one,lol!
In the context of 40+ years ago the AR-7 had its merits.
But today with polymer stocks and lightweight aftermarket barrels the AR-7 has competitors that are almost as light and almost as small that are much more reliable and accurate.
Haven't had any experience with the new Henry versions though.
Are they better or worse than the old ones?

The only reason i got rid of it was to help pay tuition one semester.
Sold off most of my guns back then.

 

[jw2n]

I did not read all of the posts in rhis thread, but has anyone checked out the rimfires offered by Majestic? They make a wide variety of fantastic survival 17/22 rifles.