[Teufelhund]

It seems the AR 7 type rifles and the M6 .22LR, Hornet/ .410 over and under have almost "cult" followings with some crowds.

I had an early AR7, it was kind of handy that it takes down and stores in the stock and was pretty light. It however had very soft intralls and after a couple thousand round started doubling.

A friend of mine has a .22LR/.410 M6 and while it looks very "survival" like, I don't realy care for it. I don't see much utility in the .410 barrel at all and the trigger bar is a pretty funky.

IMO neither of them come close to a 10/22 Ruger or MKII.

Teuf,

 

[RIKA]

I would much rather have the 10-22 or MK2 Ruger also.

RIKA

 

[mrostov]

I've had an M6, an original early 1980's Springfield, .22/.410 (they also came in .22mag and .22Hornet). You tell the old one's at a glance because they came with no trigger guard, just like the original.

I've found the M6 to unnecessarily crude and heavy. The .410 barrel is not the most effective weapon either. For defense, it's better than nothing, but it's still marginal at best.

For a simple, single shot weapon, I'd much rather have a Stevens with a cut down barrel or a Cricket child's rifle than an M6.

For a survival weapon to stash in your backpack, the MkII is a better weapon by far than the M6. The only disadvantage to the MkII as a survival weapon is in places where having a pistol involves unnecessary legal risk.

The AR-7, IMHO, is still what it was originally intended to be, a lightweight, one mission, disposable, emergency weapon for a downed pilot.