P1170647

The year was 1995. Coolio’s Gangsta’s Paradise was at the top of the charts. Star Trek: Voyager began its long journey to ruin the Star Trek franchise. OJ Simpson stood trial for his poor taste in work gloves. Windows 95 was released. Some stuff blew up around the world. And in the background, a small firearms manufacturing company named Feather Industries closed its doors for good. Their name may be all but forgotten these days, but the guns they left behind are a shining example of how shoddy construction and poor machining can turn a brilliant idea into one of the worst guns I’ve ever fired . . .

The concept of a compact rimfire rifle that can be disassembled for transportation isn’t anything new, even in 1995. The Armalite AR-7 (now produced by Henry) came on the scene in the mid 1950’s and set the standard for “takedown” survival rifles that is still used even today. The folks at Feather Industries wanted to take the concept a step further, making a compact takedown semi-auto .22lr rifle that was cheap, useful, and more compact than even the AR-7. The result is the Feather Industries AT-22.

P1170578

In general, the design is basically the same as the M3 Grease Gun of WWII fame. A simple direct blowback system is used to cycle the gun, meaning a huge honkin’ bolt and some serious springs are installed in the receiver. The barrel slots into the front of the receiver, and a locking ring screws into place to keep it from ejecting out the front of the gun.

Even at this early stage of assembly we can start to see some issues. The weld that connects the breech with the barrel is inconsistent and lumpy — it looks like a shop class student did it by hand on their first week in school, not like a professional job. That attention to detail works its way into the rest of the gun as well, and gives it a very cheap feeling when you pick it up and handle it.

The concept of an interchangeable barrel system is rather unique for a design from this time period, but the execution is so shoddy that it’s a wonder it worked at all.

P1170621

When assembled, the wire stock slots into a series of holes in the back of the gun to keep it in place. The stock isn’t very comfortable and doesn’t provide much support. The button on the bottom of the gun actuates a catch system that keeps the stock in place, which is great for keeping the gun assembled but I almost wonder whether it’s better to just forget the stock completely and fire the thing like a pistol. It is certainly light enough to fire one-handed, and the newer editions with a vertical foregrip would make it especially comfortable to shoot.

P1170656

The sights on the rifle are a standard peep and post setup, but instead of attaching anything to the barrel both the rear and front sight are attached directly to the receiver. That’s handy, since the iron sights are located on the receiver and not the barrel making this setup roughly as accurate as Nancy Grace’s accusations. It’s nice that the rear sight can be easily adjusted for windage because you’re going to be doing that for every range trip.

P1170628

The fire controls feel like they were a complete afterthought. There’s a safety selector switch that moves forwards and backwards (forward for fire, backwards for safe) but there’s no detent to keep it firmly in either position. It just kinda sits there, more than capable of slowly moving from “fire” to “safe” at any time. There’s also no markings on the gun to tell you which position its in.

Just aft of that safety is the trigger, which is a rather mushy affair. It’s not the best, but it definitely isn’t the worst feature on the gun.

North of the fire controls is the magazine. Made from stamped sheet metal instead of sliced sections of tube (for cheap and easy construction, of course) the magazines slot in using the front of the trigger guard as a guide. The magazine catch is designed to apply enough rearward pressure to keep the magazine from moving out of position but rarely does its job well. There’s some distinct wiggling going on down there, way more than acceptable in any modern firearm.

P1170584

One thing I did legitimately like was the bolt hold open system. Instead of designing some intricate system worthy of Rube Goldberg’s praise, the folks at Feather Industries simply cut a hole in the receiver and allowed the charging handle to move laterally in the gun. When you want your gun locked open, simply slide the bolt back and press in on the charging handle to make it pop out the other side and catch on the cutout.

That’s a nifty idea that no one else seems to have followed. Probably something about weakening the receiver specifically where your face is right next to it and possibly allowing the burning gasses to shoot into your face in the event of an uncontained failure. Or something.

P1170605

Testing it out on the range, the gun is rather enjoyable to shoot. Then again, it has the benefit of being a .22lr rimfire rifle — they’re all fun to shoot. Until it starts to jam, that is. The gun malfunctioned more often than a Bethesda game on launch day. The most common problem was a failure to eject turning into a double feed situation, probably caused by a worn extractor or an improperly seated barrel. To be fair this gun has been around longer than Bill Clinton’s secret dry cleaning receipt, but still.

P1170613

Reliability is terrible, but the accuracy is so-so. Once sighted in (in this case on the little Law Enforcement Targets guy) the rounds will mostly hit their target, but not in a way that is really useful. Good for plinking on the range, but not something I would trust my life to.

P1170623

On first glance the Feather Industries AT-22 seems like a really neat idea for a relatively cheap to produce gun. The concept of an interchangeable barrel system has only really taken off with the suppressed SBR boom (no pun intended) of the last couple years, making the AT-22 ahead of its time by a full 20 years. A small, lightweight, easy to clean and disassemble gun would have been an ideal thing to buy for new shooters and general plinking on the range. The problem isn’t the design — the problem is the execution. Spotty welding on critical components of the gun make you start to question the safety of the thing as soon as you pull it out of the box. Combine the cheap construction with the cheaply produced fire controls and you have a gun that is destined to live in the same corner of the gun store as Raven Arms‘ complete collection.

The original Feather Industries went out of business in 1995, but they were briefly revived in the early 2000’s. That revived company was similarly short lived, only producing a handful of new firearms this time chambered in 9mm and 45ACP before drifting out of the public eye once more. That’s a shame, because I would absolutely love to see a well executed AT-22 come to the market, Unfortunately for me it seems like the design is cursed to only be produced briefly by the firearms industry equivalent of get rich quick schemes.

Honestly, I love firearms like this. Interesting designs executed with appalling quality that result in a financial and technical failure. Its a much more interesting object — not just another in a long string of successes like the 10/22, but evidence of someone’s hopes and dreams that have come crashing down. You can almost see a parallel to Icarus… if Icarus had made his wings out of lead. That’s the reason I’m looking for a Remington R51 — Big Green demanded I send back the T&E samples and wouldn’t even entertain the idea of accepting cash instead — I enjoy the failures almost as much as the successes. It’s the same reason why I love Mystery Science Theater 3000. Although when I re-watch Manos for the twentieth time there isn’t the distinct possibility that the DVD will explode and blind me permanently…

Specifications (Feather Industries AT-22):

Street Price: ~$500.00
Caliber: .22 LR
Magazine Capacity: 20
Stock: Wire frame
Sights: Iron post and peep
Barrel Length: 16 in

Ratings (out of five stars):

Fit, Finish, Build Quality: *
Imagine the kind of build quality you would expect if a middle school shop class tried to make a firearm. Now lower your expectations a little. There you go.

Customization:
There are very few examples of this gun to begin with, and even fewer actually wanting to use it often enough to swap out parts.

Accuracy: * *
Meh.

Overall: *
I’d buy it, but that’s because I like quirky and novel guns even if they don’t work. If you actually intend to shoot it then you probably should look elsewhere.

Recommended For You

79 Responses to Gun Review: Feather Industries AT-22

  1. OK – the gun review aside, Voyager was not nearly as bad as Deep Space Nine. Deep Space Nine was essentially a retarded soap opera on a giant rotating space colander. Voyager had another part of the galaxy, Mrs. Colombo, and Seven of Nine.

    Neat rifle if you are into oddball guns.

      • LOL- we’ll let’s just say neither were high points. The most annoying part of Voyager was Neelix. Gee, how can we make Neelix feel valued this week? Whatever.

      • Good man Leghorn. Captain Sisko was my favorite captain. Picard made hard choices, but did not have to balance the demands of his job along with the culture of another planet, and actually sustain a war footing. Sisko showed the toll and compromises that must be made in war, and he got messed up in a way that Kirk or Picard never had to contend with.

        • DS9 can be defined by one exchange:

          Q: You hit me! Picard never hit me!
          Sisko: I’m not Picard.

          It also didn’t really start hitting it’s stride until the Klingon-Federation war arc. Then it got into some seriously good stuff, and the addition of Michael Dorn to the cast made it better. (Though I swear I don’t know why Terry Farrell would leave something like DS9 for the thrilling writing of Becker-yuck.)

    • “was essentially a retarded soap opera on a giant rotating space colander.”

      You, sir, win ten internets for this comment!

    • I liked both DS9 and Voyager. Neither were without faults. Both suffered from lots of missed opportunities to use some pretty cool characters and concepts. Seemed like the writers missed the whole “ensamble” aspect of ensemble casts. But it’s star trek and like guns, more is better and no single instance covers all the bases.

    • Actually the Star Trek franchise was ruined by the Star Trek, The Next Generation. When SNG came out, fans were so desperate for something they gobbled it up. As time went on people started comparing Picard to Kirk. Personally I felt Picard was a wuss and he had to have a group consensus before acting. He was the kind of Captain that would give everyone a participation medal. Voyager tried a little to bring back the action hero aspect but it was not enough. An old friend of mine used to do prop work in Hollywood and his firm was involved with the shows and the movies. He was on set for almost all the SNG movies. He told me stories about how the actors really were like. He had very good things to say about Frakes and the guy who played Warf. Brent Spiner was a fun guy that gave out gifts especially after their last movie. He and the others hated dealing with Gates McFadden. Even her cast mates avoided her. This probably colors my perception of the Next Gen series.

      My friend was on the set several times for the TV series. I asked him about Jeri Ryan and his only comment was that she was a chimney stack, chronic smoker. I guess they didn’t like having to constantly clean the props and costumes.

      I really enjoyed Abrams first reboot movie. The second was so so.

        • Wrong Jeri. Jeri Ryan (Seven of Nine) is currently married to a French chef. I hadn’t heard that Fred Thompson passed (RIP), but his widow is younger than Jeri Ryan.

      • Having met Michael Dorn (Worf) at an airshow back in the early 90’s, I can certainly vouch for the fact he was very down to earth and very non-assuming. And I’d love to grab a beer with Jonathan Frakes, he’s probably got tons of good stories to tell.

    • Sorry, I could tolerate DS9, but Voyager was terrible. The only reason it survived was Paramount was not about to lose to Babylon 5 after that show beat Trek out for Hugo’s two years in a row.

  2. Star Trek Nerds. Man crush on William Shatner, a canadian fireplug, and Klingons. Now a real discussion is who fired first, Han or Guido.

    • I don’t remember the green guy being eye-tallian. You meant Greedo.

      Side note for Nick. I was sorely disappointing that the Raven Arms link was in fact not a link to a complete Raven Arms collection.

    • Han’s story arc was from unrepentant reprobate to respectable freedom fighter. When George Lucas saw how much people connected with him he felt the need to make him a good-ish guy from the outset. By taking away Han’s redemption story he hurt the overall trilogy for silly reasons.

  3. I have one of these. Another noteworthy point about it besides what the review covered is because it’s a simple blowback system with no rollers or lugs or anything to delay it, the bolt starts coming back immediately, spitting a little bit of hot, unburned gunpowder out the ejection port. Makes me glad not to be left-handed… better to get it on my wrist than my face.

  4. You wrote that Feather Industries wanted to make a “compact takedown semi-auto .22lr rifle that was cheap, useful, and more compact than even the AR-7.” I’m keying in on the “cheap” word. If by that you mean inexpensive, then I do not consider the street price of $500 cheap. There are a plethora of take down .22s being produced way below that. And one’s that are well built, safe and accurate. If by “cheap” you mean shoddy, well then apparently they accomplished their goal. It is interesting that the British Sten was made to be “cheap” in both senses and yet proved to be a great success for the allies. Thought I’d bring it up given the somewhat distant physical similarities between the two weapons. Hey, sometimes things work and sometimes they don’t.

    • That Feather is a near operationally identical to the AR-7 as you can get, from the ‘keyed’ takedown barrel to the tiny charging handle.

  5. Babylon 5 was better than either Voyager or Deep Space 9, as was Farscape but my all time favorite was Firefly. As far as survival .22’s go……meh.

    • I hard core binge watched the entire series of Farscape on a portable DVD player in transient housing on FOB Khandahar while awaiting rotary flight transportation to Gardez. All 88 episodes plus the miniseries. It will always have a special place in my heart.

      • I used to watch it when it was first out, but never saw more than a few episodes on TV. Then a few years ago Netflix decided to show everything but the miniseries. I loved that show a lot and the Scorpius / Crichton interactions were awesome! Babylon 5 was kind of the same deal. I only watched a few episodes but really enjoyed it. I saw all of the DS9 episodes when they came out except for the last season. I didn’t watch the last season until last year. I hated Voyager when it came out. I watched it again a few years ago and I liked it more than when it came out, but it did have a lot of issues.

        • If you’ve seen “only a few” episodes of Babylon 5, it probably made little sense to you. It was in many ways a five year long miniseries. Earlier shows depended on previous shows.

          I’d hate to imagine “Endgame” being the only episode I had ever seen.

        • Babylon 5 isn’t something to watch occasionally – especially after the first season. It was one of – if not the – first SciFi shows designed from the outset to be a single story. Each of the five season is a chapter and it was intended from the beginning to run for only 5 season. Joe Strazynski had the entire series planned in advance, including “back doors” and alternatives in case there had to be any cast changes. He also wrote much of season 1, all of seasons 2, 3 and 4 and almost all of season 5. Even the few scripts he didn’t write, he edited or added B-story or arc elements.

          It also set a lot of other “firsts” for television. First show shot in HD. First all-CGI effects show. First show with individual orchestral scores composed for each episode. First show with Newtonian physics in space flight (it can be dizzying watching fighters flying sideways shooting in a firefight). JMS, the cast and crew were extremely interactive with the audience online in both BBS’s and UseNet – another first. I had several exchanges with Joe in the 90’s (and hope I can someday snag an interview with him for my podcast).

          No show has achieved what they accomplished. I don’t know if “the suits” would allow it today. I think the closest I’ve seen so far, has been Continuum. It looks like they had the first “story” planned, which took the first 3 seasons and then had plans for the next story. I’ve still got to watch the final half-season 4 to see how they end it, though. Other shows just seem to take one season at a time or now, it seems, half season with a long winter hiatus.

          I’ll close with a self-aggrandizing plug… If you like Bab5 or want to know about it, you can check out my podcast with Jim Arrowood. It’s called The Babylon Project Podcast. You can find it at https://babylonprojectpodcast.wordpress.com/ or on iTunes or Facebook.

        • Mmmmmmmmm, Samantha Carter, AKA Amanda Tapping, was quite the yumminess… in an “average looking, girl next door, possible lesbian, NO! SHE’S NO LESBIAN!” sort of way.

    • An un-reconstructed Rebel who is pro-gun, pro-small government, pro-induvidual freedom, and pro free enterprise protagonist what is there not to love about the greatest, but sadly short lived, Sci-fi show ever. Star Trek anything is just abosolutly horrible, where a different race only has a differnet shape of the ears, Tolkien beat you to it sorry they are called Elves not Vulcans. Although I will admit that Star Trek did more making Sci-fi main stream and paving the road for all the modern sci fi shows we enjoy today.

  6. Like the way it looks, would like to see one that works in the $250 range that doesn’t have a high probability of exploding.

  7. I’ve owned one of these since about 1992 or 93, and IMO you are being pretty damned hard on a little rifle that was never meant to be the only rifle you count on to save your life. I mean, who in their right mind would designate a 22LR rifle for that role anyway?

    Perhaps the one you shot has been mistreated sometime in the TWENTY YEARS that it was in circulation before you decided to “review” it.

    I’ve handled S&W revolvers that old which would get a review like this as well, because they’d been rattling around the floor board of a pickup truck for most of that time, but that doesn’t mean that S&W suck at making firearms or that all S&W wheel guns are badly finished or unreliable.

    Twenty years or plinking under its belt, and yet your malfunctions are blamed on poor construction or design, not wear and tear. Newsflash, extractors and their springs are perishable wear parts. Sometimes they need to be replaced. It’s not poor design if something wears out after twenty years of use. That’s called “normal”.

    Mine shoots like a champ, and holds its zero even after being taken apart and reassembled. Even after twenty plus years of serious plinking use, mine will still put a whole magazine’s worth of rounds inside the diameter of a clay pigeon at 50 yds (if I do MY job anyway). The only malfunctions I ever get are failures to fire (dud rounds, not mechanical problems).

    The ONLY thing I wish was different about mine was that it had a stock extension catch on both sides, so that when you push on the stock it’s bearing on both rods evenly instead of just the one with the catch. Other than that though, I really like my AT-22, and have used it a great deal, both for plinking and killing pests. It’s never caused me any grief in either regard.

    I know it’s much easier and flashier to write a snarky review about a little gun that’s not as slick as today’s offerings from a company that’s no longer around to defend themselves, but IMO you’ve WAY missed the mark here, and did so with a gusto that is misplaced at best.

    Maybe stick to “reviewing” firearms that are both new and still available?

    • Could always submit your own review to TTAG.

      If TTAG doesn’t review not-new guns, we’d never see any reviews about Mosins, Mausers, Webleys, older Colts and S&Ws, Enfields, M1s, so on and so forth. One of TTAG’s first reviews was RF writing about a Colt pocket pistol from 1900 or so. I want to say a M1903?

    • “…a little rifle that was never meant to be the only rifle you count on to save your life.”

      Isn’t “counting on it to save your life” pretty much the mission statement of a takedown, packable “survival” rifle, though? Isn’t the whole idea that you might rely on it in extreme circumstances, because its small size could mean it’s the only rifle you have with you?

      • The AT-22 is not “packable” in same sense than an AR-7 is (IE it’s not meant to pack up inside it’s own footprint or stock as the case may be).

        Mine came in a ballistic nylon carry case that is damned near two feet long and a foot and a half wide. It’s only about two inches thick, but it’s by no means a tiny bag.

        Yes, it breaks down and fits into a non-gun-shaped bag, but it’s not a backpacker’s best friend like an AR-7 would be.

        Honestly, I’m not sure why they made the thing a break down, maybe just because they could. Taking the barrel out does make the overall length a little shorter, but not a lot. Less than a foot for sure. It’s not like a 10/22 take down where the gun is literally half as long after you break it in two.

        I dunno, maybe I’m just easy to please, but IMO people ask too much from some guns. This little guy was meant to be a fun gun, IMO. Maybe they made it a take down that looks like a submachinegun because they thought people might think that was cool and buy one. Not every purchase is one of existential importance, ya know?

        Ask the guys at American European Tactical that make all those 22LR versions of cool military guns. I’m guessing that they’re not marketing those to people as survival weapons for TEOTWAWKI.

  8. Every single one of my scoped or red-dot’d rifles has the sights on the receiver. Many shoot sub-MOA. Methinks you should reconsider that paragraph.

    • Do you routinely remove and reattach the barrels on those rifles, though? That’s the point – you have to have a very precise and robust takedown mechanism so that the barrel is replaced in precisely the same orientation on the receiver, if you’re not going to put the sights on the barrel. It sounds like the AT-22 doesn’t have such a mechanism, but it’s still intended to be taken apart and stored in pieces.

      I have rifles with sights on the receiver, too, but I don’t take the barrels off of them, so the sights stay aligned. If I pulled the barrel off any of them, I bet I’d have to sight them in again.

      • Mine comes apart and goes back together and holds its zero just fine.

        It’s not as hard as it sounds to make a repeatable barrel connection for a rifle that has to hold “minute of squirrel” at 50 yds.

        That same mechanism won’t do you much good a 500 yd rifle, but the only way you’re gonna get a 40 grn 22LR bullet to 500 yds is if you carry it there on your 4wheeler. 😉

        You guys are way overthinking this.

  9. “Once sighted in the rounds will mostly hit their target, but not in a way that is really useful.”

    Amusing review, but I can’t figure this statement out. If the bullets are hitting the target, how is that not “useful”? From the target’s perspective, getting hit with a bullet from this thing is no different than being hit with one from a $2000 Anschutz rifle, or is the AT-22 so bad that it somehow alters the laws of physics?

  10. It’s actually a nice-looking piece, like a cross between an M3 and a Sterling. Pity it seems to be rubbish as a working firearm, though.

    Oh, and Nick? You’re safe with unlimited rewatchings of Manos, but there is a possibility of permanent blindness if you dare watch Monster A Go-Go more than once. Regardless, props for the shout-out to MST3K, and make sure to donate to the Kickstarter if you haven’t yet.

  11. >> One thing I did legitimately like was the bolt hold open system. Instead of designing some intricate system worthy of Rube Goldberg’s praise, the folks at Feather Industries simply cut a hole in the receiver and allowed the charging handle to move laterally in the gun. When you want your gun locked open, simply slide the bolt back and press in on the charging handle to make it pop out the other side and catch on the cutout. That’s a nifty idea that no one else seems to have followed.

    Kel-Tec Sub-2000 employs the same mechanism. It’s pretty tricky to engage there, though, because of the location of the charging handle (on the bottom of the buttstock tube).

  12. Wow nerdland today. I thought all the Star Trek iterations sucked. But then agin” I’m old. No- I never saw this 22 before. Kinda’ cool in an airsoft/BB gun way…

  13. wifey always calls it “deep sleep nine.”
    i’ve never seen star wars so, enh.
    i remember my sisters calling me a dork ‘cuz i thought the original was called star track.

    this .22 looks like a grease gun. i’d want one.

  14. For a nice looking takedown rifle that is fun to shoot and gets a lot of attention on the range, try a Wilkerson Arms Linda, a 9mm carbine.
    When I first saw it on the old Mission Impossible TV show, I had to have one.
    Never regretted it.

  15. can someone tell me why Claudia Black shows up in so many science fiction and swords and sandals shows? with that face, I expect whinnying and counting with hoof taps

  16. Many thanks to Nick and all the commenters who made me laugh till I had tears in my eyes. I had a relative pass today and this really helped. This is why I love this blog. Serious gun talk and a lot of levity to boot. To bad the gun didn’t work cause it sure is cool looking.

  17. I bought one on a whim about 2002. Sold it this year. I could never get it to run through a full mag. I tried a dozen different ammo varieties and it seemed to prefer the hottest ones, but even that wasn’t good enough. I had some folks look at it and nobody could make it run right. Everyone that handled it thought it was cool, but the reliability was so poor they were glad I was the one that had spent the money. It was so quirky I wanted it to work, but it never did.

  18. “Some stuff blew up around the world…”

    US citizens died in a terrorist attack. Please show a little more respect.

  19. I was really surprised to read this review of the AT-22. I have one that is really quite nice and accurate. Mine is a little different from the one reviewed. It has an 18″ fluted barrel and a picatiny rail on the receiver. I got it in a estate auction along with a dozen or so other guns. I sold almost all of those but kept the feather. It came in the ballistic nylon case. Never had a FTF or FTE.

  20. This review reminds me of my Heritage Stealth. Reminiscent of the Walther CCP design, only made 15 years ago, it could have been the 9 mm compact carry pistol to beat if not for some really bad design features and shoddy construction.

  21. This may have been a cheap crappy gun, my recollection was a price below $200. But it got you out to the range if you didn’t have money for something better. Also, in an era when an AR was a hopelessly exotic item rarely seen in gun stores, it had pretty spiffy looks. I remain fond of this gun because it was the first gun I ever shot. I was an east coast gun control idiot, my dorm mate showed up with this thing and I almost had a heart attack. Being a red blooded young college guy though, I couldn’t resist an invite to shoot it at the range. Almost 30 years of happy shooting later and gun rights supporting, I’m much beholden to that cheap gun.

  22. I’ve had one of these for years. I like odd guns. Mine has the oversized carry bag, plus barrel shroud. Playing with the adjustable spring cap seems to improve reliability, and holding the mag with hand pressure does also. Sure looks cool, and you could feed yourself with it, given enough patience and daylight.

  23. “This may have been a cheap crappy gun, my recollection was a price below $200. But it got you out to the range if you didn’t have money for something better. “

  24. This outfit should have made a receiver that would accept proven Ruger magazines and the wide choice of Ruger barrels, threaded in the back for an AR buffer tube. An all steel tube receiver and bolt for existing proven parts might have saved this from being a recurring curiosity, and they probably could have sold such a receiver for almost as much as a 10/22 (many of which were bought just for the receiver and bolt).

    Even in original form, it had good points. The trigger on mine was smooth and consistent; one of my favorites. The bolt operation was simple and the bolt had enough travel and weight that the rifle was genuinely recoilless.

  25. Had mine since 92′ or so

    Very reliable and accurate.

    Maybe you shouldn’t trash an entire model based on using a gun that has an unknown history.

    I had a S&W revolver that I bought brand new, that gad the cylinders improperly bored so i was highly unreliable. Based on that I guess all S&W revolvers are crap.. Bought a used Rossi rifle that had problems chambering a round. So I guess all Rossi rifles are crap. . .

    Yup. That’s the level of logic you’re using. .

    I hear The New York Times is looking for columnist who don’t believe in checking their facts. Maybe you should apply. . .

  26. I have a 22 version and the 9mm AT version.

    I own a lot of 22 plinkers and the Feather version is the most accurate. It’s a blast to shoot, eats any kind of ammo and is ~2 lbs. They’re both great guns and Feather has a new owner in 2016 who’s a really nice guy and will ship you parts the same day should you need them (I ordered some spare springs).

    Great gun, sorry you got someone’s munged up cast off. I’ll take it off your hands…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *