I've only recently become aware of an NSSF campaign to defend the use of AR-type rifles for recreational sporting/hunting purposes. The ad I saw most recently looked at different style weapons' changing popularity over time, directly retlated to the standard GI rifle in the last century's wars, e.g. Springfield bolt action, M-1 Garand, AR. The message was that the growing popularity of AR rifles for hunting is historically relevant, completely understandable, logical, and therefore okay. Really? Besides encouragement from NSSF's black rifle supporters, why would the organization spend its resources on this matter?
AR rifles for hunting
- Thread starter polychoke
- Start date
Because black rifles are the target of most anti-gun efforts, and there's been a divide among black rifle aficionados and some hunters that don't like them in the field. You've heard of Zumbo? That divide needs to be repaired or could be used against us as a whole. The anti-gun crowd's ultimate goals don't end with black rifle bans.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
IMO, there are a couple of factors, neither of which have to do with the reality of guns and hunting.
First is that with the decline of knowledge about guns and hunting among city dwellers, way too many people can't tell the difference between full-auto military rifles and semi-auto civilian rifles.
Next is that for those for whom English is their first language, the word "black" has always denoted evil or badness. Odds are that if the military had ordered the original M16s in tan or brown, we wouldn't have had nearly so much controversy.
If it goes Bang! when you pull the trigger, you can use it for hunting. Neither the animal nor the bullet care what started the action.
First is that with the decline of knowledge about guns and hunting among city dwellers, way too many people can't tell the difference between full-auto military rifles and semi-auto civilian rifles.
Next is that for those for whom English is their first language, the word "black" has always denoted evil or badness. Odds are that if the military had ordered the original M16s in tan or brown, we wouldn't have had nearly so much controversy.
If it goes Bang! when you pull the trigger, you can use it for hunting. Neither the animal nor the bullet care what started the action.
kaylorinhi
New member
Have not been on in a week or so...
and I find this thread. I am actually bringing my DPMS Panther Lite out tomorrow. Reletively short distance, less than 200, open sights, and the possibilty for a herd to be in the field so it works and the NC state rule of a 5 rnd mag is a good thing.
and I find this thread. I am actually bringing my DPMS Panther Lite out tomorrow. Reletively short distance, less than 200, open sights, and the possibilty for a herd to be in the field so it works and the NC state rule of a 5 rnd mag is a good thing.
Doc Intrepid
New member
NSSF and the MSR...
Business Week is far more often a magazine whose articles are concerned with industry leaders, international business trends, and profiles on emerging industries. It's sort of unusual to see them weigh in on rifles and rifle trends. But essentially they note a broad effort to establish "AR-type" rifles as useful across a much broader spectrum of recreational firearms use, for a variety of different reasons. Here's the article:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_10/b4169060665633.htm
Just as semi-automatic handguns slowly evolved to replace revolvers throughout most US law enforcement communities, I would be surprised if there were not a parallel evolution towards AR-type rifles and away from bolt guns for a wider range of hunting activities than you might have thought ten years ago. I also suspect that the large numbers of ex-military vets who now have familiarity with this platform, due to large numbers of service personnel cycling through the military over the past decade of war, may contribute to a trend in selecting these types of rifles for a broader range of activities.
YMMV.
Business Week is far more often a magazine whose articles are concerned with industry leaders, international business trends, and profiles on emerging industries. It's sort of unusual to see them weigh in on rifles and rifle trends. But essentially they note a broad effort to establish "AR-type" rifles as useful across a much broader spectrum of recreational firearms use, for a variety of different reasons. Here's the article:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_10/b4169060665633.htm
Just as semi-automatic handguns slowly evolved to replace revolvers throughout most US law enforcement communities, I would be surprised if there were not a parallel evolution towards AR-type rifles and away from bolt guns for a wider range of hunting activities than you might have thought ten years ago. I also suspect that the large numbers of ex-military vets who now have familiarity with this platform, due to large numbers of service personnel cycling through the military over the past decade of war, may contribute to a trend in selecting these types of rifles for a broader range of activities.
YMMV.
Last edited:
FrankenMauser
New member
Interesting article and campaign.
It's good to see that not everyone is afraid of defending the "black" rifle.
My brothers have hunted with their AR (same one, different times).
I have hunted many times, with my SKS.
Like any other rifle, they fill certain roles very well.
It's the mis-use that many hunters have an issue with, but the same argument can be applied to almost anything - tactics, ammunition choice, lack of practice, poor ranging ability, unethical shots, etc.
It's good to see that not everyone is afraid of defending the "black" rifle.
My brothers have hunted with their AR (same one, different times).
I have hunted many times, with my SKS.
Like any other rifle, they fill certain roles very well.
It's the mis-use that many hunters have an issue with, but the same argument can be applied to almost anything - tactics, ammunition choice, lack of practice, poor ranging ability, unethical shots, etc.
Most people learn to shoot in the military. Since the military does not use wood and steel rifles any more, people learn to shoot AR-style rifles in the military. There is a growing trend of hunters using AR-style rifles for hunting, especially since 5-round magazines are easier to come by nowadays. So why shouldn't the National Shooting Sports Foundation support sport shooters using AR-style rifles in the legal pursuit of game animals?
I plan on fielding one of my AR's in WV this fall just because I can get a 10" LOP for my son. I also plan on picking up a 6.8 or something along that line for deer hunting here in VA next year (unless I decide to buy a complete upper in the next few weeks)
I like the idea of using one of my little AR's for hunting. I've been carrying traditional rifles for 27 years, I'm a little bored.
I think it's great people interested in black rifles are also interested in going afield.
I like the idea of using one of my little AR's for hunting. I've been carrying traditional rifles for 27 years, I'm a little bored.
I think it's great people interested in black rifles are also interested in going afield.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Something else to be factored in is the R&D which has led to bullets which are far more suitable for such as whitetail deer than in the past. Even just a dozen or so years back, most bullets in .223 were either varmint-type or for target shooting.
Long ago,little brother rediscovered an interest in shooting after I loaned him a handgun.
We went out and he fired my STG 58 with a Israelli 6x42 Sniper scope on it.
He decided he had to have one.I suggested the AR-10 may offer some advantages for the sort of thing he wanted.He bought the AR-10 T.Later he got a extra Armalite .300 RSUM upper.Along the way he had me cut and crown both of them to 20".They both shoot real well,raggy holes at 100 yds and lemon-lime groups at 300 yds.
This little brother has learned well.I have seen a lqsered 600 yd first round hit on a prairie dog,and he told me of a 500 yd lasered first round hit on a coyote,both with a .308.It has a 3.5-10 Leupold M-1 long range on the .308 and a 5.5 ACOG on the .300.
He shoots it one careful round at a time.I doubt the barrel has ever been hot.
Thats his rifle.Period.He humps that thing wherever he hunts.I offer him light guns,he declines.I'm talking over 9000 ft he humps that thing,uphill.He is darn near 50 years old.
Its funny.I keep telling him the way he shoots,he could carry a single shot.
He just grins.
We went out and he fired my STG 58 with a Israelli 6x42 Sniper scope on it.
He decided he had to have one.I suggested the AR-10 may offer some advantages for the sort of thing he wanted.He bought the AR-10 T.Later he got a extra Armalite .300 RSUM upper.Along the way he had me cut and crown both of them to 20".They both shoot real well,raggy holes at 100 yds and lemon-lime groups at 300 yds.
This little brother has learned well.I have seen a lqsered 600 yd first round hit on a prairie dog,and he told me of a 500 yd lasered first round hit on a coyote,both with a .308.It has a 3.5-10 Leupold M-1 long range on the .308 and a 5.5 ACOG on the .300.
He shoots it one careful round at a time.I doubt the barrel has ever been hot.
Thats his rifle.Period.He humps that thing wherever he hunts.I offer him light guns,he declines.I'm talking over 9000 ft he humps that thing,uphill.He is darn near 50 years old.
Its funny.I keep telling him the way he shoots,he could carry a single shot.
He just grins.
Last edited:
Doc and others:
Thanks for the Business Week link and thoughtful comments. I don't argue with the facts, but I still wonder if it's wise for the firearms industry to mass-market AR rifles for hunting, while also using SWAT/military imagery in their consumer advertising. To the anti's, isn't this just rubbing their nose in it?
Thanks for the Business Week link and thoughtful comments. I don't argue with the facts, but I still wonder if it's wise for the firearms industry to mass-market AR rifles for hunting, while also using SWAT/military imagery in their consumer advertising. To the anti's, isn't this just rubbing their nose in it?
Well, marketing being what it is, they try to sell excitement and glamour, and people respond to imagery. When is the last time you say an ad for an alcoholic beverage that showed the inside of a bar, complete with stained carpets, stale beer smell, fat drunks crying about the lousy way they were treated at work/home/the mall/ by their ex, and the reek of smoke? No, they are usually 30-somethings, outdoors in the sun, laughing, well-dressed, sipping on a clear beverage of some sort and having fun. Or a car ad that showed a driver filling up the tank on their Hummer? Or a hamburger ad that showed a squished-flat re-heated burger with wilted lettuce on a steamed bun next to a small pile of greasy, over-salted fries?
Doc Intrepid
New member
Heh....pretty good.Scorch said:
Actually, the marketing of firearms in the US is an interesting topic and what we're conversing about - the growing emergence of AR-type rifles in the hunting and sporting arenas - is a good example of the way that manufacturers must both create new markets to sell more firearms, and then must also design and manufacture new firearms that will appeal to buyers for use in these newly identified markets.
As polychoke observed, this trend will not bring joy to all observers. Here is an interesting example of how this comes across to anti's. The author, who is clearly an example of an anti, nevertheless provides a fascinating analysis of marketing firearms by manufacturers in the US, and the manner in which marketing has evolved, particularly in the last 30 years.
[in compliance with board policy the below citation comprises Chapter 3, written by Tom Diaz, of a book published by the University of Michigan Press entitled "Suing the Gun Industry" edited by Timothy Lytton (2005).] Here is the link:
[WARNING - written by an anti! Don't get escalated!]
www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch3.pdf
from --
http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailLookInside.do?id=102828
http://www.amazon.com/Suing-Gun-Industry-Crossroads-Violence/dp/0472115103
Readers of this board will certainly agree that handguns have gotten smaller, and high capacity handguns are common, and - now - that military-style weapons are more popular (or are being popularized) for a broader range of sporting purposes.
But whether the products are being designed to meet market demand, or whether market demand was created in order to sell products, isn't really conclusively treated. This is important because the thesis is that guns are being deliberately designed to be more lethal. Whether this is due to market demand, or due to an artificially created demand, thus has relevance.
Still, given polychoke's observation that anti's may look on these developments with dismay, it is an interesting read whether you agree with the author or not. (IMO)
Doc
Doc, as I was reading the Tom Diaz chapter that you linked, it didn't take long for me to remember that he was the author of "Making a Killing", which like this piece was both arguable and thought-provoking.
I haven't thought about this topic in a while, but it's all coming back to me...like Steve Martin's character in The Jerk, "Ah...it's a PROFIT deal."
I haven't thought about this topic in a while, but it's all coming back to me...like Steve Martin's character in The Jerk, "Ah...it's a PROFIT deal."
I'm in the Military and my weapons of choice are an AR-15, an FNAR (primary hunting weapon), a wide variety of polymer frame automatic handguns and one out lier - a Marlin 30-30 my grandfather gave me.
I'm sure if I were in the Army in 1860 I'd want something that you had to shove a stick down the barrel of to load as my personal weapon and I'm sure if I were in the Army in 1918 I'd want something with a turnbolt as my personal weapon. But seeing as how I'm in the Military in 2010, I want something synthetic with an aluminum receiver, pistol grip and semi automatic feeding from a box magazine. I don't feel like that's unreasonable at all.
I'm sure if I were in the Army in 1860 I'd want something that you had to shove a stick down the barrel of to load as my personal weapon and I'm sure if I were in the Army in 1918 I'd want something with a turnbolt as my personal weapon. But seeing as how I'm in the Military in 2010, I want something synthetic with an aluminum receiver, pistol grip and semi automatic feeding from a box magazine. I don't feel like that's unreasonable at all.