Using AR's or Similar Rifles for Big Game

Status
Not open for further replies.

22-rimfire

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
11,781
Location
TN
I was wondering how the membership feels about hunting with the semi-automatic para-military desgined rifles for things like deer where they are legal. Personally, I feel that these kinds of rifles are better kept at home during deer season as they give the appearance of a non-sporting approach to hunting. What are your feelings on the subject?

I am not against ownership, I just feel they may be inappropriate and feed the media distortions about hunting.
 
So long as the mag is either a 5 rounder, or blocked to only take 5 rounds (since this is the legal limit for hunting in most states) I have no problem with people using AR-15's, SKS carbines, or FAL's. Personally I think the .223 is a bit weak for deer and wholly unaccaptable for elk, but AR's can easily be set up for 6.5 Grendel, 6.8SPC, and other cartridges that can make it a fine rifle for such applications. The SKS is, ballistically, a semi-auto equivalent to the .30-30, and the FAL is a .308. Both are great deer calibers, and the .308 is also a pretty good elk round.

100 years ago there were probably plenty of people that thought an M98 Mauser was one of the
kinds of rifles are better kept at home during deer season as they give the appearance of a non-sporting approach to hunting.
and would have prefered that everyone hunt with muskets.

If I had an AR, I would probably stick a 6.5 Grendel upper on and take it deer and possibly elk hunting just to thumb my nose at the anti's.
 
Those that don't like hunting don't and won't care what weapon you use - they just don't like hunting. Those that are OK with hunting will probably think you're weird for using a paramilitary semi-auto, but won't care for the most part as long as you act like you know what you're doing.

I can't see how it matters one way or another.
 
I'm with rbernie. Those that don't like hunting don't care what the gun you're using looks like. I'll go even further and say a lot of the anti-hunting bigots probably can't tell the difference between an AR and a pre-64 Model 70. To them they're just ugly guns used by us Bambi killers.
Personally, I love the classic looks of a deeply blued, bolt action rifle with a nicely grained, rich walnut stock. Yet, my favorite hunting rifle is stainless and has a black synthetic stock. I like it's practicality. It doesn't rust as easily if I'm caught out in the rain or snow, it's stock doesn't swell or shrink with changes in humidity, I'm not as worried about scratching or denting it, and it seems like the synthetic stock dampens some of the recoil.
You should hunt with the rifle you're best with and you trust - as long as it's sufficiently powerful to cleanly take the game you're after.
 
Personally, I feel that these kinds of rifles are better kept at home during deer season as they give the appearance of a non-sporting approach to hunting. What are your feelings on the subject?

I am not against ownership, I just feel they may be inappropriate and feed the media distortions about hunting.
In short: TFB. If you are worried about media distortion, use the drive through at McD's (in your Prius of course).

If somebody wants to lug around an Garand, M1A, or a FAL, more power to them. A nice light AR15 in an appropriate caliber for the quarry makes a compact, user-adjustable and ergonomic package.

-z
 
As long as someone is using an appropriate caliber (enough for a clean kill), I think they should use whatever they want. It only makes sense to use what you are the most experienced with.

As someone else said, the anti-hunting crowd doesn't care what you use, whether it be rifle, "assault rifle," or bow.
 
I'm more concerned with using an appropriate caliber and round to take the animal cleanly with an ethical shot. That's why the State DNR's publish regulations detailing Min/Max Caliber, etc. Lack of knowledge about what is a proper tool just demonstrates ignorance. Insisting on using the incorrect tool after being told it not designed for the job at hand demonstrates stupidity.

The "style" of the tool that someone uses machts nichts to me.

I've had an anti tell me that my slug gun is an "assualt weapon" because I mounted a scope on it for Deer Hunting. :fire: :cuss: :banghead: :what: :evil: :eek: :rolleyes: :scrutiny:
 
One of my favorite hunting rifles is a Ruger No. 1 single-shot.

The challenge of hunting is making a clean kill with your first (and sometimes second) shot. If you need a 30-round mag as a confidence booster, spend more time at the 100-yd range. OTOH, if all one has is an AR/AK, then go ahead. But for sporting purposes, I recommend a 5-rd mag.
 
I guess my bias has to do with the cartridge and the skill of the shooter, far more than the type or the appearance of the rifle.

I'm sorta negative on what I consider the "marginal" cartridges. I think that if I don't hit where I really meant to, I have a better chance with something equivalent to a .308 than with a .223 or a 7.62x39. I like and have done well with the .243, but I'm really, really picky about shot placement.

If the shooter can deal with military sights, and has proven he can pretty much guarantee a hit on a paper plate from offhand at 100 yards, he oughta be reliable on a chest-cavity shot on Bambi. If he can't, he hadn't ought shoot, and oughta consider either doing something about the sights or go on and get a more conventional package...

FWIW, Art
 
Interesting thread, the farthest shot I have made on a deer was my first one at 80 yds. Dont really need my Browning Abolt for that, so this year I'm gonna use my Saiga 7.62x39 with the standard iron sights. I want the fun/challenge of using iron sights... of couse, a little nose-thumbing at antis is fun too! :p
 
Americans have been hunting with semiautomatic firearms for over a century now. I really can't see what all the fuss is about. The cartridge is what matters, and even more the bullet. The firearm is just the launching vehicle.
 
Cosmoline: There is no fuss. I just wanted to get a feeling about what folk's attitudes are about these firearms in terms of hunting.
 
I've carried a No 1 Mk IV SMLE Enfield out hunting, and no one thought a thing about it. It (the model, if not that specimen) was a military issued rifle in both World Wars. I've carried an '03 Springfield a bunch, but that hardly counts, as it was sporterized. Nobody would've thought a thing about it if it had been in full military trim, though.

And why would no eyes have been batted at my hunting with these two military rifles? Because they were bolt guns. I suppose that the assumption is that a semi-auto rifle demands that you spray your rounds indiscriminantly at your game. Hm. That sounds suspiciously like the Brady Bunch logic that the rifle has an evil spirit all its own that will cause you to do evil things. :( It's how you use it, y'all.

I've offered my SKS beater truck rifle, with soft point ammo out as a loaner to a happenstance hunter who had a license but no rifle and would have had a 50 yard max shot where he wanted to sit for an afternoon. He turned it down, and wouldn't have hunted, if the rancher hadn't driven back and gotten his old beater Sears brand .30-30 rifle for him (We hadn't known for sure if the rancher had his beater rifle with him, and it was imposition to have him go get it while my SKS was right there.) The man was actually willing to risk missing hunting (he only had one afternoon) on private land in a deer-rich area, rather than hunt with a semi-auto rifle with a non-detachable 10-round magazine! Look, it wouldn't have been my first choice, but rather than skip hunting, I'd use it in a heartbeat.

Maybe it's the number of rounds accessable that gives some the jitters. Okay-- getcha a 5-round shorty magazine. They're less bulky, anyway. I don't see loading more than ten in the rifle, anyway. (Funny thing, though: while hunting with that Enfield, I did load 10. Might as well carry all my ammo together...)
 
In Kali, you can have any number of rounds you want in your rifle. Kali still sucks though.
 
Funny you should ask!

I just got a couple 5-round magazines for this beauty:

aktitusville4.gif

If the media so chooses, they may follow me into the Wisconsin woods this fall and watch me fill my whitetail tag with it. I'd be very interested to see how they'd distort that one. ;)
 
i would never, ever, never, never, never, ever carry an ar/ak/whatever during a hunt. i don't particularly care to see them while i'm out hunting, either. however, it doesn't bother me enough to even say 1 word about it to the hunter and i couldn't give a rat's hiney what the anti-hunting set thinks, and will be the first to commend the hunter using such a weapon should he make a clean kill w/ it.

a gun is a gun is a gun. the hunter and the ability to use the weapon makes all the difference - cosmetics don't. enjoy the hunt, and don't worry about what others might think.
 
I'd be curious to hear Dakotasin's objection to AK/AR hunting use...

Because I *used* to take the same attitude. I have safes full of "proper" hunting rifles like Remington 700's, Browning BAR's, Winchester 94's, etc. So for years I wouldn't be caught dead in the woods chasing venison with a military-pattern autoloader. Then I realized I was being a gun snob, something I didn't like seeing in other folks. So I've overcome my prejudices, and will carry that SAR-1 into the woods this year. ;)
 
Dunno 'bout dakotasin, but my own objection to AK types and ARs is twofold: First, it's the awkward feel compared to my bolt-actions. I can get a first shot on target (in target?) faster with a bol-action.

Second, it's purely my own sense of aesthetics--if I gotta tote it and clean it and all that, I want to enjoy looking at it.

:), Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top