Not shallow at all. A decision based on a high probability from experience. It is not shallow because a range has to change their rules for safety sake and build unrealistic berms and barricades to contain bullets. Or having the cops called because the ranch 1 mile way has bullets zinging by, not shallow. A rancher with a dead cow right after the night time AR pigs hunters came through, not shallow, expensive.
The problem with this thread is that there are a lot of AR hunters that are responsible out there. And they all want to give their spill about how safe and responsible they are (I get it, I AR hunt too), and try to defend the masses with their story of the bolt gun guy that swung a muzzle their way, or the big caliber guy that couldn't hit crap.
ARs are here to stay, 75% or more of all rifle racks at the gun shops are black guns. Everyone needs to learn some safety and responsibility, not just the AR guys.

I am from Louisiana move to Texas about 4 years ago. And in Louisiana it isn't a big deal to hunt with AR style rifles. But here in Texas I see a lot of ranches won't let you hunt with them. What's the deal with this?

And I thought HF topic threads were long.

The AR offers the opportunity for multiple shots on deer. For that reason, some individuals will empty a magazine at an animal that is out of range or is escaping after a poor first shot.
The military decided to go with the spray shot technique after deciding that marksmanship was old fashioned and that new recruits were better off with the shotgun approach. IMO, a sad decision for all concerned.

Never understood why so many people get so worked up/bothered by internet discussions just because they may have some back-and-forth "heat" to them.

1)It's just an internet forum. Ain't nobody gonna bite anybody. If a thread upsets your sensibilities there are several easy options - not clicking on the "offensive" thread comes to mind.

2)It's hilarious to see folks on here who are obviously all frothing at the mouth calling everyone else "snowflakes", when they are obviously genuinely butthurt simply because someone disagreed with them on a internet forum. Lol, who's the real "snowflake"?

3)With some "heat" always comes "light". Threads with a little "back-and-forth" with different opinions are always a place to discover new perspectives and test old ones. For both "sides".

4)Longer discussion threads are simply more entertaining and engaging. This thread has 1773 views and 157 responses. And that's a bad thing? What do you gripers want? A forum full of "Here's what I'm eating" threads with 5 responses?

Many folks just want to post up, have everyone else agree that they are absolutely spot-on correct, and declare them King of the Topic. It simply doesn't work that way. And it would be a boring place if it did.

Maybe I just enjoy the "back-and-forth" because of my profession IDK.....

^^^ problem with having differing view points is it requires some to admit they might have had a wrong view point, not always, but hat can be a inevitable in some discussions (black is not white and white is not black, just like 2+2 can not equal 5) Getting someone to admit they are wrong is really problematic.

Similarly, if the "having differing view points" doesn't require one to admit they might have been wrong (different shades of grey or blue, what flavor of ice cream is the best, and other subjective type arguments) it certainly requires an open mind, something the schools have seemed to quash in a lot of students (who have now grown up or are growing up, physically but not necessarily mentally). I know higher education is supposed to foster open mindedness and free thought, but it seems some of the majors of study do nothing more than promote group think.

Which brings me back to saying having differing view points can be hard for some people to accept. For the most part the AR in deer hunting argument is one of taste, not right/wrong (sure one could argue that a fmj .223 isn't an effective deer killing bullet) just like any argument that is made about HF/lf, chevy/ford, camo/no camp, ozonics/hunting the wind, and the list can go on and on....

A .223 is either an effective deer round or it isn't.

I have to disagree with you there. It has more to do with the bullet than the cartridge. In terms of "effectiveness" a 223 with a bullet designed for deer hunting is a whole different animal than a 223 with an FMJ or a bullet designed for varmints.

Another variable is the deer hunting conditions. Under controlled conditions, limited range, undisturbed deer, etc. the 223 can be a very effective deer killer.

Not shallow at all. A decision based on a high probability from experience. It is not shallow because a range has to change their rules for safety sake and build unrealistic berms and barricades to contain bullets. Or having the cops called because the ranch 1 mile way has bullets zinging by, not shallow. A rancher with a dead cow right after the night time AR pigs hunters came through, not shallow, expensive.
The problem with this thread is that there are a lot of AR hunters that are responsible out there. And they all want to give their spill about how safe and responsible they are (I get it, I AR hunt too), and try to defend the masses with their story of the bolt gun guy that swung a muzzle their way, or the big caliber guy that couldn't hit crap.
ARs are here to stay, 75% or more of all rifle racks at the gun shops are black guns. Everyone needs to learn some safety and responsibility, not just the AR guys.

The dialogue seems to be conflating AR with 223/5.56, and those really are two distinct issues, rifles vs. round.

AR's and variants such as the SCAR 17 come in 308 as well.

Does that make any difference to the analysis?

I wonder if this same conversation went on during the change from single shot muzzle, breech load, lever action, bolts, auto.
The advancement to technology and design. Dah

Personally if I owned a deer lease I would not allow 223/556 for deer but no problem for hogs or coyotes.

That goes for a bolt gun also.

I think the old school deer hunters are the ones that have a dislike for AR's. An AR is the modern sporting rifle now and in my opinion it is the weapon to own if you hunt pigs. These dumbarse old farts who think otherwise need to move on with technology and advancement or retire already. Most of them just get drunk and sit in a box and take target practice on a deer and they look down on others as non hunters. lets see one of those old farts go stalk a pig in the woods and come up face to face at 30 yards with a 30-06 bolt and see what happens if you get charged.

Lets have them tell that to some of the professional pig hunters on here. You cant join our lease because you have shot 5000 pigs with an AR. Those guys are pros with AR's so their AR theory that it is for jackoffs is for idiots.

My AR is my main pig hunting weapon. I dont want to stalk pigs at close quarters in the forest with my 30-06. Thats crazy and stupid!

Given the caliber is sufficient to deliver a reliable kill shot, then yes, the need to carry a gun capable of firing so many rounds might come into question.

Of course, the elephant in the room is why carry a "combat gun" to shoot deer? But then, maybe that's why words like " tactical" or "modern sporting rifle" are now preferred in some circles.

Personally if I owned a deer lease I would not allow 223/556 for deer but no problem for hogs or coyotes.

That goes for a bolt gun also.

I think the old school deer hunters are the ones that have a dislike for AR's. An AR is the modern sporting rifle now and in my opinion it is the weapon to own if you hunt pigs. These dumbarse old farts who think otherwise need to move on with technology and advancement or retire already. Most of them just get drunk and sit in a box and take target practice on a deer and they look down on others as non hunters. lets see one of those old farts go stalk a pig in the woods and come up face to face at 30 yards with a 30-06 bolt and see what happens if you get charged.

Lets have them tell that to some of the professional pig hunters on here. You cant join our lease because you have shot 5000 pigs with an AR. Those guys are pros with AR's so their AR theory that it is for jackoffs is for idiots.

My AR is my main pig hunting weapon. I dont want to stalk pigs at close quarters in the forest with my 30-06. Thats crazy and stupid!

We used to stalk into herds of pigs and shoot them with bows.

They are pigs, not lions or leopards.


You don't need an AR to defend yourself against herds of pigs, your bolt action .30-06 is fine. Been doing drive hunts in Europe for decades not using AR's and they kill more boars than we do. Those are real boars too not the mutt hogs we shoot.

Pigs are not the blood thirsty animals people want to believe they are.

The energy of a .243 bullet at 200 yards, a caliber that some might question as being sufficient for deer, is roughly the same as the muzzle energy of the best performing .223 bullet. That is to say that, if you could shoot a deer with a .223 that's less than a foot away, the energy produced by the speeding bullet would be roughly equal to a .243 bullet at 200 yards.

The truth is always in the math.