Using AR style guns to hunt deer

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?

Small caliber usually. Sometimes it's an indication of a special person they don't want on their ranch.

.223

Can you explain this more for me please?

.223 is going to be roughly a 62 grain bullet. I'm guessing that the land owners want something with a little more heft so that it doesn't break apart. AKA, clean shot for a humane kill.

I could be wrong though.

Yep, the debate goes on that the .223 is not sufficient for deer.

Right or wrong, this is sometimes the perception. Unfortunately, we have had to kick 3 members out of our gun club last year for not following range rules and unsafe behavior. All three separate incidences involved guys with AR's. Kinda gives the rest a blackeye.

The deal is there are a lot more appropriate rifles to hunt deer with so ranchers would like folks to use them instead.

Thanks

It's a semi-automatic centerfire rifle. A semi-automatic centerfire rifle has been used to win wars since WWII and all have found their way on hunting trips. If a guy shows up with an M-1 Garand would that be an inappropriate rifle.

OP, I can understand a land owner having a minimum caliber policy, but I can't understand a no Armalite Rifle policy. I can also understand a locked open bolt policy. I don't trust safeties, I trust open bolts.

AR-15 available in 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, and 7.62 X 39 are plenty capable of cleanly taking coyotes, hogs, and deer.

AR-10 available in .243, 6mm Creedmoor, 6.5 Creedmoor, 7mm-08, and .308 are plenty capable, same as they are in any other type of action.

The hunter has to be safe, same as with any other type of firearm.

The vast majority are 5.56/.223. You know this. I know this. So chill.

A battle rifle is different than a hunting rifle.

A Garand is fine I guess caliber wise. Can you even mount a scope on it? Why one would want to tote the damn thing around hunting would be a mystery. But, I know you don't care about such nonsense as that. Suffice it to say I have never seen one in a hunting camp or at any ranch I am aware of. Never even heard of one being used. Suffice it to say they are not common in the hunting world.

Plus, it might just be a lot of ranchers' experience that many folks who insist on using ARs for hunting are more likely to be tacticool wannabe yahoos who know very little about hunting and have marginal safety practices. That's certainly been my experience at public ranges.

A lot of ranchers and outfitters don't allow them. They're not in the business of just gratuitously ticking people off. So I'm certain they have their reasons.

Chill? Where was I not?

Yes, battle rifle was built to kill men, it also does a fine job of killing animals. The LR-308 in the truck today will do a fine job of killing anything it's aimed at, should the need arise.

Garand is not common to hunt with. But it is a semi-auto .30-06, and that cartridge is one that is loved my many on this forum. I bet it weighs less than a couple bolt actions I've toted. Yes a scope can be mounted to it.

Some people create a stigma for everyone, else, but that is not the rifle's fault.

The "standard" AR platform (5.56/.223)has it's limitations just like any other firearm. The person behind the AR has a responsibility to know those limitations and his/her own proclivity toward messing up. I've hunted hogs with an AR and no one said a thing and a lot of the kiddos broke out for deer on .223 at shorter ranges, but at the same time we had a couple of guys on our lease who were asked to leave after shooting AR's, SKS's, & AK's at everything in sight including the camp house.

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.

^^That's not wrong^^

I've taught lots of vets on my range. Marines still believe in rifle marksmanship a little more than the rest, from what I've seen.

This, for sure.

I also agree that limited hunting/shooting experience and an autoloader are a bad combination. In the "do as I say, not as I do" category, the last two hogs that I shot were with an auto (BAR). I specifically bought the BAR for times when I wanted to use an auto (hogs, coyotes) at locations where an AR was socially unacceptable. FWIW, I think you just can't beat ARs (with appropriate loads/calibers) for hog and coyote shooting.

I use an AR for predator hunting, and it works really well for that. I've never taken it deer hunting, and can't see a circumstance in which I would want to. .223 is far and away the most commonly used round when I get calls for my tracking dogs, doesn't really matter what type of gun delivers it.

That's the kind of actual, real-world stuff that doesn't get mentioned by .223 supporters on the internet. Hear it all the time from guys who are out there in the real world and know the score. It's why I take all the "Every one I have ever shot with my .223 is DRT" type posts with a big old grain of salt. Even if there are a few experienced marksmen who shoot like Annie Oakley and do their culling with one, that doesn't describe the vast majority of folks who use them.

It doesn't accomplish anything to respond to posts that the .223 is "Thor's hammer" by just straight up calling BS on it, but I do it mentally all the time.

Does dressing like Annie Oakley count?

There are a few guys on here who have never missed. Heck, they've never even had one move out of its tracks. Neck and head shots only, baby! Nearly all of them use .223s.

I don't know what they dress like - but I always picture Rambo.

All this probably seems like a sidetrack from the OP, but it really is probably the answer to his question.

It's really as simple as this: if someone has a job to do and brings a tool that is wrong or marginal for the job - it's a pretty big red flag that he may not know what he is doing.

You wouldn't want a guy framing your house to show up with a tack hammer.

That's what runs through these ranchers' heads when they see a grown man show up to hunt with a .223.

Poor judgment isn't confined to AR shooters. Before ARs became popular I'm pretty sure deer were still being wounded and lost by bolt and lever guys, no? The only result this thread will have is the growing animosity some hunters have for the way others choose to hunt.

Agreed.

For the record, I have never, nor plan to use a .223 to deer hunt. I've got plenty of larger calibers to choose from. That's my policy, but it is not my job to make policy for other hunters.

Certainly. But almost as certainly not like what is more common today with the growing use of the .223 for deer.

I hear your sentiment all the time. It's really just "shut up - live and let live". It's a nice thought, but I'm not going to remain silent with my opinions as both the game itself and the image of hunters as respectful stewards of game suffers. Honest debate and self-policing are hallmarks of any group that seeks to maintain acceptance in society at large. So I won't apologize for it.

We have a rule on our 100 section mule deer place, as dictated by the landowner....no AR's allowed for deer hunting, period. Not only do I agree with it, I applaud it. Hunter's can play Rambo at the range IMO, or on a varmint hunt.

NP, have you had your coffee this morning? If so may I recommend decaf? lol

Debate is a great thing and no one is asking you to apologize for speaking your mind. However, I know you don't think a larger caliber rifle makes up for lack of skill/experience/judgment a hunter should possess, do you? That is the point I was trying to make. Oh, I should have added bowhunters to may list in my post above. Dang it.

sounds good to me. why should i apologize for what i believe.

No, it doesn't.
But the point is this: those that know how to do a job are going to use the proper tool for the job. There are some poor carpenters who have the proper tools, but the carpenters who don't even know what the proper tools are - are almost always poor carpenters.

See the posts on here from ranchers/outfitters.

When the exceptions/outliers to the rule start to be cited as examples, it simply proves the rule.

Using an AR doesn't have to be "playing Rambo", and saying it does shows your thoughts of the rifle. As I said, for me the .223 isn't sufficient for my deer hunting, but that's not a knock on AR's, they are still a useful rifle for other things, and just because they aren't your cup of tea doesn't mean they are somehow "wrong", or just for the tacticool rambos.

There are actually lively debates on some predator forums on whether or not .223 is sufficient for coyotes, with lots of guys swearing off of them because of spinners and runners.

You don't need to. But you shouldn't insist that others do so either. The debate (with facts) will inform others - who will make their own decisions based on what facts are presented.

And some "facts" are not really facts. Pushing back on those makes me a bad guy to some, but that's the nature of debate. Nothing can make the .223 a good deer round IMO - because it's simply too light a cartridge, and many better options are available. The laws of physics can't be changed.

I'd say it says more about the thoughts about many who insist on using the rifle to deer hunt, not the rifle itself. I know almost no one who has a problem with using a .223 for varmints or even hogs. Varmints are smaller and hogs are hogs - they all need to go.

I could never make myself believe i needed an ar. i have a 12ga. pump for the house. i have 270,308, 30-30, 444. for deer, elk 22-250 for varmints, 22 for bs
many people like an ar and that is fine

Any AR (somehow this became a 223 debate) that shows up at our place throws up a red flag. It is a stereotype that I am hoping wears thin, but I have seen too many hunters useless with one.
Just go to the counter at Bass Pro or Academy and listen to the guys looking for an AR. They are all talking stories of mowing down pigs and deer like they are hunting the Taliban. And who really needs a second shot on a deer? If you do, just jack another shell in the chamber, people think this is not possible with a bolt gun. Heck my daughter has shot at a sounder of pigs so quickly with here 243 bolt gun that those listening from the camp house thought she had a semiauto.
I kill more pigs a year (about 60) with my bolt than the entire lease next to me does with their AR spray-and pray hunters. And boy do they get excited when they finally get one.
Sorry, the stereotype is out there. The black-gun craze has made for a new type of unrealistic hunters.

For the record, the AR is easiest rifle on which to mount night vision sights for varmint / hog hunting. This alone gives it a significant advantage over other rifle styles.

I will admit up front that I am prejudiced against hunting deer with an AR-style rife, especially in .223. My immediate mental image is a Rambo wannabe, not a real hunter. I have seen too many AR-bozos at the public range who scare me. Yes, it is fun to shoot, but I just can't think of it as a serious hunting rifle. I was introduced to the M-16 in Viet Nam, where the practice was spray-and-pray, trying to kill other humans. I can't translate that to one-shot-one-kill hunting. If a guy showed up at my lease with an AR, I would be a little uneasy.

All the excitement over "Modern Sporting Rifles" just turns me cold. It's nothing more than marketing hype to sell more product.

I am encouraged by the many replies I see on this topic. I was beginning to think I was the only person left who was not on the AR bandwagon. Flame me all you like; I won't respond. I'm just telling you how I feel about the subject.

To each his own. If an outfitter or landowner says no ARs allowed, that is their prerogative. I'm sure they have their reasons, and as a hunter, you can change guns, or look elsewhere. Your prerogative. If you own your own land, or are on a lease where your partners don't care, who am I to judge.

There are benefits to ARs, mainly light and easy to carry. I prefer my other rifles for deer, but certainly not going to fault anyone for choosing differently. Just don't be a knucklehead and spray and pray, or take ill-conceived shots.

And I think many here will agree, as you become a more seasoned hunter, it becomes more evident that there are probably better weapons for the task.

This is the paradox of hunting with an autoloader of any kind, not just an AR. Autoloaders are unexcelled for controlled shooting of multiple hogs and coyotes, but only an experienced and practiced rifleman is able to use the capability effectively. Because novices and intermediates wish to be perceived as more advanced than they are, they embrace the equipment and trappings of more experienced hunters.

Exactly what is happening with the LR craze too. Same phenomenon.

And the animals are ones paying the price for it.

Unfortunately, I couldn't agree with you more.

I will admit to a personal prejudice when I see a guy deer hunting with an AR. My first thought is that the guy probably has no idea what he's doing. I may be wrong in some cases, but of all the experienced deer hunters I personally know, not one uses an AR.

I never said they didn't have a place, or weren't useful for other things, or weren't fun to shoot, did I? I said they have no place on our deer leases, and they don't.

Agree 100%

I've got two ARs. One in .223/5.56 and the other in .308 Win. Both run on hand loads tuned to the rifle, therefore there is a solid chance they can shoot smaller than MOST of what hits the field during any season. But I view them as nothing more than a tool for a job, and a necessary evil. Just the same way I feel about a reciprocating saw. I hate to use it, but sometimes it's the right tool for the job. Force me to pick one platform to use on everything, forever, and it will be a bolt action. And yes, I can cycle and shoot very fast, and also make hits. But when the matter of a full sounder of hogs comes up, I want that LR-308 in my hands, and 20 rounds loaded. That's not what I want when whitetail, mule deer, or elk hunting.

I hunt a 106 section mule deer place. Laws should state if you hunt 99 sections or less you are allowed to use a AR but if its over that then no

Post up the facts that show long range hunters wound more animals than bow hunters. You are very quick to criticize hunters that don't hunt like you do. That's why you are all over this thread as well.

A lot of lumping stereo types all together in this thread. Assuming all ARs that are used for deer hunting are .223, wrong! Your a Rambo hunter if you use one, wrong! I've used one in 308 the last few seasons and it is a fabulous weapon for deer, hogs and anything else it shoots. I will challenge anyone in this thread to a shooting contest with bolt guns, semi, you name the rifle and let's see if I'm playing Rambo.

As a landowner you have the final say period. But I don't know why you wouldn't manage hunters any differently other than have them shoot their rifle and prove they are proficient and safe with it before allowing them to hunt with it. Requiring a minimum caliber to hunt deer with is not unreasonable.

Well stated Marc.

Rifle is not the problem it is the person behind it that creates the issue.

We don't have mule deer, only whitetails on our 107 section place, and we tend to judge the hunter by their actions, not his/her equipment, rifle, truck, camo pattern, cooler brand preference, etc...

I prefer my bolt guns for accuracy, but I had a PSG-1 that was plenty accurate, and our Sig 716 is plenty accurate for deer, and is also easily suppressed, optics changed, and offers very little recoil, which often makes for better shooting in the first place.

I'd rather have a competent hunting partner using a .223, than most that show up with the 300+P++P Rigby AI Express Superduper Magnum.

Good thing it's up to the landowner to dictate who, what, where, etc.

[quote=sig226fan (

I'd rather have a competent hunting partner using a .223, than most that show up with the 300+P++P Rigby AI Express Superduper Magnum. [/quote]

I'd have to agree with this as well. We had a guy show up once on a mule deer hunt with his new 30-378 Wby, and the minute we picked him up he started talking about his new rig and what wonderful shot he was. He proceeded to miss 26 times over a 5 day period because he was scared to death of his rifle.

if you had 108 sections I bet you would see some mule deer

Oh fellas, can't y'all go back to running thru the countryside wearing nothing but a loin cloth, and a spear in your hand? Us girls would appreciate it, and probably pay cash money to watch.


Carry on gent's.

Have you actually met some of these people, Janie? Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!

After guiding for a number of years, and running tracking dogs for a few years less, I can say without hesitation that "bozos" aren't confined to using AR's. They also use bolt guns, often very large ones. Instead of subscribing to the "spray and pray" theory that many here feel an AR user is likely to have, they believe that the sheer power of a magnum round will overcome their lack of proficiency and marksmanship.

People should be careful buying into stereotypes, you might be in one yourself and not even know it.

so true

Yup.

Stereotyping gets a bad rap.

Sometimes that's all you've got to go on. So if it fits, it's better than making an assumption that runs contrary to one's real world experiences.

Kinda like assuming a guy approaching you wearing a hoody late at night in a dark parking garage is there to sell you Girl Scout cookies.

I see the same people who rail against stereotyping on AR shooters, LR shooters, HF hunting, etc. engaging in all manner of stereotyping when it comes to other things they want to stereotype.

AR platform rifles would be more accepted in the hunting community if people were more educated.

Jtprocaddie has a great training and instructional vid on hunting with AR platform rifles

Yeah, and you're as guilty of it as anybody.

One type rifle that I have rarely seen in the hands of a good hunter is an AR. I have seen several new hunters buy AR type rifles first, not understanding the limitations of the 223 round. As for an AR in 308 or any of the other good hunting rounds, those are most likely going to be bought and used by competent hunters, not the newbies.

I guess I should get an AR.
Nah I like my 7mm-08 bolt action.

I committed a serious hunting faux pas when I took an HK-91 assault rifle on a deer hunt at my old mans corp deer lease/beer joint/party-till-you-pass-out camp in Palo Pinto co. back in the mid '70's. My dad is old school when it comes to hunting & fishing as are his friends, some of whom were WWII and Korean War vets including one fella that was a mentor of mine and an exceptional man that I respected greatly. He jumped out of a burning C-47 into Normandy on D-Day and fought all the way to Berlin. Needless to say, he knew a thing or two about firearms.

When he saw that rifle, (You're hunting with a......a what? An assault rifle? A GERMAN assault rifle? OMFG, have you lost your mind??!!). The look on that mans face went from 0 to 60 in an instant, followed by loud profanity and a spit laced tirade on the need to hunt deer with the proper hunting rifle, a rifle properly suited for the rigors of a " sporting gentleman". In his opinion, the only firearm suitable for hunting deer or other large game is a bolt action rifle .

I had some nice wood stocked bolt action rifles and a Thompson Contendor as well but they looked so darn pretty that when I'd go hunting, I was worried I'd scratch the wood or mess up the finish. I'd gotten them as gifts and they still looked new, and I wanted them to stay that way. The problem when you get a nice shiny new toy is the knowledge that it's gonna get scratched eventually. Unless you put it up and get another toy you can't mess up as easily. And that H&K-91 was the perfect hunting rifle. It was built like a tank, accurate, reliable, didn't care if it was wet or muddy, and cheap. I paid less than $600 when I bought it new.

my issue with them is the cartridges they are chambered for. a .223 or a 6.8 spc is not a good deer round. in a .308 yes they are fine, but I don't see the point in using one. Yes, they are accurate, but so is my bolt gun. I can shoot, rack the bolt and be back on target about as fast as a guy shooting a AR-10 can. AR's in my experience of using and owning them, they are not that handy to carry. I think they are neat to shoot and cool to own, but as far as being hunting rifles, there are much better options out there both in terms of rifles and the rounds they are chambered for.

I will also say this, after guiding hunters for many years....You show up with an AR to hunt with, at most ranches, they are not going to take you seriously. you show up to hunt with an SKS or a Mini-14 they are going to think the same thing....don't know why its any different with an AR

It's hunters like him that fit very well into the spray and pray category. I was thinking of him this morning when I started reading this thread. Someone should post that video of him emptying his mag on that sounder of hogs and not hitting one of them.

I don't know how in the world these stereotypes perpetuate!

Those are some sick shades dawg

Yep. I just said stereotypes are not always inaccurate. People just don't like it when the shoe fits them.

Sometimes they are. But 53 years of living has given me the tools to separate the BS ones from the useful ones most of the time.

The AR one for deer hunting is a pretty useful one. A reading of this thread and the experiences on here shows why.

Everyone gets stereotyped. Being an old white redneckish type person, Lord knows I do. I just choose to not get all butthurt about it. I just laugh and go on with my life.

The polar opposite of the Rifle Snob ( the guy who won't touch a gun unless it wears Grade V Turkish walnut, High gloss Bluing, custom inlays and engraving, with a fine German Optic on top ) is the Call of Duty hunter.

The Call of Duty hunter is a person who didn't grow up hunting, but he wants to prove himself a man so he takes the gun he is most familiar with (AR platform rifles from, Duh, Playing Call of Duty) afield and attempts to mow down animals as if they were the viet cong. Hunting for this guy is all about Image & Machismo and very little about the thrill of the hunt, pursuit of the quarry or the sheer adrenaline rush of the kill....its all about doing it to say he did.


I've hunted with both types, and although the aforementioned hunter can be annoying, I far prefer him to the latter

Reminds me of Animal House. "A wimp and a blimp."

Do it like NP does it or you are wrong.

Just be thankful you're not a lawyer.

I can find plenty of pictures of guys who pretty well have their stuff together, with AR's, some pretty talented and knowledgable shooters who fit an entirely different stereotype. Dunno that they would advocate hunting deer with one, but they could decidedly contradict the open carry db's image.

Straw man there. A fair reading of everything I have written shows that's not at all what I have said.

Think I'd prefer to just hunt with regular old rednecks and stay away from both.

already have mine on bolt

There is a retired army guy in AK who loves his AR-10 and uses it for everything from wolves to moose. He is well-known and respected in the hunting community. I would not bat an eye if he were in camp with me.

Why? No need to use a stereotype when the man's skills/know-how are a known quantity.

Now this is fair. For a lawyer.

I wrote a long brilliantly insightful post about alienating potential new hunters during an era when we have a declining base of support, and face a growing well organized and financed opposition, but it was disallowed because there was more than 4 quotes. I thought about rewriting it, then realized it's probably not worth the time, grumpy old hunters gonna be grumpy old hunters, and I'm honest enough with myself about myself to know that I probably contribute to that.

Me too. I have to admit that, at the end of the day, more people getting into hunting is almost certainly a net positive. Whoever they are. We need the warm bodies.

My hope is that debates like this cause at least some to realize that, once in - there might be a better way to skin the cat.

When I go the the local rifle range with my walnut stocked bolt actions and see that the vast majority of shooters now are using black rifles, I am encouraged because there are now more guns owners/enthusiasts than there were. This can't be a bad thing for second amendment supporters.

I suppose there will always be some " my way is the best way" attitudes in areas that we all feel passionate about. But IMO, it would be nice if we could do a little less criticizing of each other and a little more supporting of each other. The old hang together, or hang separately thing!

Be great if that sentiment was extended to everyone that has earned it.

Not sure where you're coming from with that. I have said a dozen times that my LR hunting stereotypes don't apply to you personally - in fact have taken great pains to do so and even set forth why (back-patting you in the process).

Can only surmise you are fishing for me to do so yet again. So consider it done if it makes you feel better.

I get we have gone back and forth about gear but the biggest issue with many LR hunters is shooting at stuff they are just hoping to hit. I don't have any doubts that if you have an animal in your scope you are willing to pull the trigger on it is in grave danger.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

None of that applies. I need nothing from you. Only, stop writing like a hypocrite.

OK. Kinda hard to not thinking something is going on when you call me out like that. A dozen others on this very thread have said exactly what I have said, yet my posts are always the ones you block quote and respond to.

So the "getting all indignant" act is kinda, say, hypocritical?

I really don't care what rifle a person hunts with. But from my own observations I have seen that there are more poor shots from those that use AR type rifles. And I am not saying everyone that uses it can't shoot, just stating what I have observed here.

Those that hunt with AR's can't make a quality hunting video either.

Guess your memory doesn't work.
Forget it, not worth the hassle.

Although it's not my preferred weapon of choice for hunting whitetail, I just care to have any guy that can accurately shoot their legal weapon.

Come to think of it, I have more difficulty with all the extra stuff hunters want to take into the woods for a three sir than I do with the rifle caliber they are using. And in some other cases, the lack of just quality optics will make a bigger difference over the caliber they are using.

Why does anyone care what the next person hunts with? Seriously, who gives a damn. I hunt with bolt guns and AR's, just depends what I'm hunting for. Either way it is an appropriate gun for the situation. It is a bit ridiculous the animosity and stereotypes getting thrown out here.

Some just can't get over the fact that others don't think or do exactly what/like they do. And some....usually the same ones....have no clue of the difference between fact and opinion. Then state their opinion as fact, and criticize others who disagree for pushing back against fact, which is really nothing but their opinion in the first place.

Preach!!!

The fact is that a lot of folks on this thread who own land/ranches for hunting have had a lot of crappy experiences with many AR hunters. And have overall low opinions of them as a result. To the point of not allowing them to set foot on their property.

If one can read, that's apparent.

Especially if the AR is a 300 BLK

I've never been at the range when someone was trying to play Rambo with a semi-automatic that wasn't an AR style firearm. They are without question, a primary toy for men who never grew up.

It's because they are black, isn't it?

If one can read, it points out in this thread there are numerous examples landowners and guides have had crappy experiences with bolt gun hunters and their magnum rifles....and have the same low opinions counselor.

Some people are just scared of black rifles.

I don't understand. Are you saying that you've been to a range where people were playing Rambo? like rolling around in the dirt and jumping out of trees? And when they did it with a semi-auto it was an AR? What did they use when they used a bolt gun? And what is a "primary toy"? And is it really without question? There's not even a chance that they are something other than a "primary toy"? I'm sure these answers are obvious to everyone, and I'm just slow this morning, but I really am clueless on this post.

I went to range that had to make a "no rapid fire rule" and even went as far to put up railroad ties to shoot between because of knuckleheads that would stand and spray at pray at 100 yard targets. They finally closed the 200 yard range because guys with ARs would stand and freehand at the backstop in the distance. Knucklesheads.

Ok, on the rapid fire thing. I'm an avid predator hunter. It's a type of hunting that sometimes calls for pretty quick 2nd and 3rd shots, sometimes more. I believe strongly in proficiency, so I practice taking a shot, and as quickly as I can getting back on target, or transitioning to a second target, and delivering an accurate shot, then do it again. Sometimes if the range is pretty quiet, and the RO gives the go ahead I will even do it from a seated position on the ground off shooting sticks. It would be easy for grouchy old hunter to show up and say: "look at this yahoo playing Rambo with his rapid fire", when what I'm actually doing is responsibly honing a skill that is relevant to the hunting I'm doing.

You would be welcome to do that at my range, because you are right.

We also have the no rapid fire rule. Two of the guys kicked out of our gun club were warned twice. They weren't practicing a rapid follow-up shot. They were emptying their magazine. After the third time (on different days) being busted by the range master, their access was cut off. The third guy was repeatedly shooting a flag pole to see if he could cut it down. Not only was he kicked out, but the club filed a report with the sheriff's office for vandalism.

In about 15 years of guiding, I've taken a gun away from a hunter twice for muzzling me repeatedly despite at first polite reminders, both had bolt guns. A guy I've guided with had a hunter take a rest on the bed rail of his truck, and shoot through the other bed rail, he had a bolt gun. There is a hole in the roof of one of the Rangers on a ranch I guide on...bolt gun. You can keep trying to make it about the gun all you want, but I have enough real world experience to know better.

Compadre, I have no problem with AR's. I have no problem with the owners of AR's. My point is, there are a few jackasses that have been playing too much Call of Duty. That is the "special type of person" that was referenced by another on page 1 of this thread. They give the rest of yall a bad name. If you want to get butthurt at someone, get butthurt at them.

Yeah, because I quoted your post, I guess that seems sort of directed at you, but was intended more towards the attitude that AR's are indicative of Summer's Eve/Masssengill syndrome. I'm just trying to point out that the syndrome isn't limited to, or even dominated by AR guys (of which I don't really consider myself one of, just find it a useful tool for predator hunting). My bad in appearing to address that directly at you bud.

BTW, I like the "Summer's Eve/Masssengill syndrome". I may steal that in the future!

There's some truth in that. Personally my AR's serve two purposes. #1) pig hunting/eradication work. #2) Have one dedicated as a SHTF gun. I don't care what someone hunts with as long as they are handling their weapon safely and are proficient with it. I get the cool tacticool factor that apeals to many (I'm old school myself). I work with a few guys that have tacticool gun collections that you wouldn't believe, to each their own. As a life long hunter and ex guide myself believe me I have seen MANY people with large caliber bolt guns that they were not proficient or safe with, resulting in many hours and late nights for me trailing wounded deer...while the guy with the "not sufficient" caliber rifle has another deer on ice/or in walk in and is sitting around the campfire already. A lot of judgemental people around here. Very quick to stereotype someone because of the type of gun they hunt with, caliber, shot placement, distance, brand of cooler they use, what their truck looks like, what kind of dog they have, if they carry a sidearm, tattoos, the list goes on...some on here just (the same few most of the time) simply cannot get it through their thick skull that often times people do things differently than you, successfully, and consistently. I no longer take my kids to the range I grew up on on the weekends because of too many idiots. Time before last - old man sent one down range with a bolt gun @ the 200 yard mound, while a young man was stapling his target @ the 100. Last time, sitting in my truck with my teenagers waiting for a table to open up. Had table full of young men with AR's and AK's. One young man was having trouble cycling his loaded AR and turned around in his chair pointing the damn thing right at us. Yes he got a toungue lashing, and we left. Stereotype and judge all you want, but dum dums come in all flavors.

I've had people offer me money to put clothes on at deer camp

AR's are not my cup of tea, but if AR's get more young men and women interested in shooting and hunting, I'm all for it.

What is really good about the AR ban debate is that it is teaching a generation about the dangers of the unchecked powers of a government vs. its citizens.

If they do not have great shooting and safety skills, help teach them instead of sitting around criticizing.

Personally, I could care less what someone uses to hunt as long as they are safe, and are conscious of making humane shots that drop the animal without suffering.

This last factor means actually learning how to shoot and then practicing, which is uncommon for the vast majority of hunters.

Most hunters I see are way overgunned, way undereducated about how to shoot, and way way underpracticed.

Never fails to amaze me that women and kids can reliably drop deer and pigs with a 243 (not so sure about 223, but that is a different dialogue), yet grown men need the latest 300 Uber Mega Mag with zombie stomper ultra terminal tactical death ray bullets.

To me, hunting should be done with respect for the animal, humanely striving to avoid the animal suffering, and remaining mindful that it is taking life.

Whatever tools help the hunter best achieve those goals, I'm all for regardless of what it looks like.

To the deer on the receiving end, it matters not whether the bullet comes from a rifle with fancy wood or plastic for a stock.

To the deer, the best he can hope for is an instant flip of the switch from this life to the next.

The person with a mega mag flinging lead without really practicing is worse than someone who can proficiently put a bullet into the brain from an AR or "sniper rifle." I include "sniper rifle" because I've heard similar comments about my preferred bolt rifle which has a synthetic stock and Nightforce scope. I have fancy wood too, but the workhorse is the one that actually goes hunting.

I've been shot. It is a very unpleasant experience and feels like being hit by two NFL linebackers and then burns like being on fire.

No animal deserves to go through that experience. They surely don't have a team of doctors on standby waiting to help.

I strive to drop an animal where it stands with a CNS shot whenever possible, or a high shoulder shot when a CNS cannot be assured.

What matters is proficiency in producing DRT results. That only comes through practice.

Hunters who shoot off a lead sled once a year bother me far more than someone with an AR that practices regularly.

Conversely, some jackass spraying a mag at a sounder of pigs ought to be beaten with his rifle for causing animals to suffer.

The result is what matters. The tool only matters to the extent it enables the hunter to reliably produce a humane kill. And, it is killing, taking life, not harvesting ears of corn in a field.

We must remain mindful and respectful of what we are doing. There are times when taking life is justified, whether animals or humans, but it remains the taking of life. Whether using a fancy wood rifle or a plastic AR, it still is taking life.

Just my perspective.

My fancy wood 30-06.



Not an AR, but in the same vein in the eyes of some. 308 with 175 SMK's.

I was you jeffbird, until I saw that MOA scope.

One thing that I don't think was mentioned in all this (sorry couldn't wade through all the crap
On pages 4-7 on here about the redneck stereotyping and stuff)....

The 5.56 was not adopted by the us military as a killing machine. It was adopted as a sounding machine. You kill a man and it just takes one person out of the fight. You wound a man and it takes 2-4 guys out of the fight.

I have no problem with someone using a different caliber AR style gun for deer hunting, but make sure the round and the bullet match what you are wanting to do with it. Don't bring a man-wounding gun to a big game party.


Now, before I get beat up, I realize the 5.56 fmj rounds used are not hunting rounds, but still, the weapon wasn't designed to kill as much as maim, and in hunting we want to kill cleanly and not maim our prey.

Maybe if they came with wood stocks everyone would be happy.

I have seen a couple, both were handmade out of Turkish walnut by the same woodcarver. He isn't a gunsmith or a gunstock maker, but a woodcarver, these were his own personal weapons.

Got reliable source oor this myth?

It isn't a myth, I heard the same thing in 1968 at FT Benning.

Has anyone said "it ain't the arrow, it's the Indian" yet?

Let's not spoil it.

I had a customer that was in O.I.F. He said the soldiers and Marines called it "fanning". The enemy would look like they're wiping away a wasp when hit. Course this was beyond 300m where the 5.56 starts to get pretty whimpy.

Look in the archives of "American Rifleman" and there's an article titled "Taking back the half mile". Tells of M-14's coming out of storage to be pressed back into service. The Taliban learned if they fight from 400m + the 5.56mm hasn't got much whoop [censored] left. Sooo....they brought out the ole 7.62 X 51 to deal with it.

So what Texas Buckeye wrote is believable for me.

myth
I keep hearing antidotes of this, but I have yet to find a reliable source on it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a good round for hunting something that can shoot back.

In February 1969 my Company was almost overrun, I was the acting LT for 3rd Platoon, we had 2 M60s and about 22 men, so about 18 were feeding M16 ammo to the NVA, and the 2 machine gunners were feeding 7.62 NATO style rounds. I could watch the tracers and see them fall. At the same time I could see the NVA soldiers keep coming knowing that I had hit them at least once.

The M16 will kill, no doubt about it, was it designed to wound, no it was designed to stop the enemy. After the sun came up, we searched the dead, we found several NVA soldiers that had been hit a bunch of times but was still breathing. There were also many blood trails into the surrounding tree line.

The M16 is a great weapon, it has many great attributes, the main one, it is lighter than a M14, the ammo is lighter. The latter is a big factor when you are humping the boonies carrying 22 or 33 magazines. But if I had a choice and did not have to carry a lot of extra crap, I would take an M14 into combat before a M16 or the current issued weapon.

Thank you for sharing that DC.

I'll see if I can dig up my veteran customer's information. I'll send you his contact info, if he approves, and you can call him a liar yourself.

Nice "sniper rifle" jeffbird! AI AE???

Thank you for sharing, sir.

I've thought for years, if "they" wanted to send me to war with 200 pounds of ammo. I'll take 7.62mm please. I promise to make every one count.

Launched about 14 of em about 1 1/2 hours ago, 300 to 700 yards, in this big wind, and out of an AR type rifle. Yup, they still work.

I don't argue that it may be myth, but I was a military physician. It was told to me during my military medical training and both times I qualified on the weapon (expert marksman btw but never wore the ribbon).

I can't tell you for sure if the myth is true or not, but I do know the weapon will kill. If it is a myth, it is being propagated by the military itself, probably as a testament to its weak wounding nature at distance. Very few engagements these days are at close quarters, most are hundred of yards away. There are definitely exceptions to that and certain campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan were certainly close quarter combat situations. Again, don't jump on le for that statement.

I can tell you I saw plenty of wounds from all manner of calibers when I was in Iraq (again, as a military surgeon) and saw plenty that didn't kill. We ever had an guy come in with a sniper bullet (prob .308 but I don't know for sure, but it was an American sniper that shot the dude) that lodged between the bifurcation of the carotid artery and was just resting nicely there. Shot placement helps, but it wasn't that guy's day to die. The sniper then walked over 400 yards to go pick up the guy and bring him back to safety so a medevac cold get him and bring him in. Sniper said the guy was swearing at him and giving him the finger the whole time. True story. Got plenty more, but that's another day.

I respect that. I wish a lot more hunters would practice from real situations and not just from the bench. Your not always in a box blind with a sand bag on a window sill. That goes for any type of hunter. Bow hunters too will often not realize they are shooting a little different when sitting in a chair and not standing. I see it happen a lot and they miss if their posture changes.

AI AW.

Thank you.

Thank you sir!! I am sure you saw some stuff that most of us only have nightmares about. Thanks for making it home and being able to tell the stories.

I read a lot of story's about the lurps ( long range reconnaissance patrols)


Those were some bad arse mofo's for sure

Sometimes I laugh when I see things like this, when I was wounded it was the day Tet Offensive of 1969 started. I was shot in the chin, when I was medivaced to Ben Hoa, the other 3 WIA, my RTO, my NCO and point man were in a lot worse shape. I was ambulatory, as I bailed off in Ben Hoa a medic grabbed and lead me off, I protested, I wanted to go with my men. But he took me to a Dentist, which happened to be the brother of the medivac pilot. The Dentist looked in my mouth and said okay, shot me with deadener in the chin and sewed up the gunshot wound. 36 hours later I was sipping cold beer in the NCO club at Camp Drake Japan. 4 weeks later I was inbound back to my unit.

I love my ARs.

There is no rhyme or reason to death blows in combat, as I am sure you are fully aware. Had a guy come in unresponsive. his buddies (marines) said they were all standing around talking outside their hooches and this guy just passes out, they can't get him awake. He comes in to the hospital - Breathing and heart rate but unresponsive - CT showed a bullet entered on top of skull and bounced around in his head a few times. Neurosurgeons said that since it crossed the midline he wasn't ever going to wake up.

So sad, they never even heard the gunshot. Only thing we all could figure is someone was shooting in the air in celebration or something from a long way away, the trajectory was not straight down, it was about a 30 degree angle from Top to bottom of path.

Your story is much the same, only for the better.

Much respect.

I'll see if I can dig up my veteran customer's information. I'll send you his contact info, if he approves, and you can call him a liar yourself. [/quote]

Changed my mind. After that suggestion, you're not worth my time.

Edit to add. I could listen to yalls stories all day.

D.C. thanks for sharing and for being a bad [censored] mofo! I appreciate it and so do my kids!

Back on topic. Ar hunters are a stereotype. We all judge people based on first impressions. Shallow people can't get beyond the stereotype. I'm sorry to say but if you shown up in a deer camp with an ar and tactical pants you will be stereotyped same as the guy that shows up with an uber mag and starts bragging on it.

I've taken ribbing about my pants before, I don't wear blue jeans when I hunt as I read deer see blue particularly well. They have to have something to give me stuff about, but they can't say I don't get on plenty of deer. So stereotype at your own peril, and when choosing a guide, look at more than his pants...

So you have never judge anyone before you got to know them? Like i said shallow people can not get past a sterotype. I didn't say anything about choosing a guide. It's human nature to start forming an opinion as soon as we see someone. It sucks but it's true.

Sure I have. As I said earlier in this thread, I'm as guilty of it as anyone. But I try to be better today than I was yesterday, and I have been shown on many occasions that my first impression was wrong. It's teaching me to be more open, and to listen as much as I look. Seem to learn more that way.

Oh, and I was just being (apparently not very) funny about the pants...although I have listened to plenty of BS about "safari pants".

Depending on the day i could fit most of the stereotypes people have listed. I grab the gun that fits my mood. Some days that may include an ar mag dump just because. Im the guy that will put multiple holes in my pray if it's still standing even if i know the first shot was fatal. Better blood tails and less tracking. Ar, bolt, lever, or single shot doesn't matter.

Wendy O. Williams...... 6 Pages

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.

Don't confuse the masses with logic......It's a thread killer!

What's the deal with this? After 150 replies, I hope you have your answer.

And I thought HF topic threads were long.

They are the same conversation. Each group telling the other group that the way they do things is better.

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.....

My military training different than yours... & prior ta military hunting was old school, .45 kentucky rifle... Can see point of view bye land owners... Hunted hogs (a lot tougher than deer), with my AR at WMA... .223 with cheap 55gr fmj & hp, had no problems with taking hogs...

I agree. If one is able to read an opposing point of view with an open mind, there is always the opportunity to learn, if not new information, at least about a different perspective. These threads are much more interesting than "look what I did/pat on the back" threads. They are OK, but not particularly thought provoking. I really don't understand why people get so emotional over opposing view points, in this thread or others...if your not open to at least hearing another idea, maybe read a book or something.

^^^ 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....

Part of the reason people do get so defensive about differing viewpoints is because they don't understand the difference between "wrong", and "not right for me". I'm not going to tell anyone they can't hunt with a .223, I mean it is legal, and as a matter of fact I've made quite a bit of money tracking deer shot with a .223, but it's not the right choice for my hunting, nor do I even choose for my kids to hunt with it (and they love shooting an AR). So my point of view is that .223 is inadequate, but I am secure enough that I'm not going to get bent out of shape at someone who prefers to hunt deer with one. I'm going to give them my number, and think about what I might buy with the $400 they could potentially pay me for finding their deer, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape.

Well, I don't argue things very strenuously if I feel they are simply "Ford/Chevy" type deals. Some are
obviously in that category. Some are not - even though many who think they have the "right" side of the topic want to characterize them as such.

If I am "into" a discussion, IMO it is more than a "Ford/Chevy" debate. I can certainly accept that others feel differently, but that doesn't make them right just because they characterize it as such.

This topic provided a couple of good examples.

A .223 is either an effective deer round or it isn't. The discussion is more than academic, because whether one chooses to hunt deer with one or doesn't has real consequences for both the .223 user and the deer they hunt.

Many AR shooters either have issues that translate poorly in the hunting field or they don't. Again, a real-world topic with real-world consequences for those that own hunting properties.

So IMO much more than a "Ford/Chevy" debate about preferences.

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.

How does everyone feel about semi auto pistols vs. revolvers? If a guy does a mag dump out of a Semi auto pistol, does he get the same look as the "guy" that does a mag dump out of an AR? For those that don't like ARs, do you own semi auto pistols?

This whole thread was about AR Style rifles and hunting.(not necessarily .223 caliber)Currently I own ARs in the following calibers: .22, 9mm, .223, 6.8 SPC and 6.5 creedmoor. I also use barrels from 10.5" up to 22". I also run suppressors on each of them. Each one has its own job or purpose. Whether it's shooting coons at 20 yards or shooting steel at a 1000 yards.

Before I switched over to hunting with ARs, I was using s 7mm TC Encore(Single shot). Once we started getting hogs, it became easier to shoot with a semi auto. Plus, the ARs make it easier to mount lights, IR lasers, NV/thermals etc.

Carry one

Correct. Example - my brother-in-law. We've hunted our place in S Texas for about 20 yrs together and all he has ever used is an old 223 bolt gun passed down to him. In all these years he's lost 1 deer and that was his fault for taking that shot. He knows the gun's limitations. Shoots a good deer bullet. Keeps shots under 150 yrds (75-100 yrd shots most of the time). No, he doesn't take that gun to West Texas mule deer hunting, he takes his 270...which he's not very good with. I don't deer hunt with a 223 but he sure does good with his.

Don't confuse the masses with logic......It's a thread killer! [/quote

I agree with you. Ar hunters get a bad rep because everyone is watching them. They are the new kids. Some people remember the good ones but e everyone remembers the bad ones. A few idiots are ruining it for everyone else.

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.

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!

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've not used 223 for hunting, so will not opine on that, but certainly would be comfortable a SCAR 17 could cleanly kill a deer or a pig without any trouble.

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

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.

Your comment brings up a very good question.

Colt introduced the first civilian version of the ArmaLite (AR) 15 rifle way back in 1964. And yet, if you had carried one when I first began hunting deer as a teenager some ten years later, someone might have questioned your sanity.

Why it took decades for these rifles to catch the attention of so many deer hunters is a very good question.

I don't disagree with you on any of that at all. (Except maybe the pig "charging" part, but that's another topic.)

I don't see anything wrong with carrying a gun with 10 rounds, sometimes I use a 20 round when predator hunting, no reloads needed, 30 rounders start effecting carry weight.

As for "combat rifle" pretty much everything that goes into the woods goes back to what was at one time a "combat rifle" whether it be Mauser or Springfield or whatever, just from a different time frame. They are all some generation's "combat rifle". There have been tons and tons of deer killed with all kinds of surplus rifles over the years.

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.

+1

if the truth is always in the math, the 223/64gr PP has more KE at 200 yards than a 240gr 44Mag pistol bullet does at the muzzle. So can we conclude that the 44Mag at 1 foot away is less viable than the 223 at 200 yards?

Your math may be correct, but to directly correlate KE to on game performance is not valid.

Great addition JJH...now we can add hunting with pistol rounds to the mix.

Might as well stretch this thing our as far as we can. Is there a record we are reaching for?

No, because of the heavier bullet weight and energy needed to maintain a killing velocity at longer distances, we can conclude a 44 Mag is far less capable than the .223 at creating reliable kill shots at 200 yards.

OK here's my take on pistol rounds for deer:


J/K. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em. I'm playing with my new Brittany.

I would agree with that, Dan. But using your logic, if KE is the only measure of "capability", then we would have to also conclude that not only is the 44 less capable at 200 yards, it is less capable at 1 foot, than the 223 is at 200 yards.

And, anyone care to guess the KE of an arrow??

Just where is this going?
Tell all manufacturers that "Modern Sporting Rifles can not be used" for hunting deer.
Or maybe, all sellers of this must ask the buyer "Are you going to hunt DEER with this, if so you can't buy one".

Foul! Arrow doesn't kill by KE.

Dan gets two free throws.

A good and brief read on the subject.

Note the author making it a point to mention the .223 as being a caliber for use when multiple shots are likely available. That alone disqualifies it as a reliable deer rifle.

Link

I see that the old Jim Zumbo attitude is alive and well.

A bullet doesn't kill by KE either. A FMJ of a given mass and velocity that pencils through, has the same KE as a bullet of the same mass and velocity that is designed for hunting. A bullet made for varmints could also have the same KE, but it might disintegrate in surface tissue without reaching the vitals. But the hunting bullet (designed for deer sized game) will be much more effective. A bullet kills by penetrating into the vitals and expanding to disrupt vital tissue.

Yes, KE has long been used to compare the "take down power" (whatever that means) of different cartridges, but it is, in reality, a poor indicator. as evidenced by the article that Dan provided. A hockey puck, baseball, etc can have the same KE as a small caliber pistol, but I'd much rather be hit with a baseball!

My point is that the bullet, and it's design, are far more important that the headstamp on the cartridge. And to categorically state that the 223 in not adequate for deer is not universally correct. Nor is the assertion that math is math, so the 243 is better at long distance than the 223 at the muzzle, based on only KE and without consideration of bullet construction.

OK, Dan. Take your free shots!

Dan,
what rifle, scope, and bullet do you use to hunt deer?

Not arguing. I don't think anyone being honest would say a .223 is not an adequate cartridge for deer "universally"/in every scenario. Sure, if you're at limited range using the right bullet, it can kill a deer cleanly and effectively.

That's not the same as saying it's a good cartridge for deer hunting. Not even close. Those that conflate the two concepts either don't understand the question or are being just plain stubborn. It is very limited. By range, size, and the need for exact shot placement. It is a very limited round for deer killing. Thus, it is not a good choice for deer hunting - if one is really seeking to give oneself a decent opportunity to cleanly kill deer in the majority of scenarios where that opportunity might arise.

I'm hunting to kill an animal. (In my case, a big animal.) It would be silly to limit myself with the marginal cartridge that the .223 is when even a .243 would expand my killing horizons exponentially. Even a kid or a lady wouldn't think a thing about the recoil of a .243 if someone wasn't telling them any different.

Simply put, it would be folly for anyone to have a .223 in their hands when a deer they would like to take steps out at 250-350 yards. And there is absolutely no valid reason for it I can see. Unless folks just like to limit themselves for the sake of limiting themselves by using the round - and I doubt describes 1% of those using it.

The smallest is a Browning A-bolt .243 with a Leupold scope.

Not asking smallest, more interested in what you is your usual go to choice.

Whether 223/5.56 is an appropriate deer round is a different issue than whether using a semi-auto is ok.

AR's and variants come chambered in rounds other than 223/5.56.

Is a 308 in semi-auto ok to use?

As already mentioned, AR's are not my thing, but I use a bolt rifle in 308 which takes 10 round mags. On two occasions I can think of off hand, I have gone through more than one mag shooting pigs, and done it once shooting does for a rancher trying to meet his MLD 3 plan numbers.

What are you thoughts in that regard?

NP: I think we are pretty much on the same page. Comes down to semantics. When you said "either the 223 is or is not an effective deer cartridge", to me sounded pretty universal, or all encompassing. I seldom choose a 22CF for my deer hunting (I'm a 257R/25/06 kind of guy ). But under certain conditions, the 223 can do a fine job, as we both agree.

Cheers.

How many times have you been "charged"?

BTW, The best way to stop a hog from charging is to take away her credit card.

Those also rifles shot 7.62 or 30-06 ammo.

Looks like this has been forgotten in the last few pages and it has turned into a .223 for deer debate, again.

However long Keep It Going was.

A Remington Model 700 chambered for the Winchester .270 with a Nikon scope. A Winchester Model 70 chambered for the Remington 25-06 with a Nikon scope is a very close second.

I'm aware of that, but that's not a distinction that was being made in the post I quoted, it was about the concept of bringing a combat rifle to deer camp. Have to keep it in the context in which it occurred.

Fortunately Friday evening this 250lber didn't know a .223 wasn't adequate for killing big game.

I'd say that you weren't trained to shoot in the military. More like hordes of enemy soldiers in massive attacks needing to be put down. Not to mention; More ammo can be carried on any given mission. Round that is accurate to 300 yards with sufficient energy to deliver significant damage at minimum recoil allowing faster and more accurate follow up shots.

Okay everyone, time to agree to disagree and move on. Let's pretend this thread never happened.

I like this thread...

Today we learned that Hogs are itching for a charge and a .223 is still the best deer round....much better than a .44 mag

The .44, like the .223, may not be the best all around round for a "charging" beast but I have to ask you, if a cape buffalo were changing you and running were no option which would you empth first at it? The six shots of the Calahan hand Cannon or the thirty rounds of of the inadequate AT in .223?

One day, hopefully soon, using the internet will require a license. And passing a test. Fail the test, you can't post comments on the web. I hope that day comes soon. The internet would be a hell of a lot more useful for those who are capable of using it in a constructive, intelligent manner.

The common denominator of social media is its propensity for spreading misinformation or half truths. Fortunately, ignorance is easy to detect if your BS meter is up to the task. Your comment that "Those also rifles shot 7.62 or 30-06 ammo.....". Which rifles were you referring to?

Back to the topic...........

Anyone who says a 5.56 AR isn't capable of reliably harvesting WT or hogs doesn't know wtf their doing. Your AR won't shoot 600 yards? Do you know the difference between a crescent wrench and screwdriver? If you do, you wouldn't ask stupid questions. Showing up at a dove hunt with an M1A Abrams tank would be stupid. As is stating that a 5.56 is for amateurs, isn't effective at 300+ yards, and a POS. Or an M9 sucks cause you can't hunt deer with it. The issue isn't the rifle, it's the shooter.

I'm not a rocket scientist. But I do know the difference between opinion and fact. And if the premise doesn't fit the facts, deflecting the topic of discussion with a BS response that ignores facts is to be expected. Who'll know the difference?

Regarding a 5.56 AR, its inexpensive, effective if you know wtf you're doing, and eats Walmart feed without [censored] the bed. A heck of a lot of folks never shot a firearm until they served our country and its familiar and accessible without a steep learning curve. And if it's good enough for a SEAL or SFOD operator, but it's not good enough to hunt deer. I'd assume you've never learned how to use one competently. If you did, you'd know what it can and can't do.

You want to hunt? Good, it's a win- win for everyone. If a "tactifool" has the balls to step up to the plate to learn the game, he's worth the effort to set him straight. If they don't know wtf their doing, take the time to teach them how to do it right. And don't get twisted around the axle if they don't meet your expectations or do things differently.

JFC

.

I would probably empty the .44 into my temple to avoid the pain and discomfort of being gored by a Cape buffalo.



But honestly, in what situation would a person be in where he encountered a Cape buffalo and all he had on him was a .44 or a .223? Maybe a park ranger over in Zimbabwe or Kenya who carries a mini-14 but that's about it.

Bwana would never be in that situation

That's like saying " if you were surrounded by polar bears, and all you had was a Pepsi, would you toss it to him and hope he thinks it's a coke"....

...and bolt action with wooden stocks so that makes them legit......

What type of action is an M-1 Garand, and an M-14?

See that's where you're wrong trophy. If you were proficient with either one it would be an adequate gun for the job. It's about the operator, not the tool.

Not that I would hunt a buff with either one. I'd use a .22lr.

I think his point was the R700/M70 and most every other bolt action rifle going into the woods in the US today are the progeny and refinements of the Mauser design or Springfield M1903, which were the main battle rifles in the early 20th century and still in use in combat roles into the '60's. The internal box mags were an important design feature of the military rifle. The 30-06 was designed specifically as a military round, initially labelled the 30 Government '06. The 308 was developed as a hunting round and quickly adopted by the military. Later, the M70 30-06 was fielded as a sniper rifle in Vietnam followed by the R700 in 308 as the M40, which is still in use today. Scopes were added to fulfill the sniper role. So the guys buying into the civilians should not be allowed to own military rifles are setting everyone up for trouble. Also, the "it's so powerful" argument to ban AR's in 5.56 really sets the stage for trouble. If the 5.56 is too powerful for a civilian to own, what happens to the 30-06, 270, 25-06 and most all other centerfire rounds, even a 243, which are more powerful than a 5.56?

Many hunters in the 1960's or earlier had Krags, Springfields, or Mausers as a hunting rifle.

And again, AR's and variants come in many rounds besides 223/5.56, so the round vs. the rifle are two different issues.

They are semi-auto and therefore not good for deer hunting......haven't you been paying attention to this thread....

I missed the charging buffalo class at our local range.

Hollow point or solid?

They are semi-auto and therefore not good for deer hunting......haven't you been paying attention to this thread.... [/quote]

Exactly!

That's the poke I was making Jeffbird. And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement.

Solids, of course. He's not crazy.

I disagree. A hollow point should be used when hunting buffs with a .22. You don't want to over penetrate!

Boy, have we drifted off topic or what?

Bolt action deer rifle? Doesn't look like he is hunting deer.

I don't know about drifilting off topic, but I will say I shoot my rifle much better when I'm wearing cinch jeans

"13 Cent Killers"

Could be wrong, but I doubt you'll see a .223 sniper rifle. Just far too light a bullet for single shots made with any distance to them. I know Chris Kyle's favorite was the .300 Win Mag.

Hathcock shot a .30-06, a .300 win mag and a .50 call M2 that was modified

I thought this was an "AR style rifle" question. Guess its just the .223 debate again.

OP would have to come back and say for sure, but he never seemed to contest the idea that he was referring to a regular old .223/5.56 AR. Especially since he seemed to accept that the reason some ranches don't allow an AR is because it is usually a .223. Kinda makes the .223 relevant to the conversation.

I hunt with my Garand and Mausers at times. I like the challenge. Similar to bow hunting. Not many hunt with a bow because its more efficient. It more of a challenge or more fun to them.

Not a cape buffalo, but I will tell another story about how a pissed off water buffalo takes .223 rounds. You will want a full magazine and fast feet if you try to stop him with an M16. You might claim shot placement is everything, but when you are butt deep in a rice paddy and the buffalo is coming at you, you spray and pray. There was only 6 in that patrol, but the story as I remember it they all emptied their magazines before the buffalo fell.

Are you intentionally trolling? Looks like he is a sniper using something very similar to your deer hunting rifle in case the point is lost.

Should you be allowed to own a military sniper rifle, one far more powerful than the piss ant 5.56 issued to all regular soldiers?

Query, what round are the AR 10, M110, M60, SR 25, SCAR 17, M40, M40A1, and M40A5?

Is a SCAR 17 ok to use for deer hunting? It has "AR" in the name.

As it only has a 16" barrel, it does not make as much velocity as the R700 with a 24" barrel in the photo, and thus is even less powerful than that bolt action Remington 700.

Chris Kyle wasn't a single gun sniper. He chose the weapon for the job, for which many he used the MK-12 in 5.56. https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2012/6/18/americas-deadliest-sniper/

doveshooter,

what are the specifics on your Mauser? That one is especially nice looking.


DNS,

Very interesting article, thank you for sharing.

Cool article. Here is one quote from it though. "Several times he shot insurgents at close range with 5.56 mm rounds and they did not halt, causing him to question the cartridge’s effectiveness.That ineffectiveness may have been caused by drugs."

As pappy once said: in the hands of a properly trained user, a weapon of mass- distruction ...

And yet he somehow came out on top of each of those encounters.

Jeffbird, I believe that is a "Mosin Nugant" Russian rifle 7.62x54R. They kick like a mule, especially with steel butt plate.

Whatever Walmart had in stock just before the hunt.

Concur, it looks like a Mosin Nagant to me as well, but he said it is a Mauser in his post, which is why I asked.

The top of the stock appears to rise into a hump like a Mauser.

There are a huge number of variations of Mausers, so definitely not ruling it out, and why I asked. Now that I look at his photo again, it does not have the bottom metal in front of the trigger guard like a Mosin, but the bolt handle looks like one. Definitely interested in learning. Mausers are really interesting and were a big step forward in safety design.

Of course, they are a military rifle and need to be banned. No one should be able to own a Mauser anything. Germans wiped out the free world with Mausers.


Good thing we had the 30-06 then or we would be going metric with Mil scopes and driving German and Japanese cars. Oh wait........

It's definitely a Mauser. The rifle pictured doesn't have the hideous Mosin safety.

Yes, very similar to a deer rifle but with a much heavier barrel for increased accuracy. And clearly, not a .223 caliber barrel.

I seem to remember that at least one of the favored sniper guns was based on the Remington Model 700 design.

wow this is still going..........

The season opener is still months away.

Back when I was in high school, way before the sunset date on the Assault Weapons ban, a buddy of mine's Dad had a original AR-15 colt, a M4 fully auto and a fully auto Mini-14.


My buddy loved to hunt with the AR-15. it was the old school, viet nam style with the peep sight. He killed a few deer with it too.





























































and I want to let everyone know that we made fun of him way back then for doing it......so its not a new trend.



Carry on

Exactly. We have plenty of time. No need to cut things short.

You couldn't kill it with a flame thrower....

Or a scary black rifle in 223/556, that's what they say.

Fixed it.

Sure seems like the people who use the term "trolling" are really just people that can't handle differences of opinion. Quit getting so butt-hurt. It's ok to disagree with someone!


I think the deal is, it's perfectly fine to hunt with a semi-auto in an appropriate cartridge. However, most will agree a bolt-action just makes more sense and is more accurate hands down.

The problem is, a good majority of the people who use semi-auto's are idiots and give the legit hunters a bad rep.

Naw, I don't even own a 223/5.56 AR and not going to.

What I do care a whole lot about is those who are ok giving away someone else's rights by condemning them without even recognizing they are undermining many more including themselves.

If the young guys want to use an AR, again available in many rounds more powerful than 223, I am just glad they are interested in shooting and hunting and welcome them. If they would benefit from better skills and safety, then help them, but be glad they are on our side.

I don't think the majority of guys who use semi autos are idiots, I think the videos of people doing idiotic things with semi autos just stick out better in people memory. I've hunted with multiple people using semi autos and never once seen an issue. The truth is all guns are tools and some people are better with those tools then others. My most kills from a sounder of hogs is 4 and that was with a bolt action but I've killed more hogs with my ARs overall using both 223 and 6.8. I've also shot my 6.8 AR out to 600 yds consistently. I trust it's accuracy as much as any bolt action I've shot. Some people are old school and stuck to their ways and that's fine nothing wrong with using what has always works for you but there are other tools that can do the job and do the job well.

Sapper, funny thing is I am in the same boat, most kills from a sounder was 4 and shot with a bolt action 22-250 using an X-sight gen 1....what are the odds.

I think for sure I have killed more pigs than 4 on occasion, just didn't recover them, with my main pig/varmint rig which is a 5.56 AR shooting 55gr soft points and a Thor 336 mounted on it.


I can guarantee I wouldn't have gotten the triple of coyotes I shot a few years back with the bolt action!



And, I am convinced I could drop a few deer with that rig if I needed to.

"If the young guys want to use an AR, again available in many rounds more powerful than 223, I am just glad they are interested in shooting and hunting and welcome them. If they would benefit from better skills and safety, then help them, but be glad they are on our side."


Well said.

Myth that a heavy barrel makes for more accuracy for one shot. It makes for a heavier barrel for consistency after repeated shots.

There's also a good chance that Sniper is holding a Winchester model 70. I read the book several years ago, and don't remember exactly the rifle he was carrying.

That's generally correct.

And of the 300 million people in America, the lion's share of ARs out there shoot tighter than those people can shoot.

What about the old Remington 742? There's no telling how many deer my Grandpa shot with his, and it was a .243. I shoot it every now and then just to connect with him.

Yes, that is an off the shelf commercial Model 70 Target model.

http://www.winchesterguns.com/news/articles/winchester-model-70-in-vietnam.html

I have one that can get 3 touching at 100 every time I do my part, but it's a .223 wylde, so it don't count for this discussion.

You get it. My go-to for many years has been my old Savage 243. It has literally killed tons of animals. Someday it will belong to one of my Son's.

still going...

That is a photograph of Lance Corporal Dalton Gunderson, the rifle is a modified Winchester Model 70

So, it's highly ineffective if you feed your deer Buck Crack?

I carry an AR-15 for work and I hunt with anything except an AR-15.

I guess it's all been said five times, so everyone is done.

No, it just starts over again and again and again. It never is over. It just starts again.

Real hunters use a bolt. 223 is too small for gophers.

Elmer Kieth once described the .270 as a "damned adequate coyote rifle". Granted he was probably doing it to gig Jack O'Connor and his pet rifle...

Says the guy that hits the notify button everytime he gets his feelings hurt.

That's a lie, troll.

As long as you are proficient with your weapon, I don't care what you hunt with.

Here's some entertainment while you ponder these important life questions....

The way I see it, a supersonic .300 blackout has almost as much energy as a 30/30, which I love as a deer round. I wouldn't try to shoot past 150yds but I have no issue with them.

They really oughta change this to california hunting forum with all the sissy fits around here. Someone else's opinion on an internet forum should not bother you.

That being said, There is nothing wrong with using an AR style weapon as long as you are shooting an appropriate sized round to ethically, and accurately put down the game animal you are hunting.

But you still look like an idiot toting that AR around in the woods, just saying. Not that you should care what I think.

You can't fall in love with an AR, it's cold, black, and has no emotion. Just slam, bam, and thank you mam. An old bolt with scars, dent, scratches will talk to you for years. Just like it did with your dad and his dad.

I like this. Well put

Very true. It will never sound as smooth as an old Winchester lever action. It will never look as good as a pre 64 Model 70 or an old Savage model 99.

I bet a lot of you guys who are concerned with how they look have to wear matching camo top and bottom, and get your truck detailed every time you come back from a hunt.

No, I like the way old rifles feel. I like the smoothness of their actions. I like the way the wood stocks take on their own look after many years of carry. I like the way the blueing matures after many years of oiling and wear. And for your information I wear jeans hunting and have never had my truck detailed.

Amen to that brother!

ta HF it can be very intertaining...
From what i been reading on here & your statement, looks like they putten a ban on AR's,

Well, each to their own. The wood stock from my favorite rifle is in a closet, having been replaced by a HS Precision years ago, but man it shoots, and has given me some special memories. One of my others the blued barrel has been cerakoted black to protect some of those "character marks" it got from too much time in a rack on rough ranch roads, but it's ultra reliable.

As for jeans, I've heard deer can see blue really well...you might get busted on the way to the stand. Just sayin...

Our matching camo and truck detailing (neither of those are accurate by my account) would cost far less than your fancy black rifles, extended mags, suppressors, and flipped out mirror dodge truck.

I'll give you one thing though. I bet your flat bill hat is fairly cheap compared to your sparkly pants

Excellent post!

You nailed it

Who cares what a guy's rifle looks like or how it cycles?

What's more important, is can he hit what he means to hit all, or most, of the time.

Myself, and I bet every single hunting guide on the face of the earth have priority #1 as can this hunter put a bullet where it goes? If he can, every other factor after that is ancillary.

DARNED STRAIGHT!

Well, if your implication is that I'm redneck, I'll give you that, but you missed the generation a bit, I drive a Chevy and wear 13mwz's, but I sure don't mind that my hands are rough and dirty when I head home every evening.

As for suppressors, I just wish they'd been this available much sooner, then maybe I wouldn't have had to live with this tinnitus the last 30 years.

I appreciate you lettin me know a little about you though, I'll make a note so I can remember it.

Of course that's priority #1. But, again, they have no way to know the answer as to who can and who can't. So they make judgments they think are best for them based on their experiences. Guides and outfitters judge folks based on a lot of stuff.

Do clients show up loud talking?
Do clients show up who have to have a beer/drink in their hand 24/7?
Do clients show up wearing Carrhart overalls/jackets and rubber boots?
Do clients show up with a big beer belly smoking cigs?
Do clients show up........? ...........? ..........?

There's a million of 'em.

They make judgments accordingly. They are not always correct - obviously. But they make them because they
have to. One of them is many don't want AR shooters. Again, they aren't doing it to tick people off. Agree with them or not, they have their reasons.

That is a preconceived notion of people. That is no fault of a rifle.

A way to settle it is have their AR carrying hunters prove they can hit, same as any other type of rifle that the hunter shows up with. If they're not willing to set that up, then a minimum caliber requirement is all that is reasonable in my opinion.

Of course I have to ask what guys are bringing to my facility. Rifle, optic, and ammo. I've seen old wood stocks, high speed low drag bolt actions, plain vanilla bolt actions, Ruger RPR, and of course ARs of all types. If a guy is bringing an AR type rifle, I think nothing of it. It cycles itself, that's it.

(And the worst shooting rifle has not been an AR type, by the way)

I have never said and never will say a rifle is at fault for anything. Ever. That's a silly thought and argument.

You are arguing with ranch and landowners who have made their decisions. They are making people decisions , not rifle decisions. You are basically trying to say they are wrong to do so.

You have a right to your opinion.

They have a right to theirs.

The OP asked why. He has gotten his answers. So has everyone.

I guess you don't know, I'll never tell a man what he can, or cannot do on his own land. And I expect the same in return.

The news is, these rifles are far from going away. The younger crowd gravitate toward them. And some of the veteran hunters have found a good use for them. And in another 30 years when the current generation of die hard AR haters are too old to hunt, there's going to be a higher percentage of hunters toting AR type rifles, than there are now. Associating "spray and pray", "tacticool", bad shooters to the rifle, is a mindset that needs to change. Only way to change it is to get more people practicing with their rifle of choice, be safe, be responsible, and start shedding a positive light on the type of rifle.

I have no doubt there are plenty of land owners that would frown upon a bolt action rifle sitting in a chassis. It looks like an AR, but it's not, and they still don't like it. Mindset.

Based on that statement, I don't understand your angst. The whole topic is about ranchers having rules for what they do/don't allow on their own land. And why.

Not one mention has been made of anyone proposing to tell anyone else what to do on their own land.

"You are arguing with ranch and landowners who have made their decisions"- Your words.

That was a reply to your words. If you forgot you wrote them there they are again, they are also three posts north of here.

When I hunt on someone else's land, I follow that person's rules to the letter. In the scenario (that has happened) where I've been asked to come hog hunt, I ask about restrictions. If they have a no AR policy I will try to advise that they can be a valuable tool for the job. Maybe it changes their mind. If it does not, I go right back to following their rules to the letter, and leave the AR in the truck. In the case of deer, which this thread was started about, there are situations where I might prefer an AR, might.

Really, I'm defending the rifle type, and the guys that use them exclusively. They really enjoy them, and prefer them, and are responsible hunters and shooters. It's a shame they have a prejudice against them.

Exactly. ARs are like Leatherman multi-tools; yeah, I could carry a pocket knife, linesman pliers, and multi-tipped screwdriver instead, but then I have to carry three things, not one. A decent AR is not much more than a bolt-gun these days, and you get a rifle that is fun/cheap to plink with, capable of taking small-to-medium-sized game, and can be used for self-defense. Three items in one. For a lot of newbies on budgets, it makes sense to not have to buy two or three guns when you can buy one.

I've seen plenty of bad hunters show up with gorgeous bolt-action, wood-stocked guns up to and including Weatherby Mark Vs, Kleinguenthers, Kimbers, etc. While I don't normally hunt with my AR (6.8, not 5.56), I have killed about 20 deer with it, but am most certainly not a spray-pray type hunter.

Lots of guys can shoot a target; but they shoot at deer pitiful. I've seen it countless times.
But, have you ever been in a blind where it's so quiet you can hear a gnat breathing and something touch that tons of exposed metal on a AR? Or not be able to get a good solid set on the base of the gun as it rests on the window because of the magazine? Gizmos sticking out all over get hung up everywhere. And like I said before-they show no love.

That's why we seem to be talking past each other when we are really not.You are defending ALL guys who use them exclusively. I am not castigating all who use them. But, just like not ALL of them are idiots,not ALL of them are defensible. A bunch of them are idiots. Many ranchers know this because they have seen it. In fact,they believe there are are disproportionate number of them who are idiots compared to the guys who show up with something other than ARs. Many have posted that very thing on this thread. Thus, they don't want them on their ranches. This is the answer to the OPs question. Whether you agree with it or not. Or think it's a correct judgment. Or like it or not.

Fair or not in your eyes,that's just the way it is.

You seem to want me and anyone else who points this out to cry "Uncle!" and say this is not the case in the real world. When it is.

When I see a man or woman walk into the Carter's Country by my house with a black gun a certain thought goes through my head. Right or wrong most everyone inside that store/gun range think the same thing as well.

That's not altogether accurate. I've never left camp with a guy that I haven't seen shoot, or somebody who I really trust has seen shoot. It's necessary to make decisions about where and how you are going to take them hunting, and what kind of range limitations you are going to place on them.

As a matter of fact, 2 guys that I have guided that shoot black guns ( one a .308, the other a 6.5 creedmore) are among the few that I don't put many limitations on at all. Pretty danged talented shooters both.

No not all of them are defensible, same as not every bow hunter, lever action hunter, pump action hunter, and bolt action hunter are defensible.

We are talking past each other, because as usual, you write, and you don't read. Or you read what is not there. Probably talk and don't listen as well.

Case in point. I never denied that's the way it is, I did however offer a more than one solution to make it not be the way it is anymore. You however just want to say "that's just the way it is" yet not come up with any way of correcting it. Type of guy that always finds the problem but is never the guy that finds the solution.

That's a silly argument, all kinds of stupid things happen to make noise in a blind, an no, with the several guys I've guided who hunted with A black gun I've never seen a guy hang up on a gizmo, and if you look real close you will see that there's quite a bit of forearm in front of the magazine to take a rest on. Did see a guy who had rolled his chair over his sling once, but we both survived.

Question for the AR deer hunters:

Do you guys mostly use them in a blind hunting type situation, or one in which you are banking on being able to get prone in order to make the shot? Just curious.

JG,
I do not hunt with an AR, but my wife and I use non-traditional bolt rifles whether in a blind, prone, with sticks or off a knee.

Here she is with her 14# GA Precision on the 300 yard line at Fort Wolters when they used to host matches.



One of my favorite photos of her, using a sling for support on a cull hunt.



I wear Wrangler Riggs work pants, a Stetson, Justin boots and t-shirt with coveralls. The rifles are used because they are durable, accurate, and reliable. The 1950 Win M70 I used growing and shot many deer with is still in the safe, but long retired. These are far superior tools for the task.

In a blind-



Here is a good example of why performance characteristics are more important to me than fancy wood. Hiking the mountains in Colorado, using a tripod shooting stick with a Hog Saddle.




Prone in a grass strip in the middle of a wheat field.

Real men use wood stocked rifles in caliber 223 while wearing 'BLUE" jeans to hunt Deer.

Jeff understands the purpose of a tool.

I think we're good for another 31 pages. Don't get weak now!

And you are the type of guy who knows everything about everything. And anyone who doesn't agree is a problem in your mind. Listen closely for the 5th time: The experience of many ranchers and landowners is that MORE AR HUNTERS ARE IDIOTS PERCENTAGE WISE THAN FOLKS WHO USE BOWS, BOLT GUNS,LEVER GUNS AND PUMP GUNS. THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T ALLOW AR HUNTERS BUT DO ALLOW THE OTHER FOLKS. Several landowners have come on this thread and explained that based on their own experiences.

I capitalized that for emphasis so you would quit saying over and over and over again that there can be idiots who use any weapon. That is simply another of your repeated "Captain Obvious" statements (other cases in point: "It's not the rifle's fault" and "Landowners have the right to do what they want on their property but not to tell others what to do on their property") that mean nothing to this discussion. Why you keep making them over and over and over is a mystery. Either you do not have the mental capacity to see such statements miss the point entirely or you think everyone else lacks the mental capacity to discern it. I don't know which.

My solution is the same as the other ranchers: I don't allow them on my place for deer hunting. As always, the solution for the idiots is to stop being idiots.

Let's see. What is the difference between the results of these two hunts?



One hog was killed with a single shot 7mm mag with not much of a way to add NV, lasers, IR lights etc.

The other was killed with a SBR 223 with many ways to added any extra item that I want to add. The end result is a dead pig.

Ok, let's talk Accuracy! Here is a 5 shot group out of a AR creedmoor.



And a equally expensive Accuracy International 308 bolt gun



Not much difference.....

Another solution might be to treat each individual as the person they are. Who knows, you might even get to know somebody who adds value to your life. I understand the concept of a minimum caliber, makes perfect sense to me, but to disqualify someone because of the type of gun they shoot is short sighted. I think that's the only point anyone is trying to make. The benefits of an open mind can be legion.

It's funny you say that. That perfectly describes you. And it shows everywhere you go all over the forum. But you're to blind to see it through your own arrogance.

Jeffbird, as usual we are reading from the same sheet of music. I can say, with much experience, MOST hunters out there do not practice from modified positions. It shows every time I host a rifle match. And when I'm teaching for the day we get to that section. Once I get those guys to make hits out to 400 yards from those positions, you reply see their face light up once they "get it".

X2

Not allowing ARs on your land is only because you don't hunt with them, not because of past experiences that were negative. You can deny it all you want, but we all know your MO. You keep trying in this thread to make your closing argument to win the case, but the jury is not buying what your selling counselor.

Actually looking at your glass as half full-you two guys have a lot in common, you both have close to 20,000 posts, which is a major feat in itself; you both post at odd times, which means your not working at that time or have a weird job, and you both like to talk a lot. So, that's a good thing.

With me, i' m postaddic ...

Yep, but, i got cheap posts, & they go fast...

Man, ain't that the truth. Wow...just wow.

There is a difference in the guy that shows up
to hunt with an ar and the guy that shows up with lights, lasers, scope, 45deg offset iron sights, and a coffee maker on his gun.

Coffee maker? Where can I get that?

I'm next in line if they have 2!

Idk but I bet someone makes one. Hell, someone made a sharps with a coffee grinder in the stock.

This has been pretty rich to read... I think we should further this critique by also considering whether boxers or briefs will impact one's hunting skills and/or perceived hunting skills as viewed by others.

Charlie

Nope! You're not giving enough time for those who like to go "commando".....

O it has to be boxers, don't get in a wad as easy. I am sure some of the folks here wear briefs

What does my thong say about my hunting skills?



I'm pretty psych'd to finally be a part of this thread!

At first I thought that you said "......will compact one's hunting skills......."

Yeah, I was thinking I should ante up my 2 cents too.

1. I don't like ARs. I especially don't like it when some numbnuts with an AR and a muzzle brake is in next to me at the gun range. Really, you need a muzzle brake on a .223?

2. That said, what you want to hunt with is your business. I hunt with some seriously old-school rifles: Springfield 1903, Steyr Mannlicher M95/30, Lee Enfield No 4 Mk 1, M1 Carbine, and until recently a Mauser 98. But back in their day, those were all the most technically advanced military weapons of their time -- kind of like the offspring of the M16/AR15 family today. 75 years from now, when robot soldiers shoot lasers from GPS guided ray guns, hunters will talk longingly of how much soul was in Grandpa's antique AR.

Certainly briefs here! My boys have to have a home!

Briefs here, don't like them sloppin around. Keeps them in their place.

Boxer briefs for the win.

I shot an AR in boxers.

Pesky, good for nothing ARs.

Sure glad I had this one with me, in .308 Win, ten minutes ago.



Probably wouldn't cleanly kill a deer though.

Nice job....on both counts! You must not be a loud talker or wear Carhartts or rubber boots or......or.....or.....

You are getting good with photoshop!!!!!
Good looking rig mine is almost identical. Good shooting too..

Nah, he's the guy who shows up without binoculars, carrying a 13 lb rifle, asking where the 700 yard range is, and telling everyone how this chit is really done. And your the guy who would ask the outfitter to show you all the hunting articles he has read so you can make sure he really knows what he is doing.

You just can't help but be a Richard.

Bet there's hundreds of THF members I've spent a day with, and provided tons of rifle, and shooting help for.

Bet your count is zero.

And I just posted pics of dead bodies from today, with an AR, after teaching on the range all day. Via a customer referred to me through Chad. Another THF member that provides volumes of helpful information.

All you are is white noise in the background.

NP, don't you notice how on almost a daily basis you receive some serious harsh wording directed exactly toward you. And don't you notice you are the guy that is the major contributor to getting threads locked down?

What's the common thread there, Richard?

I give as I get. It's a simple concept.

P.S. I'm not the one calling you a Richard. Think about it.

That's the problem with elitist arrogant narcissists. They have an inert failure to look in the mirror and say maybe it's really me. Its always everyone else.