Huntng with the AR15?

[Magnum]

I guess you went to the show since all they had was AR.

What a waste of my time. That was not worth the 7$ I had to pay to get in. The place was have empty. The floor use to be full with venders they had less then half whatthey use to have and all they had was AR and old POS rifles

I know it was a waste this year. Half the people and half the stands

 

[Larry Gude]

Sadly...

None of the rifles you mentioned save the M1 Garand are anywhere near suitable for big game, varmints maybe with a .223 or 7.62 X 39 but not a white tail. Not enough energy at 100 yards for a humane kill. Who in their right mind hunts with an AR-15, SKS or any so called assault rifle ?

...most of the United States armed forces.

 

[Bonehead]

Talking about four legs on the target not two. The .223 is designed (with ball ammo) to wound the .308 or 7.62X54 however are not.

 

[Larry Gude]

I know...

Talking about four legs on the target not two. The .223 is designed (with ball ammo) to wound the .308 or 7.62X54 however are not.

...I'm just being a PITA. You'd think we'd want a soldier to kill the enemy, like we used to.

 

[Bonehead]

It really sucks that the Silverado shows have gone down hill so far. They used to be so much fun when I took my two sons....we could spend a few hours looking at all kinds of stuff including class 3. I could always find a good deal on .223 and .45 ammo. I guess nothing ever stays the same.

 

[Bonehead]

Larry The theory was a wounded individual requires about three to four attendees but a body - none. Hence the ball ammo idea was born vs. a round that expands.

 

[Lugnut]

Talking about four legs on the target not two. The .223 is designed (with ball ammo) to wound the .308 or 7.62X54 however are not.

Good lord

Larry The theory was a wounded individual requires about three to four attendees but a body - none. Hence the ball ammo idea was born vs. a round that expands.

There's WAY too much to this to give you a complete reply. So in short.

1. The .223/5.56mm round was selected for it's reduction in size/weight and higher accuracy (Partially credited to reduced recoil and flinch reflex) over existing rounds.
2. It exceeds the Army's "Small arms lethality" criteria all the way out to 1000 yards.
3. "Ball" amo is used because the US while not a signatory to the original Hague peace conference CHOSE to follow some of the guidelines. A couple decades later the US DID sign the Hague convention in 1907 or so which has something along the lines of "Though shall not cause undue suffering" or some similar vague statement concerning ammo selection.


We have NEVER fielded an issue weapon designed to "wound".

 

[Larry Gude]

I understand all...

Larry The theory was a wounded individual requires about three to four attendees but a body - none. Hence the ball ammo idea was born vs. a round that expands.

...the crap about wounds vs. kill and lighter weapon with more ammo, ya da ya da ya.

It has not proven out. The AR platform in .223 in all it's various configurations sucks for war. People who do the shooting want weapons that kill. They want weapons that require less maintenance.

 

[Bonehead]

Agreed the idea in War is not to wound but the politicians got into the mixture unfortunately. You remember how many jams and mis fires were experienced during Vietnam.

 

[itsbob]

Should we only hunt with bolt action rifles, or should we continue to allow hunting with semi automatic rifles like the AR15, the M1 Garand or the SKS?

Does it make a bit of difference as far as hunting if it "looks" military, is semi automatic, has a pistol grip, can fit a collapsable stock or has the ability to accept larger magazines?

Was Zumbo right before he redacted his statement? Are the VPC, the Brady Campaign, George Bush and Dianne Feinstein right when they say there is no legitimate use for "military style" (they call them "assault weapons") rifles?

First off, what are you going to hunt with a .223? In most states it doesn't meet (I don't think) minimum caliber/ bullet size for hunting deer or medium, large game. Are you going to go hunt rabbit with an M-16?

I kind of like the idea of a bolt action when hunting, just for the fact someone doesn't get "target drunk" and let loose their entire magazine spraying the woods downrange with 8 - 20 rounds. I can see someone with a semi auto rifle chasing a deer through the woods in his sights letting loose round after round while the deer jumps and scurrries by 100 yards away..

At least a bolt action slows down the hunt just a LITTLE bit, to give the hunter a chance to think about the next shot, where his gun is pointing, and to get a better view off of his sights as to his surroundings.. Not to say someone can't empty a magazine in a VERY short amount of time with a bolt action, I just think most hunters it would slow them down enough to get them to think about where the next round is going.

 

[Larry Gude]

I wasn't there...

Agreed the idea in War is not to wound but the politicians got into the mixture unfortunately. You remember how many jams and mis fires were experienced during Vietnam.

...but I do know that the battlefield isn't the best place to rush a new, unproven product into service.

I'm sure there was politics involved in the introduction of the M-1 and the
M-14 but, whatever the politics were, we're looking at two weapons that were pretty robust in combat and killed the enemy.

Anyone who knows any negatives about those two, please chime in.

 

[Larry Gude]

That...

I kind of like the idea of a bolt action when hunting, just for the fact someone doesn't get "target drunk" and let loose their entire magazine spraying the woods downrange with 8 - 20 rounds. I can see someone with a semi auto rifle chasing a deer through the woods in his sights letting loose round after round while the deer jumps and scurrries by 100 yards away..

At least a bolt action slows down the hunt just a LITTLE bit, to give the hunter a chance to think about the next shot, where his gun is pointing, and to get a better view off of his sights as to his surroundings.. Not to say someone can't empty a magazine in a VERY short amount of time with a bolt action, I just think most hunters it would slow them down enough to get them to think about where the next round is going.

...is a valid argument in my view. If an anti-scary looking gun person would simply make that argument then we would all move on, but there goals are weapon abolition, plain and simple.

 

[itsbob]

...the crap about wounds vs. kill and lighter weapon with more ammo, ya da ya da ya.

It has not proven out. The AR platform in .223 in all it's various configurations sucks for war. People who do the shooting want weapons that kill. They want weapons that require less maintenance.

Lo and behold.. wounded people tend to fire back!!

But first and foremost, you have to have the ability to hit a target.. doesn't matter what round you use. The military puts a lot less value on marksmanship training than it does say on the prevention of sexual harassment..

You have to "qualify" with your weapon once a year, usually taking up about 20 minutes of individual range time. that same year each soldier, sailor and Marine probably gets subjected to 4 - 8 hours of sexual harassment training.. than add to that sensitivity training and all the OTHER make them better people type training.. Some of the units I was in were a few of the lucky that got some exceptional training in some of the "fine arts", but most aren't as lucky..

I remember sitting in Germany looking at all these COOL thermal and passive night sights we had for all of our personal and crew served weapons.. Not once did we EVER actually attach any of these sights to weapons to zero them in with REAL ammo, yanno, because that would be too DANGEROUS!! Yet we were the most prepared units in the US, ready to meet the Soviet Horde!

That being said, and the 'mix' of soldiers we have now, the M-16 is as good a choice as the 9mm handgun.. You have to have a weapon in the system that EVERYONE can handle.. You can't have a weapon made specifically for your male 200 lb infantryman and another for your female finance clerk or the 90 pound female MP.. EVERYONE has to have the same weapon. And yes, tactically it makes no sense, but nobody's feelings get hurt so it's all good!

 

[Bonehead]

Why not officers carried the .30 cal carbine when the grunt carried an M1 Garand in WWII. Not that I would attempt to kill a squirrel with a carbine......

 

[itsbob]

Why not officers carried the .30 cal carbine when the grunt carried an M1 Garand in WWII. Not that I would attempt to kill a squirrel with a carbine......

that's one of the thngs they point to..

You had 30-06 in the garand.. .30 in the M1.. .45 in the thompson and the grease gun.. .38 for the whimpified pilots and women.. and of course your assorted crew served weapons. Plus all the borrowed weaponry from other countries.. not including our ammunition wasn't usable in our allies weapons, and vice versa.. we ran out we couldn't go over to the English and borrow a cup of .30-.06 A logisitical nightmare on the battlefield keeping everyone in bullets..

Now we basically have TWO rounds.. the 9mm and the .223 (we even have a crew served Machine Gun in .223 now).. Just two types of ammo can basically keep the military functioning..

Can you imagine being cut off, desolate and you get an ariel resupplly, only to find out they sent the wrong ammunition?

 

[AK-74me]

Larry The theory was a wounded individual requires about three to four attendees but a body - none. Hence the ball ammo idea was born vs. a round that expands.

Myth.

 

[AK-74me]

I can't believe some of you think 7.62x39 is too small to kill whitetails, I know someone that has killed 100+ with .223(not in MD), is it the best caliber for whitetail? Maybe not but with modern day hunting rounds it can certianly kill whitetail sized game with no problem. And what about coyote, more coyote have probably been taken with .223 then any other caliber.

Yes it is illegal to hunt deer with .223 in MD but not in alot of states and even here in MD you only have to step up to .243 to be "legal".

 

[Larry Gude]

Which is...

Can you imagine being cut off, desolate and you get an ariel resupplly, only to find out they sent the wrong ammunition?

...a decent reason to go 7.62*39

 

[AK-74me]

None of the rifles you mentioned save the M1 Garand are anywhere near suitable for big game, varmints maybe with a .223 or 7.62 X 39 but not a white tail. Not enough energy at 100 yards for a humane kill. Who in their right mind hunts with an AR-15, SKS or any so called assault rifle ?

You should google Jim Zumbo and find out where he ended up with sentiment.

 

[Novus Collectus]

None of the rifles you mentioned save the M1 Garand are anywhere near suitable for big game, varmints maybe with a .223 or 7.62 X 39 but not a white tail. Not enough energy at 100 yards for a humane kill. Who in their right mind hunts with an AR-15, SKS or any so called assault rifle ?

The 7.62x39 has similar ballistics as the .30-.30 when hunting rounds are used and people have no problem using .30-.30 for deer.
The .223 is legal to hunt with in MD and at closer ranges it iw good enough for deer.
A .50 round ball out of a muzzloading rifle has less energy than the .223....and people have no issue hunting deer with muzzloaders.
So what's the problem?

The AR10, which is basically an AR15 (actually the AR15 is basically an AR10 to be more precise) and it fires .308 Winchester, but some people call those "assault rifles" too.
BUt this is all beside the point, my origional post was about hunting in general, not just deer. The antis tried to forever ban these rifles because they claimed they are never used for hunting. They were not only wrong back then too, but they are commonly used for all types of hunting nowadays in even the configurations they wanted to permanently ban.
The AR is an accepted and commonly used hunting rifle for all types of hunting including for hunting deer.