AR's have their place, but are they "Hunting Rifles"?

Link to the NSSF site

I don't see why not.

Why the hell would they not be hunting rifles? Or self defense rifles? Or match rifles? Or "it doesn't [bleep] matter why I have it, its my right" rifles?

Self defense, liberty, plinking, target and even "just because" all make sense to me.

But I think it a bit too cheeky to promote them as "hunting rifles"

Why not? Sure the same question was asked about bolt action rifles a century ago.

Why? I know a LOT of guys that use the AR platform to hunt with. I use my AR patrol rifle when calling coyotes, and it has slayed it fair share of pigs.

In these parts, the AR is rapidly becoming the predator calling rifle of choice, and I saw more an a few in the deer fields.

Well that shows what I know.

There is a young fella on our hunting lease that hunts with an AR10 in .308, and he kills deer quite dead, and some of his shots are made at very respectable ranges. He served a decade in the military, and hunts with the type of rifle that he is familiar with. I see no reason not to endorse the AR platform for big game hunting. Much like our forefathers did with the bolt action, after coming home from WWI.

I see a lot of AR's around here too, compared to a few decades ago.
I think the point of the NSSF article it to try legitimize the AR to make it more palatable to the public. Anything to help the cause of maintaining our 2nd amendment rights can only help the battle coming up, intended to dismantle that right.
I think the more important point is that is doesn't matter what kind of rifle it is, we have a right to own and use them. This is only the tip if an iceberg called disarmament.
Have you contacted your legislators yet to demand protection of our constitutional right?!

It a dam fine hunting rifle- an AR-10 in one of the 308 biased cartridges would make a very good CT white tail getter! Can't use 22 centerfire here for deer. 6mm or better.

I think the AR is a great hunting platform. When built to suit the need, there isn't too much you can't do with one.

They'll never work! Except Dec. 2, 2012 w a 55 gr. TSX pushed by a tailwind from The Red Gods...

There you go, trying to think again..

A hunting rifle happens to be whatever rifle I'm carrying when I'm hunting.

Mine is no dif than any of my other rifles.....a tool to have fun with

be-it plinking or hunting.....it will do both

I don't own one but I know several people that hunt with them.

+1

While I am a bolt guy through and through I can certainly see the merit of a semiautomatic as a hunting rifle. There are many iterations of bolt rifles and there are similarily many iterations of semiautomatic rifles with the AR being just one. The cartridge the rifle is chambered for will make it suitable or otherwise. There is a definate change in the way many younger shooters think about the AR platform simply because of the exposure they have to it the same way that the bolt rifle got more exceptance after the great war. We live in a world that is changing with advances in all areas so it is only natural that the AR will become more used as a hunting rifle as time goes on, even if some of us will not be going past our beloved bolt rifles.

From someone who never owned or carried one til 6 months ago... I will answer that with a resounding YES!

of course the ar is a "hunting" rifle. all one need do is look at the number of folks that hunt deer/hogs/yotes/etc. an ar is nothing more than a semi-auto rifle that has the capability of holding a magazine which contains more than 5 rounds.

If there is a better platform to use as a wolf rifle I've not seen it.........

Not my thing, but have at it if you like it. Don't forget the fingerless gloves and 5:11 gear....

Honestly I don't care for black rifles, but I could deal with an ar in 6.8 spc for deer hunting and be fine. Just because they don't float my boat doesn't mean that they aren't more than up to the task at hand.

Similar story here, in my group of hunting buddies the guy that has killed the most and biggest deer over the last 5 years hunts with an AR in a .308. Most of his deer are taken over 300 yards.

He is a former marine and says it just feels right; I am in no place to argue.

At the end of the day, for most of us hunting is about enjoying ourselves. Hunt with what you enjoy assuming of course it is legal and ethical.

Is your name Zumbo by any chance?

It's a hunting rifle if you use it for hunting. I would I'd I could and I am kinda fuddish.

Off the mark? Why, of course not! The NSSF shouldn't stop there. They can also tout the Saiga as just the thing in a duck blind or for quail hunting.

I could have worn a Saiga out 13 years ago when the sky was dark with snow geese and there was no limit on them or how many shells in my gun

Why?

I wouldn't hunt elk with mine (.223 and .300 Blackout uppers), but varmints and smaller big game, absolutely. Better choice than my handguns.

I have mine all set for varmints and it has done yeoman's work w/ woodchucks, coyotes, crows, and will someday in the not-too-distant-future knock over a whitetail or 3.

Sounds like a huntin rifle to me.

Of course the main reason I have it is for when the two major parties force a meltdown and the fecal matter hits the indoor circulation system.

Very few people hunt wolves and so their suspicions on what makes a wolf rifle is exceedingly limited. If you would think several hundred miles between sightings, multiple wolves during a sighting are more common than a lone wolf and a 10 wolf per day bag limit then you're closing in on what its like to wolf hunt in my area. An AR type rifle simply can't be beat. You can use something else, but my statement was based on what is best. Maybe there are areas where a Saiga works best for quail and ducks--I don't know--I do know ARs and wolf hunting are a near perfect match.......

AR's can be used as hunting rifles.

The problem is as soon as you start putting each type of gun in their own little bucket you open yourself up to that bucket being taken away.

My point is that black rifles and the Saiga are in the same category - they aren't traditional sporting weapons, and it's pretty tough to paint them as appropriate for hunting.

Not saying they are the best option, but they do work!

Every technological advancement falls prey to this sort of "argument," but its point has been missed by previous generations of hunters, thankfully. Going from blackpowder to smokeless, front loaders to metallic cartridges, single shots to repeaters and lever guns to bolt action rifles have seen this kind of ignorant argument. I keep hoping we'll leave these kinds of things behind us, but ignorance goes largely unhindered.

If you want traditional, go loin cloth and rocks/clubs, otherwise you're embracing technological advancement. There are few English words that have more definitions and less meaning than "traditional." Just for clarity, "traditional" wasn't in the OP's question.....

Promoting them as hunting weapons is the only way to go. People who don't shoot/hunt often say things like they agree with guns for hunting but see no need for "assault weapons". Those middle of the road people will largely decide the issue. You can't convince me losing my gun rights is in any way ethical or prudent at the same time a flaming liberal will never believe anyone needs a gun for any purpose. We must change the undecided in the middle. That is where almost all political battles are won. Someone earlier in the thread cautioned against pigeonholing guns lest we lose them piecemeal, he was absolutely correct. I apologize for rambling but this issues gets me a bit worked up.

-Z

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have read on here. And THAT is saying something.



Travis

The M-16 might have been a technological advancement 50 years ago, but it hardly qualifies as such now. And there is nothing "technologically advanced" about using an AR to hunt with.

Nothing dumb about it, Trav. AR's and Saiga's are not hunting weapons - they're thinly-disguised military weapons. The NSSF is merely attempting to gloss over that fact to appease their sponsors, and to deflect the negative pub from the SH shootings. It's no different than branding black rifles and the like as "modern sporting weapons".

That's the 2nd dumbest thing I've ever read on here. You're gonna take the blue ribbon with your aggregrate score.


Travis

It is obvious you are entirely clueless. I hoped ignorance or ill-informed was the cause, but clearly moron is a better descriptor. I suspect further posts will substantiate this suspicion.....

Hmmm, I think the same thing can be said for our bolt actions as well. Be careful when you decide it's ok for the anti's just to "put the tip in"...




David

Keep your heads in the sand, boys.

GFY.


Travis

I hunt with mine. Barnes in a 223 are death on deer. I got a 308 specifically for hogs. I hunted for years with another military rifle, a 1903 Springfield. The AR's may be ugly but they do works just fine in the field.

the bolt action rifle was once the go to man killer some so quickly forget

[bleep].. I think this website has reached it's carrying capacity for dumb asses.

Between the campfire freaks and the idiots draining onto the lower forums, it's just about dead.

Gettin' there.


Travis

I never really considered using my first AR for hunting for several reasons.

I hunted mainly deer, and the bullets available did not give me much confidence in getting clean kills. The carrying handle did not lend itself very well to mounting a scope. I know it could be done and even did it myself, but it never seemed to be very satisfactory.

Times have changed. There are plenty of different bullets and different chamberings for the AR platform that make it quite effective on deer. Flat top receivers made mounting a scope in a very stable manner quite easy. I also hunt other things for which the AR is quite appropriate.

So, you have a reliable and accurate rifle in an appropriate chambering or with appropriate bullets for the game you are hunting. They can be light and handy although some are amazingly heavy. They certainly are not for all situations but can be used very well in quite a few. It should not matter that they are ugly. I think a SS/synthetic bolt action is also ugly but use them also.

We can hunt coyotes at night here in NC now, and I am getting an AR rigged up just for that. It should be fun.

I dearly cherish my blued bolt actions with wood stocks and carry them often, but the ugly guns, too, have a place in the field.

AR's were sold to civilians and used as varmit rifles before the military adopted them.

Bolt action rifles were 1st designed and used as military rifles and later adapted as hunting rifles. Same with single shots.

All muzzle loaders were military rifles before they were adapted as hunting rifles.

An AR is just as much a hunting rifle as any other gun.

Truly, you cannot be as stupid as the things you say lead me to believe.

It appears that he truly is that stupid.......

Also -

ask Ted Nugent about his pig rifle!

Wish I could remember the name of his tv show per hogs. Full auto & helicopter.

270mag, you are fired. First your handle is gay bc it has 270 in it. Second that's the dumbest chit I've read on here. I don't comment on stuff like that on here bc I use this forum as a learning tool but that is the dumbest thing I have see on here, and I've seen a lot of dumb crap on here

They might not be "traditional", but a bolt gun might not be either. What exactly is traditional? Since when does the method of delivery matter? Boils down to "look" and the MSM has you convinced ARs are "wrong". A jackass hunting with an AR is still going to be a jackass hunting with a bolt gun......

I'd much rather be hunting with an AR than a Springfield or an Enfield. It's taken a long time to get used to them, but I now have an AR and am having alot of fun with it---which makes it easier to look at---and I'm starting to really like it.

On the other hand, a Springfield or Enfield probably will never be seen in my safe unless it's someone else's and I'm selling it for them as a favor. Those two rifles were butt ugly when they were in their heyday and they will always be butt ugly to me.

Gun rights are gun rights regardless of what they are used for.

It's all or nothing.

States like Colorado limit the number of rounds a magazine can hold, both for hunting rifles and for shotguns. I can�t legally hunt big game with my AR and 30-round Magpul magazines and I have to plug the 5-round magazines on my shotguns when hunting birds.

The Saiga may not be a �traditional� hunting weapon but with a limited capacity (legal) magazine it is no different in capability than any other auto-loading shotgun. Same deal with my AR and a �traditional� auto-loading rifle like a Browning BAR or Ruger Mini-14.

Standards such as �traditional� are arbitrary at best. Some years back the Colorado DOW prohibited modern muzzleloaders in part because they didn�t have a �traditional� look and feel, never mind that they were no more capable than muzzleloaders with the officially approved look and feel. My stainless Rem M700ML was banned the year after I got it as a result of that ignorant policy. As a result I wrote the DOW threatening to dress up my �traditional� muzzleloader with a thumbhole synthetic stock, Williams FireSight sights, a fluted stainless barrel, titanium hammer for faster lock time, an aftermarket trigger and give it a red, white and blue paint job with neon-yellow lightning bolts. Moreover I suggested blaze orange attire consisting of a coonskin cap and fringed vest and pants with modern Goretex/Thinsulate hunting boots. Then I asked if that, all perfectly legal, would better meet the �traditional� look and feel they felt was appropriate for the �primitive� muzzleloading season. Morons.

Some people I know, including two of my daughters, only own one rifle and that is an AR. Would you force them to buy another rifle to go hunting even though the AR would be fine with a limited-capacity magazine? Although I have a variety of other rifles, why is my AR with its .223 and .300 Blackout uppers any less appropriate for hunting than a more �traditional� Browning BAR or a Ruger Mini-14/Mini-30 with detachable box magazines of equal capacity?

What difference does it make if firearms are not �traditional� by some people�s arbitrary standards? None. Are we to prohibit hunting with new firearm designs based on looks rather than function? If so we are as moronic as the DOW in the late �90�s.

Coyote Hunter-

SPOT ON !!!

Unfortunately we have MORONS distributed thru out the U.S. even

into the White House.

well said.

Who's head is in the sand, here?

You do realize that the most common shotgun in the hunting field is also the most common shotgun on the battle field? Its called a Remington 870...how does that differ? You talk about the m-16 being a 1950s advancement. Well. It was closer to the 60s around the same time as a the Remington 700 was introduced. I guess that makes it obsolete and useless, as well?
(M-16 adopted 1963 and Rem 700 debuted in '62)

Heck, your screen name denotes 1940s technology...unless your referring to a 270 shorty, then where is traditional in that?

How is an AR any different then say...a Rem 7400? Or a Browning BAR? Or a 10/22?

Yes, you sir, have you head planted firmly I the ground.

We're missing the point here! This isn't about what makes a particular model of gun acceptable, and it SURE isn't about us arguing who is right on this forum. This is about a thinly veiled and serious effort to eviscerate the 2nd amendment.
Look at how this proposed legislation is worded... review the records of Obama and Feinsteins' positions on gun control over the past 15 years. This is just how they have chosen to bring Gun Control to market, by riding on the coattails of tragedy and using it for political gain.
We all know the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's about our right to defend ourselves as individual citizens, it is specifically spelled out that it is about our right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government that would seek to disarms us... Exactly What Is Going On Right Now!

Moment of clarity!


We're missing the point here! This isn't about what makes a particular model of gun acceptable, and it SURE isn't about us arguing who is right on this forum. This is about a thinly veiled and serious effort to eviscerate the 2nd amendment.
Look at how this proposed legislation is worded... review the records of Obama and Feinsteins' positions on gun control over the past 15 years. This is just how they have chosen to bring Gun Control to market, by riding on the coattails of tragedy and using it for political gain.
We all know the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's about our right to defend ourselves as individual citizens, it is specifically spelled out that it is about our right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government that would seek to disarms us... Exactly What Is Going On Right Now!

A B S O L U T E L Y !!

Can't get any clearer than that!

Yeah, they're not worth a darn for hunting:

The OFFICIAL "I whacked it with an AR thread!!

John

Came across this site just a few days ago. Been reading for a few nights and figured I'd jump in. First of all the rights In the Bill of Rights were not given to us by the Founding Fathers. They were given to us by God and as such can not be taken away. The Bill of Rights simply serves to prohibit the government from infringing upon our God given rights. The bickering among gun owners and hunters as to what constitutes a sporting arm only serves as a wedge to divide gun owners and turn them against each other. This seems to be a favored tactic of the Obama administration. While one may not care if their neighbor's rights are being violated, surely sooner or later something they hold dear will be taken as well. We as gun owners must stand together and protect our God given rights. Call your elected representatives and let them know that we should not let the actions of the few, however tragic they may be, be used to take away our rights given to us by our creator.

Mathew Bracken's essay on gun control. A bit long but worth reading. Bracken: Dear Mr. Security Agent