Join Date: January 21, 2009
The AR is a better hunting rifle
Plenty of ignorant talking heads and has been celebrities asking why anyone would use an "assault weapon" for hunting.
Well, because it's safer? More accurate?
Go thru the list of lies spouted off in the news, every one is actually wrong. We seem to miss that. It's more than simply chuckling over "that shoulder stock thingy."
The first hated object, the standard 20/30 round magazine, isn't really used in most states to hunt - at full capacity. Most hunters live in a restricted state already - 5 to 10 rounds maximum in the gun during the season. So, like a shotgun, it gets blocked, or a special one purchased - a low capacity magazine.
Yes, the wording is specific, and we need to quit using their's. 30 rounds are not HIGH capacity - it's standard gov't issue. Quit feeding their lies. Don't buy HIGH capacity mags, buy standard GI.
Second, it's detachable, where the next hated feature lies. You can remove the mag, pull the charging handle, the AR is unloaded. Most "hunting" rifles with less capacity require you to manually cycle the rounds thru the chamber and eject them. That means there is a risk of accidental discharge unloading the gun every time you close the bolt. That is a fact, it happens all the time. With the AR, it is much less likely, by a 1 to 5, 6,or 7 ratio. Safer.
If the common sense hunter unloads his rifle climbing obstacles in the field, then the common sense answer is REQUIRE a magazine to improve hunter safety.
Self loading is another hated feature, a type sold since the 1885 Mannlicher. The advantage is that the hunter doesn't have to lose his sight picture or remove his finger from the trigger, he's ready for the next shot in split second. When hunting in the field, the ethical hunter knows he stands a risk of a poorly placed shot which will require a follow up. It's not a question of skill as often as the environment and the game - they don't pose for the shot, and in woodland, you don't get a clear one across hundreds of yards of their travel. A second shot is more likely to bring down the game, end the chase, reduce loss, and eliminate long term suffering of a wounded animal.
Therefore, the AR is a more ethical and humane gun. Add to that, it's usually in a caliber that matches the game and terrain, and that means less recoil. The hunter and rifle are inherently more accurate, and there is even less propensity to flinch, misdirecting the shot.
Some argue the point, but the evidence is in National Match Service Rifle shooting. The AR, with less recoil, is more accurate in the rapid fire stage than the older large caliber guns. Part of that accuracy is simply less drama when shooting. The AR holds most of the top ten places in matches, and has for decades now.
And last - the AR has been the biggest selling firearm to civilians for years now. Hunting is the reason most guns are sold, and AR's are better at it, lighter weight, and work. It IS American's hunting rifle now, and the magazines, websites, and development of alternate calibers dedicated to hunting point that out. You might prefer one newer caliber over another, but make no mistake, buried in the threads of which is best is the point - which is better for HUNTING.
If you hear "nobody can hunt with an assault rifle" feel free to inform them it's actually more accurate, more ethical, and safer. The facts are pretty clear, and trying to defend other choices is usually an attempt to protect social standing or a political ploy. The gun itself is the natural heir of mechanical improvement over hundreds of years of design and use, and has been the issue rifle for the Armed Forces over 45 years - in the hands of rank beginners with just a few weeks of training.
How much more so for you?