5.56/.223 for hunting? - Page 2

Fla_dogman · June 29, 2016, 08:48 PM

Here in Florida the deer are not as big so the 223 is adequate, shot placement, as with any round, is key

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

Sure Shot Mc Gee · June 29, 2016, 09:36 PM

A couple years ago MN allowed the 223 & 30 carbine for the taking of Big Game. Probably because of their on going popularity.

22-rimfire · June 29, 2016, 09:55 PM

Is the 30 Carbine popular? I know the .223/5.56 is.

tahunua001 · June 29, 2016, 10:39 PM

I don't know the exact count but I have looked at MOST of the state regulations because I have seen a lot of uninformed people claim that MOST states do not allow the 223/5.56 for hunting. I believe that the count I was at when I stopped, 28 allowing such and only 5 banning it.

with that said, most of said states ban it on grounds that it can't cleanly be used to kill game, however I have seen much more anemic rounds take game in the past. I've seen several deer taken cleanly with the 223 and I've taken them with much less. the 223 is extremely effective when used against predators and varmints as most are smaller than your average deer and many of the states that ban it from being used on medium game will still allow it's use for varminting and predator hunting.

Sure Shot Mc Gee · June 30, 2016, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Is the 30 Carbine popular?

Must be. Otherwise I haven't a clue why such a mediocre cartridge was considered. Besides.
A 30 Carbine isn't all that bad as a deer cartridge. Just have to get use too shooting all yer Big Game animals numerous times is all.

22-rimfire · July 1, 2016, 08:41 AM

My older brother's first couple of deer were shot with a .222 in PA and they pretty much didn't run any further than ones that I have seen shot with such cartridges as the .243 although I feel a lot more comfortable with something a bit more powerful than the .243 personally for deer. The 243 is a great cartridge however and very flexible.

The state requirements on caliber/cartridge/power were usually created based on killing power for deer. For example the 218 Bee was not legal in PA, but the .222 was. So, the .223 is just fine if you pay attention to your bullet selection and shots. Now states such as TN have just regulated it to "center fire only" I think to include some of the military calibers and to potentially allow more people to hunt deer. Deer populations have been increasing and the number of hunters decreasing. My problem is making deer hunting or access to lands to hunt deer into a business takes a lot of the joy out of it.

Gunplummer · July 2, 2016, 06:24 AM

ANY center fire rifle cartridge is legal for deer in PA, and has been since I have been hunting. The .17 Remington is legal. I hunt WV every year and a rimfire of .25 caliber or larger is legal for deer. How is that for underpowered?

**Aguila Blanca** · July 2, 2016, 06:37 PM

Gentlemen, this thread leaves me feeling very depressed about the future of gun rights in the United States. I thought my initial post spelled out pretty clearly the reason for my question -- and it has nothing to do with whether or not the .223 is adequate for taking deer, it concerns ONLY the fact that the media invariably portray the .223 is immensely deadly, and yet a number of states don't even allow it for hunting "small big game" like deer.

All I wanted was a count of how many states allow the .223 for hunting deer and how many do not. It took nine posts before someone answered the question. That was back on June 26. Even after the question was fully answered, the thread continued on its merry way, arguing about whether or not the round is or isn't "adequate" for deer.

Gentlemen, that was NOT the question! The issue is getting statistics to refute the media lie that the .223 round is somehow incomprehensibly deadly. That's it -- nothing more, nothing less.

I noted in my initial post that I'm not an annual hunter. I have my license, but in my state it's difficult to find a place to hunt, and the tracts on state land are assigned by lottery. And I've never won a lottery. But I am active in my state's 2A advocacy group. I keep reading about the divide between hunters and other recreational shooters. Seeing the direction this thread has taken makes me believe that not only is this divide real, it's actually much worse than I ever imagined. How else could what should have been an easy question to answer, based purely on the laws and regulations of each state, have gone so far astray and gotten so bogged down in arguments of what is or isn't "adequate" for taking deer?

Taylorce1, thanks for the answer to the question. I don't know what to say to the other participants in this discussion -- do you even understand the issue? Do you CARE?

iraiam · July 2, 2016, 08:36 PM

While I can't hunt any big game in CO with it, I have hunted coyote and other smaller game. I especially enjoy whacking a coyote with my match grade AR.

Gunplummer · July 2, 2016, 11:59 PM

"If you know the reason, I would like that as well". Seems to me that opened the ball, and no, I do not care.

Koda94 · July 3, 2016, 12:15 AM

a good list was posted already so I’m probably a little late but if it helps to elaborate...
here in Oregon its legal to hunt deer, black bear, pronghorn, cougar, feral swine and coyote with .223/556 (note its illegal to hunt deer with any FMJ regardless of caliber). It is not legal to hunt elk, bighorn sheep or mt goat. For hunting we have a mag limit of 5rds for semi auto rifles.

http://www.eregulations.com/oregon/big-game-hunting/

yes, there is a huge divide between hunters and other shooters.

gunrunner1 · July 3, 2016, 08:07 AM

Why do we need AR15s.

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense". - John Adams

"A free people ought to be armed". - George Washington

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms". - James Madison

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun". - Patrick Henry

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact, the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them" - Richard Henry Lee,

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops" - Noah Webster

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense”. - Alexander Hamilton

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” — James Madison

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” — Abraham Lincoln

“If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost everything. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity." — Patrick Henry

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington

You will notice that hunting isn't mentioned, nor is the phrase "Suitable for sporting use".

**Aguila Blanca** · July 3, 2016, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunplummer

and no, I do not care.

And that's the crux of the problem. The hunters don't care if the gun grabbers go after the handgunners, the target shooters, and the self defense carriers. The target shooters don't care if the gun grabbers go after the practical shooting competitors, the self defense carriers, and the hunters. And so on.

They're all "guns," and the anti-gun movement won't be satisfied until they have eventually taken away ALL our guns. Frankly, shame on you for not caring. Maybe there's something wrong with me, but when the media conspires to demonize a cartridge that 14 states don't even allow to be used for hunting deer as a "high powered" cartridge only suitable for killing humans, I think we all need to care. I think we all need to call them out on the lie.

[/rant]

Koda94 · July 3, 2016, 11:02 AM

what’s ironc about hunters that don’t care about the Second Amendment rights is that virtually most all hunting rifles are military design.

foolzrushn · July 3, 2016, 11:05 AM

It seems to me many anti-gun people, and some that are still deciding, are mostly concerned or wondering, about capacity and available firing rate, not caliber. They don't see why the traditional bolt actions are not adequate for hunting. They are not enamored with the modular design or any other feature of an AR style, and it's not what Dad had. They see what an AR style can do from news accounts. It doesn't help that few bolts have been used for attacks recently, not that anything should be.

I don't think a caliber discussion with them would help. They don't hunt and don't particularly care if anyone does, especially if it's with something that might cause them grief. That's the crux of the problem. IMHO

Koda94 · July 3, 2016, 11:22 AM

I have to agree the AR style is a poor argument to call it a hunting rifle or more covertly "Modern Sporting Rifle". The few that do hunt deer with them are really a minority overall. The AR was originally designed for military use and wasn’t modified for civilian use until well after it was adopted by the US military.

I’m not against the rifle in fact I fully support the right to own one, I’m just saying its a moot argument to call it a hunting rifle.

22-rimfire · July 3, 2016, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Gentlemen, this thread leaves me feeling very depressed about the future of gun rights in the United States. I thought my initial post spelled out pretty clearly the reason for my question -- and it has nothing to do with whether or not the .223 is adequate for taking deer, it concerns ONLY the fact that the media invariably portray the .223 is immensely deadly, and yet a number of states don't even allow it for hunting "small big game" like deer.

All I wanted was a count of how many states allow the .223 for hunting deer and how many do not. It took nine posts before someone answered the question. That was back on June 26. Even after the question was fully answered, the thread continued on its merry way, arguing about whether or not the round is or isn't "adequate" for deer.

Gentlemen, that was NOT the question! The issue is getting statistics to refute the media lie that the .223 round is somehow incomprehensibly deadly. That's it -- nothing more, nothing less.

I'm afraid I don't understand why you're "very depressed" about the future of gun rights in the US based on this thread. Threads wander and you got your answer in post #9. Or would you have rather gotten 50 posts from people in 50 states saying what is legal in their state?

Our President calls "assault rifles" (read modern semi-automatic rifles) as instruments of war. The calibers chosen for war are deadly. I'm afraid that I don't understand why the media would portray the 223/5.56 as "incomphensively deadly" since it actually is one of the lower powered center fire rifle cartridges/calibers in common use today. It is pretty easy walking around a night club shooting people lying on the floor at close range and killing them. One needs to reflect on our own likely reaction in such a situation.

Thanks for the reminder by one of the posters that "any centerfire" is legal for hunting deer in PA now. It was not like that when I lived there.

gunrunner1 · July 3, 2016, 01:07 PM

I have to agree the AR style is a poor argument to call it a hunting rifle or more covertly "Modern Sporting Rifle". The few that do hunt deer with them are really a minority overall. The AR was originally designed for military use and wasn’t modified for civilian use until well after it was adopted by the US military.

I think the AR15 is one of the most versatile rifles ever designed. There is a reason that 25% of all rifles sold is an AR type. It is extremely reliable, accurate, and can be built or repaired easily by the shade tree gunsmith. It can be had in a variety of calibers, some capable of taking the largest game in North America. While those who hunt deer with it maybe be a minority, it is the rifle of choice for hog hunters. It is also an excellent choice for youth hunters. Colt began selling the AR15 to the general public in 1963. The M16A1 officially replaced the M14 in 1969.

Almost every rifle in existence can trace it's design roots back to a rifle that was designed for the military. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting and if we let the gun haters frame it that way, we will eventually lose everything, but single shots.

foolzrushn · July 3, 2016, 01:30 PM

I think in reality, you have given the best reasons. Many of the general public may not give those reasons their due value.

Perhaps there are shooting organizations for AR styles that I am not aware of. If there were greater participation in AR shooting, with skills structured for those ( similar to CAS events) which would increase the sporting aspect....then maybe support would not fall primarily to hunting.

The most reasonable hunting senario I think of, might be wild pigs from the ground, where you might be charged by more than one. And I don't know if that happens.

I am thinking in terms of better acceptance by those who are not shooters, ie general public.

Dufus · July 3, 2016, 03:18 PM

Quote:

The issue is getting statistics to refute the media lie that the .223 round is somehow incomprehensibly deadly. That's it -- nothing more, nothing less.

Well, Sir, the M16 came out in 1964.

During the Vietnamese War, somewhere between 800K and 3.1 million enemy warriors were killed between 1964 and 1973.

How many were attributed to the 5.56, is anyone's guess. I know they do kill things including people.

Therefore, I would say they are deadly.

In looking at statics of the American Civil War, I would say that muzzle loaders are just as deadly.

Good luck with the media. Somehow, I don't think they care.

The one thing that frosts my cookies is how everyone ignores the fact that more people die from alcohol related incidents than firearms.

Panfisher · July 3, 2016, 04:07 PM

When someone talks about how powerful the .223/5.56, its pretty simple to set out a .30-06, a .308, a 7.62x39, a .45 ACP, a 12 ga, and a .223, of course then you run the risk of the clueless media types jumping all over how overpowered American weapons and ammunition is, simply it is a no-win situation. Now if they really want to do a little research and find some videos showing how powerful and deadly the .223/5.56 is compared to those others, I doubt it would be difficult to find a video of someone shooting a melon with an old AP .30-06 round, then shooting it with a hot frangible like Zombie ammo or something that would really splatter it all over the place.

Gunplummer · July 3, 2016, 10:05 PM

Aguila Blanca, you are correct. There is something wrong with you. I happen to hunt with a semi-auto sometimes. That has nothing to do with anything. Take a good look at gunrunner1's post. That is what semi-autos are all about. If you can't use that in your arguments, you are in over your head. The hunting stance is just stupid. You don't "Need" a semi-auto to hunt. There is no using that excuse with people that don't hunt.

**Aguila Blanca** · July 3, 2016, 11:33 PM

^^^

This thread, and my question, has nothing to do with semi-automatic vs. bolt action vs. [whatever]. This is about the media claims that the .223 cartridge is a super-lethal round that's suitable only for killing humans -- yet multiple states don't even allow it for hunting deer.

All I wanted and all I asked for was information to refute the media claim.

Entiende?

Koda94 · July 4, 2016, 01:00 AM

Quote:

This is about the media claims that the .223 cartridge is a super-lethal round that's suitable only for killing humans -- yet multiple states don't even allow it for hunting deer.

Aguila, think carefully before you try to use that argument... its really a moot point. About as moot as saying the AR15 is a modern "sporting rifle" so we should be able to keep them, cause hunting...

The argument is focusing on the gun not the problem... the antis don’t care about hunting, the 223 is a super-lethal round and the AR15 is super efficient at dispensing them. If I were you I would counter the point that the AR15 is not the most popular weapon used in mass shootings and that prohibition would only lead to a black market, for criminals. I would show that the AR15 is a safe option for home and self defense in a ever changing world. Any of these mass shooters could be using a mini 14, lever gun, sniper rifle but we know one thing if the AR15 is banned that’s the weapon we wont have to defend ourselves against someone who will seek one out illegally, like the current events in Europe. After defending the rifle in that manner, I would then argue why the antis don’t do anything to stop straw purchases or create stiffer penalties for keeping violent offenders off the streets. etc. etc.

forgive me for butting in, I don’t really know everything your preparing for but I know that the AR15 isn’t the most popular rifle in America because its ineffective at something, including deer hunting.

Bozz10mm · July 4, 2016, 05:16 AM

Some very good points made here. I don't remember the media ever once mentioning the .223 caliber as being a deadly round. They mostly focus on the weapon, not the caliber. No one is calling for a ban on .223 caliber weapons. It just happens that most AR 15 style rifles are .223/5.56.

Their argument is that you don't need a 30 round magazine full of ammo to hunt deer. But they go further and say no one needs a 30 round mag full of ammo for home defense or self defense.

The anti's are not understanding the major premise of the 2nd amendment. To allow the people freedom from oppression by a tyrannical government, which the British Monarchy was at the time.

June 29, 2016, 10:39 PM	#29
tahunua001 Senior Member Join Date: July 21, 2011 Location: Idaho Posts: 7,839	I don't know the exact count but I have looked at MOST of the state regulations because I have seen a lot of uninformed people claim that MOST states do not allow the 223/5.56 for hunting. I believe that the count I was at when I stopped, 28 allowing such and only 5 banning it. with that said, most of said states ban it on grounds that it can't cleanly be used to kill game, however I have seen much more anemic rounds take game in the past. I've seen several deer taken cleanly with the 223 and I've taken them with much less. the 223 is extremely effective when used against predators and varmints as most are smaller than your average deer and many of the states that ban it from being used on medium game will still allow it's use for varminting and predator hunting. __________________ ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin

July 2, 2016, 08:36 PM	#34
iraiam Senior Member Join Date: September 6, 2012 Location: Lakewood, CO Posts: 1,057	While I can't hunt any big game in CO with it, I have hunted coyote and other smaller game. I especially enjoy whacking a coyote with my match grade AR. __________________ NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason

July 3, 2016, 12:15 AM	#36
Koda94 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2012 Location: Cascadia Posts: 1,294	a good list was posted already so I’m probably a little late but if it helps to elaborate... here in Oregon its legal to hunt deer, black bear, pronghorn, cougar, feral swine and coyote with .223/556 (note its illegal to hunt deer with any FMJ regardless of caliber). It is not legal to hunt elk, bighorn sheep or mt goat. For hunting we have a mag limit of 5rds for semi auto rifles. http://www.eregulations.com/oregon/big-game-hunting/ yes, there is a huge divide between hunters and other shooters. __________________ lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

July 3, 2016, 11:02 AM	#39
Koda94 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2012 Location: Cascadia Posts: 1,294	what’s ironc about hunters that don’t care about the Second Amendment rights is that virtually most all hunting rifles are military design. __________________ lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

July 3, 2016, 11:05 AM	#40
foolzrushn Senior Member Join Date: April 29, 2015 Location: middle of the Santa Fe Trail Posts: 396	Aguila It seems to me many anti-gun people, and some that are still deciding, are mostly concerned or wondering, about capacity and available firing rate, not caliber. They don't see why the traditional bolt actions are not adequate for hunting. They are not enamored with the modular design or any other feature of an AR style, and it's not what Dad had. They see what an AR style can do from news accounts. It doesn't help that few bolts have been used for attacks recently, not that anything should be. I don't think a caliber discussion with them would help. They don't hunt and don't particularly care if anyone does, especially if it's with something that might cause them grief. That's the crux of the problem. IMHO __________________ If you feel that you're pretty important...you should think about your significance to the Universe....and re-evaluate ! certified 'soap welder' Last edited by foolzrushn; July 3, 2016 at 11:19 AM.

June 29, 2016, 08:48 PM	#26
Fla_dogman Senior Member Join Date: December 10, 2015 Posts: 265	Here in Florida the deer are not as big so the 223 is adequate, shot placement, as with any round, is key Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

June 29, 2016, 09:36 PM	#27
Sure Shot Mc Gee Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2012 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,876	A couple years ago MN allowed the 223 & 30 carbine for the taking of Big Game. Probably because of their on going popularity.

June 29, 2016, 09:55 PM	#28
22-rimfire Senior Member Join Date: February 19, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 5,323	Is the 30 Carbine popular? I know the .223/5.56 is.

July 1, 2016, 08:41 AM	#31
22-rimfire Senior Member Join Date: February 19, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 5,323	My older brother's first couple of deer were shot with a .222 in PA and they pretty much didn't run any further than ones that I have seen shot with such cartridges as the .243 although I feel a lot more comfortable with something a bit more powerful than the .243 personally for deer. The 243 is a great cartridge however and very flexible. The state requirements on caliber/cartridge/power were usually created based on killing power for deer. For example the 218 Bee was not legal in PA, but the .222 was. So, the .223 is just fine if you pay attention to your bullet selection and shots. Now states such as TN have just regulated it to "center fire only" I think to include some of the military calibers and to potentially allow more people to hunt deer. Deer populations have been increasing and the number of hunters decreasing. My problem is making deer hunting or access to lands to hunt deer into a business takes a lot of the joy out of it.

July 2, 2016, 06:24 AM	#32
Gunplummer Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2010 Location: South East Pa. Posts: 3,364	ANY center fire rifle cartridge is legal for deer in PA, and has been since I have been hunting. The .17 Remington is legal. I hunt WV every year and a rimfire of .25 caliber or larger is legal for deer. How is that for underpowered?

July 2, 2016, 06:37 PM	#33
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,462	Gentlemen, this thread leaves me feeling very depressed about the future of gun rights in the United States. I thought my initial post spelled out pretty clearly the reason for my question -- and it has nothing to do with whether or not the .223 is adequate for taking deer, it concerns ONLY the fact that the media invariably portray the .223 is immensely deadly, and yet a number of states don't even allow it for hunting "small big game" like deer. All I wanted was a count of how many states allow the .223 for hunting deer and how many do not. It took nine posts before someone answered the question. That was back on June 26. Even after the question was fully answered, the thread continued on its merry way, arguing about whether or not the round is or isn't "adequate" for deer. Gentlemen, that was NOT the question! The issue is getting statistics to refute the media lie that the .223 round is somehow incomprehensibly deadly. That's it -- nothing more, nothing less. I noted in my initial post that I'm not an annual hunter. I have my license, but in my state it's difficult to find a place to hunt, and the tracts on state land are assigned by lottery. And I've never won a lottery. But I am active in my state's 2A advocacy group. I keep reading about the divide between hunters and other recreational shooters. Seeing the direction this thread has taken makes me believe that not only is this divide real, it's actually much worse than I ever imagined. How else could what should have been an easy question to answer, based purely on the laws and regulations of each state, have gone so far astray and gotten so bogged down in arguments of what is or isn't "adequate" for taking deer? Taylorce1, thanks for the answer to the question. I don't know what to say to the other participants in this discussion -- do you even understand the issue? Do you CARE?

July 2, 2016, 11:59 PM	#35
Gunplummer Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2010 Location: South East Pa. Posts: 3,364	"If you know the reason, I would like that as well". Seems to me that opened the ball, and no, I do not care.

July 3, 2016, 08:07 AM	#37
gunrunner1 Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 111	Why do we need AR15s. "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense". - John Adams "A free people ought to be armed". - George Washington "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms". - James Madison "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun". - Patrick Henry "Militias, when properly formed, are in fact, the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them" - Richard Henry Lee, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops" - Noah Webster "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense”. - Alexander Hamilton “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” — James Madison "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” — Abraham Lincoln “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost everything. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity." — Patrick Henry “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington You will notice that hunting isn't mentioned, nor is the phrase "Suitable for sporting use".

July 3, 2016, 11:22 AM	#41
Koda94 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2012 Location: Cascadia Posts: 1,294	I have to agree the AR style is a poor argument to call it a hunting rifle or more covertly "Modern Sporting Rifle". The few that do hunt deer with them are really a minority overall. The AR was originally designed for military use and wasn’t modified for civilian use until well after it was adopted by the US military. I’m not against the rifle in fact I fully support the right to own one, I’m just saying its a moot argument to call it a hunting rifle. __________________ lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

July 3, 2016, 01:07 PM	#43
gunrunner1 Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 111	I have to agree the AR style is a poor argument to call it a hunting rifle or more covertly "Modern Sporting Rifle". The few that do hunt deer with them are really a minority overall. The AR was originally designed for military use and wasn’t modified for civilian use until well after it was adopted by the US military. I think the AR15 is one of the most versatile rifles ever designed. There is a reason that 25% of all rifles sold is an AR type. It is extremely reliable, accurate, and can be built or repaired easily by the shade tree gunsmith. It can be had in a variety of calibers, some capable of taking the largest game in North America. While those who hunt deer with it maybe be a minority, it is the rifle of choice for hog hunters. It is also an excellent choice for youth hunters. Colt began selling the AR15 to the general public in 1963. The M16A1 officially replaced the M14 in 1969. Almost every rifle in existence can trace it's design roots back to a rifle that was designed for the military. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting and if we let the gun haters frame it that way, we will eventually lose everything, but single shots.

July 3, 2016, 01:30 PM	#44
foolzrushn Senior Member Join Date: April 29, 2015 Location: middle of the Santa Fe Trail Posts: 396	gunrunner1 I think in reality, you have given the best reasons. Many of the general public may not give those reasons their due value. Perhaps there are shooting organizations for AR styles that I am not aware of. If there were greater participation in AR shooting, with skills structured for those ( similar to CAS events) which would increase the sporting aspect....then maybe support would not fall primarily to hunting. The most reasonable hunting senario I think of, might be wild pigs from the ground, where you might be charged by more than one. And I don't know if that happens. I am thinking in terms of better acceptance by those who are not shooters, ie general public. __________________ If you feel that you're pretty important...you should think about your significance to the Universe....and re-evaluate ! certified 'soap welder' Last edited by foolzrushn; July 3, 2016 at 01:38 PM.

July 3, 2016, 04:07 PM	#46
Panfisher Senior Member Join Date: July 30, 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 1,337	When someone talks about how powerful the .223/5.56, its pretty simple to set out a .30-06, a .308, a 7.62x39, a .45 ACP, a 12 ga, and a .223, of course then you run the risk of the clueless media types jumping all over how overpowered American weapons and ammunition is, simply it is a no-win situation. Now if they really want to do a little research and find some videos showing how powerful and deadly the .223/5.56 is compared to those others, I doubt it would be difficult to find a video of someone shooting a melon with an old AP .30-06 round, then shooting it with a hot frangible like Zombie ammo or something that would really splatter it all over the place.

July 3, 2016, 10:05 PM	#47
Gunplummer Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2010 Location: South East Pa. Posts: 3,364	Aguila Blanca, you are correct. There is something wrong with you. I happen to hunt with a semi-auto sometimes. That has nothing to do with anything. Take a good look at gunrunner1's post. That is what semi-autos are all about. If you can't use that in your arguments, you are in over your head. The hunting stance is just stupid. You don't "Need" a semi-auto to hunt. There is no using that excuse with people that don't hunt.

July 3, 2016, 11:33 PM	#48
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,462	^^^ This thread, and my question, has nothing to do with semi-automatic vs. bolt action vs. [whatever]. This is about the media claims that the .223 cartridge is a super-lethal round that's suitable only for killing humans -- yet multiple states don't even allow it for hunting deer. All I wanted and all I asked for was information to refute the media claim. Entiende?

July 4, 2016, 05:16 AM	#50
Bozz10mm Senior Member Join Date: June 28, 2013 Location: Central Texas Posts: 287	Some very good points made here. I don't remember the media ever once mentioning the .223 caliber as being a deadly round. They mostly focus on the weapon, not the caliber. No one is calling for a ban on .223 caliber weapons. It just happens that most AR 15 style rifles are .223/5.56. Their argument is that you don't need a 30 round magazine full of ammo to hunt deer. But they go further and say no one needs a 30 round mag full of ammo for home defense or self defense. The anti's are not understanding the major premise of the 2nd amendment. To allow the people freedom from oppression by a tyrannical government, which the British Monarchy was at the time.