Posted on 11/18/2017 6:57:29 AM PST by Simon Green
AR-15s have long been a symbol of the tactical world, but black rifles are slowly creeping their way past military and law enforcement applications and into the world of hunting. Touting more caliber options, efficiency and modularity, the versatile platform is transforming the way hunters down prey, but what’s causing hunters to ditch traditional rifle set-ups in favor of modern sporting rifles?
The biggest benefit to the AR, or modern sporting rifle, platform has always been its modularity. Unlike traditional bolt-action setups, gun owners can easily swap between an almost endless sea of uppers and lowers. This ability to trade in and out parts allows hunters to fine-tune their hunting platform to desired specifications.
This modularity is especially useful for hunters who routinely stalk various kinds of prey, utilizing an array of calibers to do it. While the most common chambering on the MSR lineup is undoubtedly .223/5.56, an increase in popular cartridges like .300 Blackout and 6.5 Creedmoor have pushed parts manufacturers to offer more uppers and barrels outside the 5.56 realm. This caliber modularity advantage elevated the AR-15s popularity in the hunting world, making it a viable contender against bolt-action.
Mark Grimsley, a hunter out of Kansas and owner of the Fit’n Fire YouTube channel told Guns.com in an interview that the AR-15’s vast array of caliber options is one of many reasons he chose an AR setup for hunts.
“One rifle can be easily converted in to several different variants that will allow you to choose the right caliber for your hunt,” Grimsley said. “Going coyote hunting on Monday, use your .223/5.56 upper. Going whitetail hunting Tuesday, switch to the .300 Blackout. Going Elk hunting on Wednesday, change your upper again to a 6.5 Grendel. All of those upper receivers can be used with the same type of lower which gives greater flexibility for the hunter and the AR platform.”
Grimsley, an 11-year U.S. Army veteran, also pointed to the AR-15s widespread familiarity as a reason some hunters, especially those coming from military and law enforcement backgrounds, are choosing modular sporting rifles.
“One of the main reasons that I started using an AR style rifle to hunt with was because it was so familiar to me,” Grimsley said. “I have been around the AR platform for about two decades now, between my father’s influence and my military time, and I have become extremely comfortable with its feedback, loading/unloading, placement of the safety, and remedial actions to clear malfunctions should there ever be any.”
Aside from modularity, hunters say the AR-15 offers a level of versatility unparalleled in the bolt-action universe. MSRs easy disassembly and reassembly procedure in addition to the advent of the collapsible stock grants hunters the ability to hike in several miles on foot with the gun carried stealthily and safely in a backpack. Hunters traipsing through fields in unrestricted states are also afforded the luxury of 30 round magazines which increase the number of shots a hunter can fire in a given time period while decreasing follow-up shot time. This can often mean the difference between taking a trophy and going home empty handed.
“I believe in one well-placed shot,” coyote hunter Greg Sodergren told Time Magazine of the AR-15. “(But) if you’ve got multiple animals or you miss, you’ve got a quick follow-up shot.”
In addition, the speed in which the AR cycles its bolt as compared to the manual cycling of a bolt-action means more potential shots on target or multiple shots effortlessly carried out on multiple targets.
“A semi-auto changed my life,” Eric Mayer, who runs AR15hunter.com, told Time Magazine. “I’m able to make the (shot) because I don’t have to run the bolt (and) lose the target in my scope.”
Despite its advantages, the AR-15 has had its swath of bad press, earning it a bad boy reputation among its fellow rifle peers.
“I feel that the AR has previously received a bad rap as far as it being used as a hunting rifle,” Grimsley said. “Because of its military inception, it has been seen as an under powered, military application rifle only. Not until recently, with the popularity of the newer rounds have people started to consider it as a viable option for hunting applications.”
Regardless of its reputation, loyalists to the MSR point to its efficiency as the number one reason ARs are enjoying such success on the shoulders of hunters.
“It’s the most capable tool for the job at this time,” Mayer said. “Bar none. Period. It is.”
With my Winchester 70 Long Action, my target is dead in its' tracks after the first shot.
Modular Sporting Rifle.
Way to go!
Now just curiosity on my part. Can you, after taking that killer shot, maintain your sight picture, not changing your cheek-weld to the stock, and cycle the next round. Or will your hand or bolt handle impact your face?
I'm curious because I've done most all my hunting with the short action. And yes, I kill on the first shot as well. I'm a boiler room shooter though(except on hogs). No immediate drop, but they don't go far. I've found there's less meat damage on a heart/lung shot, than the neck shot. One's never got away.
Thank you for your service to our country, my FRiend!
Ah.
“I have zero problems with my $350.00 Savage 30.06 bolt action.“
I have a Model 110 in .308. Got it at Cabelas topped with a Nikon BDC scope. Paid $350 pretty much out the door.
It’s wicked accurate with the best out of the box trigger I’ve ever had.
L
You are very welcome, thank you.
Nice. Can I borrow a grand from you?
CC
After putting a thermal scope on it, I’m broke.
Yep, hunters need that 30 round magazine/clip for “quick follow up shots”. Sometimes it takes 5 or 6 rounds to make sure a rabbit is _really_ down.
——-
And the herd will get mad.
There is no capacity clause in the 2A, nor a target shooting clause, nor a duck hunting clause.
I believe you are at the wrong site.
“... I’m not in the Army so their definitions are irrelevant....
...I don’t think i said that the AR15 is “superior for every task” either. It is a good one-gun solution for just about anything that a private citizen will encounter. ...”
Military requirements gave rise to the AR-15 family of firearms, and have driven every development. Civilian adaptations are minor variants. This means that military definitions are just the opposite of irrelevant: they control and constrain everything Bryanw92 will be able to purchase, modify, or build.
If by “one-gun solution” Bryanw92 means a rifle/cartridge combination the average individual can master, with effective range no greater than that at which the average can score an acceptable percentage of hits, then I agree: an AR-15-style rifle isn’t a bad compromise.
But the moment the range lengthens beyond that, the AR-15 user is at a disadvantage, especially against an opponent firing a reasonably accurate rifle chambering one of the original bottle-neck military cartridges charged with nitro propellant introduced in the period 1886-1906. The bolt action rifles issued by the Euro powers, US, and Imperial Japan will outshoot the AR-15. Each and every one will: every time.
A Glock 17 is a great choice to go with the AR-15, not so by the way.
I’m hunting blacktail, so , as a rule, if an animal drops, it’ll be obscured by brush. If I catch a doe or spike in the open, good to go. I’ll know where it dies. I hunt 30-06, 180 grains. Recoil ruins my sight picture before hand or bolt enter into it. Thought about going with the .243...just haven’t. Hope that helps.
>>If by “one-gun solution” Bryanw92 means a rifle/cartridge combination the average individual can master, with effective range no greater than that at which the average can score an acceptable percentage of hits, then I agree: an AR-15-style rifle isn’t a bad compromise.
I don’t know why you are trying to turn this into an argument that I’m saying that the AR-15 is a good rifle from CQB to 1000 yds.
But if you are trying to educate me, then you totally miss my thesis: the AR-15 IS a good compromise, as you admit. That’s all I’m saying. It is good compromise that is very reliable for a citizen, effective at reasonable distances, and can put out a volume of fire that meets the needs of a citizen trying to, as an example, take down a solo shooter from across a parking lot.
>>The bolt action rifles issued by the Euro powers, US, and Imperial Japan will outshoot the AR-15. Each and every one will: every time.
If the bolt-action is so superior and the Army knows that, then explain the Garand.
.
>> “then explain the Garand” <<
Easy:
The need to make lots of lead fly rapidly, accurately, and reliably.
.
>>Easy:
>>The need to make lots of lead fly rapidly, accurately, and reliably.
Exactly. But the other poster, who says he is an expert on Army weapons, says that an AR-15 does meet the Army definition of “firepower”, so an 8-shot Garand certainly would not.
“So you understand cost vs benefits analysis of functional vs perfect. ...” [Bryanw92, post 78]
Pretty succinct. Except that “perfect” never happens. Also assumes that:
1. The user knows what they want
2. Politics (institutional, interservice, national, international) don’t intervene
3. Original requirements remain stable
Item 2 almost never happens. Item 1 is sometimes an uphill battle - especially when the user is slow to acknowledge that constraints exist (laws of physics, development time is never zero, designers and manufacturers want money before they perform, etc) or is over-impressed with advancing technology and clings to the dippy faith that tech solves all (and does so overnight, for no money). Item 3 is unpredictable, but is made worse when the user clings to the “tech solves all” faith. There are more; these loom larger.
“...So, a rifle that can put its rounds reliably into a 10 pie plate at distance is useless or not? If I am a sniper, I want the eyeball shot. If I am a regular soldier or militiaman, is a solid center mass or pelvic hit good enough? ...”
Not a bad approximation, but still too generalized. Chances of success depend too tightly on situations, which are simply too varied, and change too quickly in the field, to predict the need beforehand.
Military units compensate by creating teams (more manpower enhances flexibility), improving communications (radio for air support), and fielding heavier weapons (ATACMS outrange sniper fire). The civilian user ordinarily cannot call on any of those.
“...Factory ammo baby!! That’s the name of the game. ... Factory quality control is very good. ... I quit reloading year ago. Don’t have the patience ... I do have money and plenty of suppliers.”
If Bryanw92 has the money and what he buys fills the requirement, good enough. After reloading for all but two calibers (out of dozens), I confess my patience has declined (along with my physical stamina).
But my experience has been just the opposite when it comes to accuracy: no reload I have created has ever proven less accurate than factory ammunition. And reloads have proven more accurate by wide margins, typically: 70-80 percent reduction in group size. Holds true across all chamberings and all platforms. Only one exception: cast bullet, wrong configuration & weight.
Gun magazine writers wax enthusiastic about advances in factory loads, which deliver much smaller groups. Heard it by word of mouth also, from former customers (no one ever brought us targets to compare, though). But prices for the newer stuff have been high, so I’ve never bothered; my reloading was already delivering better results, at a fraction of the cost.
My other experiences in gun sales and repair indicate that the shooters too busy to reload are thes one firing magazine upon magazine through their Kalashnikov (or AR-15). They demand the cheapest ammo they can find, then complain about poor results. Volume means more to them than performance
>>Military units compensate by creating teams (more manpower enhances flexibility), improving communications (radio for air support), and fielding heavier weapons (ATACMS outrange sniper fire). The civilian user ordinarily cannot call on any of those.
Please try to understand what I’m saying. I’m not talking about unit tactics. I am literally talking about a gun that a private citizen owns. If you can’t restrict the conversation to that, then you are wasting your time.
>>Not a bad approximation, but still too generalized. Chances of success depend too tightly on situations, which are simply too varied, and change too quickly in the field, to predict the need beforehand.
That is exactly what I’m talking about. Question: will an AR-15 meet the non-specialized needs of the common American citizen in the 21st century? I’m not talking about a stand-up battle with a mechanized infantry unit or shooting down aircraft. But everything from small game to rabid dogs to taking down a killer from across a parking lot, while being inexpensive enough for widespread ownership with ammo that is cheap enough for enough practice. Think hand-size accuracy, not 1 MOA.
>>Pretty succinct. Except that “perfect” never happens.
Umm. Yeah. That’s what I was telling you. I don’t want a golf bag full of “perfect” rifles. I own an 870, an AR-15, and a 10/22. There is nothing that I would do that requires a different long gun. I can bag a squirrel with the 10/22 so a bolt-action that can allow me to bag a cockroach at the same distance is unnecessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
