Posted on 02/18/2007 11:32:57 AM PST by xsrdx
As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.
I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.
I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."
Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."
This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.
Here's Outdoor Life's owner,
http://www.time4.com/time4/
Any more questions?
Be very very aware of what YOUR elected officials are doing.
The Jim Zumbos of the world do their "hunting" on leases where memberships cost thousands of dollars a year, but since he's a member of the media he gets to go on these hunts for nothing. His weapon will be some state-of-the-art tricked out race gun that probably costs more than a luxury car, fitted with thousands of dollars worth of optics and again, provided to him for free because the manufacturer wants him to evaluate it. All of his other gear will be the same - top of the line, brand new stuff provided to him by the manufacturers for evaluation.
When a Jim Zumbo goes out into the field, it's with an army of assistants, photographers and guides who do everything but carry him out to the site to wait for an animal, let him pose with his trophy, and then field dress it and take it out and back to the $500/night lodge where he's staying for free. We can't have him getting his shiny new camoflage coat all messy with that icky deer blood, after all.
The Jim Zumbos just can't relate to the average guy who wakes up at 3:00 AM on a Saturday or Sunday morning, drives his pickup out to the public land he's scouted out (or maybe it's a lease site he managed to scrape a few bucks together to buy into), humps his way into the woods to his stand with his off-the-shelf Remington 700 ADL or surplus military rifle, and hopes to get a shot in at a decent animal but often doesn't because a hundred other guys just like him are also stomping around in the woods hoping for the same thing he is and the animals have fled. And since a Jim Zumbo can't relate, he looks down on these guys with utter contempt, and casually proclaims them to be barbarians and savages who "give sportsmen a bad name."
There may be a species more obnoxious and insufferable than the hunting snob, but I can't think of what it might be.
Really? Did they also offer for him to tag along on a Jackalope huntin' trip in Douglas, too?
Call me a skeptic, but I'm not buying this as easily as this guy is.
This has all been very interesting, especially the "apology" that was obviously beaten out of him by several thousand e-mails and one phone call from Remington. Still, we need to keep on top of this issue. It's a well-known fact that when tired, hungry or stressed out in some other way, people say and do things they normally wouldn't.
In cases like this one, he now knows he should have kept his hands in his pockets instead of finding a keyboard, but it's extremely unlikely he's changed his mind in the least. As long as he has to make a living as a writer, he'll continue to write and say those things which will ensure a paycheck... kinda like a whore telling you how much she loves you. In his heart of hearts though, he'll still hate EBRs.
It's unfortunate for him - though perhaps it's a good thing for us - that he has stepped over the line. While 'Outdoor Life' has never been on my "must read" list, until he is no longer on staff it will be on my "do not touch, pick up or read under any circumstances" list.
I guess this idiot never heard of AR-15 match rifles. I knew zumbo was dumbo, but I didn't know he was a shill for the gun-grabber RATS. Screw him and any magazine he writes for. He's either too stupid to have a valid opinion, or he's a paid gun control propagandist. Either way, screw him.
While not the best choices, the .223, loaded with the right bullet, is ok for smallish deer. And the 7.62 x 39 carries the same energy at 125 yards as the old reliable 30-30. He's no dummy or amateur, so he has to know this.
To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.
I say the public needs to be educated.
If this guy ,whoever he is, would check regulations, he would find his most feared "assault rifles" were indeed not allowed for most hunting. AR15 are used for target shooting in some matches.
. The AR15 (M-16 etc.) round - 5.56 mm or .223 - was originally invented for varmint hunting. People were sizing large cases down to take a long .22 slug. It didn’t take long for Stoner to pick up on the idea.
mountn man:
And what is the rational purpose of limiting capacity? Hit less ducks?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SampleMan:
Yes. That's the rationale. Waterfowl are limited take for the season and/or day. The rationale behind the limitation is to make obeying that limit easier, on the premise that you need time to retrieve and identify what you just shot. That's rational.
Rational and right are two different things.
I'm not advocating a limitation, I don't see a reason for it. Neither do I see a reason to be sporting. No animal that has ever crossed in front of my rifle had a sporting chance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Its not 'illegal' to have a person loading one gun while you shoot another. -- So, - theoretically, - a hunter could keep up an almost machine gun rate of fire..
-- Not that anyone else would want to be anywhere near you. -- Except on a battlefield.
That's rational. Rational and right are two different things.
Someone ought to take Jim's SNIPER RIFLE away from him before he hurts somebody.
Like a Remington 700?
Then, if he has, shotgun or otherwise, he's used a brother to an AK.
All in all, Mr. Professional Hunter should stick to hunting since he's an idiot in regards to Constitutional Rights.
Good Grief! What a maroon!
Thanks for the ping, I can't wait to read the responses on the thread. Assault weapons for hunting, it's a really strange article.
If you'd like to be on or off this outdoors list, mostly rural issues, please FR mail me. And ping me is you see articles of interest.
I spent a pleasant day on a Wyoming ranch 20 some years ago. The rancher had an M-60 mounted on his porch railing. We used it to eliminate a lot of prairie dogs. This was something he did every few months.
And in fairness a ping to response in post 109.
Good stuff! :):)
WOW! I forgive.
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.