doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com OT: Metcalf, Petersen's Hunting, and the AR 15

I sat out of the recent discussion about assault rifles. It was not that I didn't have an opinion, it was simply because they were conflicting. It was only after reading Metcalf's article in the most recent Petersen's Hunting magazine that I realized the source of my conflict and where my personal views diverged from some of my colleagues on this site.

To over simplify, Metcalf's premiss is that an AR15 made a fine hunting arm because, historically, all military rifles were adapted eventually to hunting. The more I read, the more convinced I became that the premiss was irrelevant and the outcome potentially harmful to the sport I love.

First, let me set aside the issue of "right" to ownership. I have no objection to any relatively sane adult owning a semi-automatic battle rifle of any configuration they desire. Perhaps because I lugged one around on and off for 29 years, I have never understood the facination, but that is an issue other than right to ownership.

What I do have a problem with is an AR15's (or AK, AUG, etc) use as a hunting weapon. First to the historical issue upon which Metcalf hangs his thesis. True enough, Mausers, Springfields, and numerous other actions have found their way into the hunting fields. They belong there. They were designed for riflemen to use; to place aimed fire against a target. When equipped with a scope, they became truly precision weapons in the hands of trained snipers. As hunting tools they were (and obviously, are) an extremely accurate means to ethically and cleanly take game without inflicting undue suffering to the animals we pursue.

Developed first in Germany during the later stages of WWII, the assault rifle was created to be just that .... an assault rifle (or perhaps, more literally, a carbine). It was designed to deliver high rates of fire in relatively close combat. Accuracy was deemed secondary to volume of fire. Large magazines, short (light weight) rounds became the norm. None of these are the characteristics of a weapon optimized to take game. It is easy to imagine any number of scenarios where an aimed rifle bullet is the desired conclusion of a big game hunt. I struggle with one where a hail of rounds from large assault magazine is necessary. And if a carbine can be made capable of accurate single round fire, as many can, then why lug around the extra ammunition or a weapon so configured.

That then brings me to the mind state of a fellow hunter who feels such armament is needed. If it does indeed represent the antithesis of what shooting a big game animal is about - ethical precision in delivering an accurate mortal wound - then what does the AR15 represent? My immediate reaction is that the opportunity to carry such a weapon openly in the field scratches a "wannabe" itch that I am not professionaly schooled to discuss, but one which I find no less uncomfortable. I have much the same reaction when I see the overweight and over young members of the Virginia Militia roaming the aisles of the local gun shows with the latest copy of Soldier of Fortune tucked under their arms. I suspect many in our population who tolerate our sport but do not actively oppose it, will be equally confused. That is, I believe, a legitimate concern.

And so, I come to what I now believe about this issue. I strongly support the right to own a semi-automatic battle rifle or carbine. However, I also strongly oppose their use in the game field. The firepower is unnecessary, and if utilized for that reason, it is the hands of an unethical hunter. Through a similar logic, I don't particularly care to share a duck blind with someone toting a 15 round semi-auto shotgun. Neither are particularly good for our image.