It’s not just wordplay that led the pro-gun people to refer to the AR15 as a Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR). Yes, it has almost entirely replaced the shotgun as the heavy artillery in American police patrol cars. Yes, it is well on its way to supplanting the shotgun as America’s most popular home defense long gun.
But it is also the predominant gun in the rifle side of America’s first national sport, competitive target shooting. The firing line at the National Championships looks like an AR15 collectors’ convention. The AR15 rules in the action rifle sports sponsored by the United States Practical Shooting Confederation and other organizations. PCC, Pistol-Caliber Carbine, is one of the fastest growing segments of International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) competition, with the AR15 platform by far the most popular there.
But what about hunting?
A few years ago, preparing for a debate, I scanned the three most popular outdoor sports (hunting and fishing) magazines on the newsstand. That month, they collectively had more ads for AR15 platform rifles than they did for traditionally-styled hunting rifles and shotguns.
And now comes this.
The authoritative report shows that a very large minority of hunters have taken AR15s afield…a distinct majority is agreeable to using them for hunting…and almost one out of six use an AR15 as their primary game harvesting tool.
When the “other side” calls ARs “assault weapons” and “weapons of war,” they are perpetuating a falsehood. Military ordnance experts, originally and now, defined “assault rifles” as having fully automatic (i.e., machine gun) capability, which AR15s do not. Moreover, there is not a nation on earth which issues the semi-automatic AR15 as a primary infantry rifle.
Conversely, when “our side” calls the AR15 a Modern Sporting Rifle, they’re telling the truth. In addition to its defensive capability for police and law-abiding citizens alike, the AR15 dominates in target shooting due to its modularity, ruggedness, accuracy and reliability. Those same features have made it, in various calibers, a growingly popular hunting rifle, as the report above authoritatively confirms.
Today’s gun prohibitionists, if dropped into 1910 America, would have decried sporterized Mauser and Springfield rifles as “weapons of war suitable only for slaughtering fellow citizens.” They would have demanded that SMLEs, with their high capacity magazines, be banned and confiscated. “You only need single-shot black powder rifles for hunting” and “if someone tries to break into your house, stick great grandpappies blunderbuss out the window and fire off a blast.”
Fantastic Comment, Bravo…..
My understanding of the definition of “assault rifle” was a carbine-length barreled firearm, chambered in an intermediate cartridge, capable of both fully-automatic operation. That said, the AR-15’s fail to meet the definition because they are not capable of fully-automatic firing.
On t’other hand the most common AR’s ARE chambered for what is definitely an “intermediate cartridge”, since the 5.56 (aka .223) is basically a light-weight, low-recoiling varmint cartridge. I don’t want to get into the whole caliber-war thing, but after having hunted white-tail deer with a variety of arms (12-gauge slugs, 7.62×39 soft-point, .30-06 hunting rounds) I would NEVER trust an AR-15 in 5.56/.223 (or any other rifle in that chambering) to bring down a white-tail. I’ve watched too many fail to drop when shot by others using that round, and have lost blood trails when trying to find them afterwards.
No, I don’t need to hear from the thousands of people who’ve had “one-shot drops” from their improved .22’s; I’ve known a lot of deer poachers who swear by a low-velocity .22 LR to take deer quietly in the woods. I know that a good (or lucky) shot will take a white-tail with a 5.56 round, it’s just that it’s far more likely to leave a wounded deer in the woods.
For hunting smaller critters (coyote for example) and precision shooting of varmints (woodchucking and prairie-dogging) it may be perfect, but not for anything deer-sized.
Chamber an AR in something starting with a “3” (.300 Blackout, etc.) and it’s a whole ‘nother story, but in 5.56/.223 I’m going to remain skeptical and continue to shoot a full-size cartridge for hunting deer. While I’m getting older (now in mid-sixties) recoil is starting to play a role, but the three rounds I fire to confirm zero at the range, and the one round I fire while hunting isn’t enough to bother me even shooting a .30-06 from a light-weight bolt rifle.
I know I’m going to get a lot of hate here, but that’s my opinion based on a lot of hunting experience.
I know my own state, Washington, and I beieve Oregon next to the south, both prohibit the use of the 5.56/.223 round for the taking if deer, the reason being just what you describe.
Their prohibition of the sale of AR and related “assault weapons” (liars….) in these two states is pushing me toward building one myself. Am thinking of figuroing out which other calibers would be good to use besides the 5.56. .300 Blackout, , maybe the Creedmore…. more research needed. Prolly build one rifle and get multiple choice barrels to fit the same.
A god friend of mine, sadly passed on of late, would take his 6.5 Swede Mauser with a 4x fixed scope for his deer and cougar hunts. His companions were lugging huge thirty cal+ magnums with even bigger scopes. Sometimes they’d spy a buck, say 400 yards up a draw, the guys with their big guns would shrug their shoulders and shake their heads “nope”, indicaating my friend was to take the shot. One tie, at four hundred yards, he dropped to kneeling, squeezed the trigger, and no ine saw the buck go anywhere, nor run off to somewhere else. He said “I got him” they said NOWAY. They trudged up the draw and were astounded to find the buck, who had simply relaxed every muscle in his body when his headshot flipped the main breaker. Ended up being a trophy buck that year. I’ve seen him, well mounted, at his home. His little eight pound deer rifle was very impressive. He had made his own monte’carlo style stock. Very pretty rifle, and very beautiful buck.
Well, you’re not wrong. I have taken deer with many different methods and calibers, including AR-15. The one an only, first and last, all in one deer. While a .223 will kill deer. The margin for error is greatly reduced. In my case, it was a full grown 2-3 year old 10 point which did drop with one round in heavy woods at 75 yards. But it was not nearly dead, and the scene that followed was one I do not wish to repeat. My AR-10 proved my point nicely the next chance I had two years later. It is now my go-to for further ventures afield in the deer woods. But yes, it CAN be done. The question is: should it be? I would sooner use the bow than the AR-15.
Well said.
I seriously do not understand why a rifle (any rifle, not just the AR15) “is well on its way to supplanting the shotgun as America’s most popular home defense long gun”
When I think of home defense, I think of inside the house.
My upbringing taught me that a shotgun is best for dealing with an intruder within the house itself, or within close proximity to the house itself.
What is it about a rifle that brings more value to home defense than a shotgun?
Less recoil, higher capacity, and with telescoping stock quick adaptability to authorized household members of all sizes.
Also, even if birdshot was a wise choice for the intended use, the idea that you can load a shotgun so that stray/ricocheting pellets don’t endanger other members of the household isn’t true in the age of drywall. If you have a ranch (or other) style house you may well have possible engagement ranges where use of a shotgun isn’t advisable. The single carefully directed projectile has it’s advantages.
I’ve still got the short barreled autoloading 12 gauge (now retired) that was most comforting/intimidating at various times in my younger days. As I’ve aged, shotgun recoil has become much more noticeable. I’ve been informed by folks who have experience that the noise of a MSR bolt cycling to load a round is just as intimidating as racking a shotgun.
If 12″ barrel shotguns weren’t tax restricted, it might be more relevant.
long shotgun with 18″ barrel is a pita to work indoors in confined spaces.
Also just harder for a smaller family member to use, and time and time again, defensive gun use is decided with the rounds you have in the gun you have.
Would you rather have 6 or 31 shots available?
“long shotgun with 18″ barrel is a pita to work indoors in confined spaces.”
If a compact shotgun is desired, and one does not want to fool with ATF registration and the tax stamp, then one always has the option of getting a Mossberg Shockwave. These are compact enough for indoor use and do not require registration with the ATF to own. Note that some States. however, ban them under State Law.
They are legal to own in my home State. I bought a Shockwave in 20 gauge. I thought that a 12 gauge shotgun, with pistol grip, too much of a good thing, recoil-wise. However, in 20 gauge, it is not too bad. At least, I don’t think so.
Lest someone say that a 20 gauge is “not enough gun” for home defense purposes, let me give you some figures. I set up my chronograph and checked out my Shockwave with a couple of loads:
1) I fired some Brenneke 3/4 oz. K.O. slug rounds over the chronograph. From the short barrel of the Shockwave, it averaged 1309 fps measured 12 feet from the muzzle. This slug weighs 328 grains and measures about 0.615 inches in diameter even without any expansion. Are you really going to say that a .62 caliber projectile, packing 1248 ft-lbs. of muzzle energy, is not enough to do the job?
2) I also fired the Federal 2 3/4 inch Power-Shok #3 Buck load over the chronograph. It average 1129 fps. Does anyone think that 20 pellets of #3 Buck, moving at the speed of sound, is still not enough?
I am satisfied that my 20 gauge Shockwave is plenty of gun for home defense. In this platform, it will do the job without the excessive recoil of a 12 gauge.
By adding a laser sight to the Shockwave; a powerful, close range, home defense weapon can be created. Capacity of the 20 gauge Shockwave is 5+1 with 2 3/4 inch shells.
Anyway, I am just pointing out that the 18-inch long gun is not the only platform available for a home defense shotgun. See this link to the 20 gauge Mossberg Shockwave:
https://www.budsgunshop.com/product_info.php/products_id/45327/mossberg+%26+sons+shockwave+590+14+20+ga+5+1
Yeah I’d challenge anyone to tell the difference between a 12 ft wound from 12ga buckshot from a 12ft wound from 20ga buckshot. I’d wager both are devastating.
There are plenty of AR calibers that regularly take deer. .308, 6.5, .223. The .223 is only problematic if wrong bullet choice/poor shot placement is in place.
“When the ‘other side’ calls ARs ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war,’ they are perpetuating a falsehood.”
Certainly, it is a falsehood to people who understand firearms and who value our 2nd Amendment Rights. Firearms-Prohibitionists do not fall into this category. They despise the 2nd Amendment and think that it should be repealed. They often use their media propagandists to magnify their views so as to sound authoritative about firearms. Yet, they are profoundly ignorant about them. Their “authoritative pronouncements”, like those of “Shotgun Joe Biden” recommending a double-barreled shotgun for home defense, cause us to laugh and heap scorn.
Nevertheless, in their minds, they are speaking truth. At least, those who are “True Believers” think so. Some of them are cynical totalitarians who know, full well, that they are just spreading falsehoods for political gain.
Their views on the AR are profoundly ignorant. In reality, the AR is the modern version of the common “Musket” from the founding period. Consider these points:
1) The musket was the standard firearm available for both warfare and civilian use. The civilian AR and the military AR share similar roots differing, mainly, in that the military version is select fire whereas the civilian version is semi-auto only.
2) The musket was commonly available on the civilian market. It was widely used for hunting, home defense, and (by the militia) for National defense. Much the same thing can be said for the AR.
3) The musket, in the founding period, was the standard firearm that the civilian was to provide in case of a general militia call-up. I expect that, if a general call for militia service was made in modern times, the AR would be the “standard arm” that a civilian, reporting for militia service, would provide.
The firearms-prohibitionists often opine that the 2nd Amendment was written to cover muskets. Some have even tried to make the argument that the 2nd Amendment does not cover modern arms. Rather, it only covers the type of muskets available at the time it was written. (An argument soundly rejected by the courts.)
Yet, they foam at the mouth with hatred for the AR platform. A platform that, in every practical way, is the modern equivalent to the “Musket” from the founding era. This disparity illustrates, very clearly, their profound ignorance of firearms, their history, and their development.
If the 2nd Amendment covered muskets during the founding era when it was written (and everyone, including the prohibitionists, pretty much agree that it did), then the 2nd Amendment certainly covers AR rifles today. To believe otherwise is like saying that the 1st Amendment covers material produced on an old fashioned printing press but does not cover material produced on modern computers.
As the courts have understood the 1st Amendment to cover modern publishing tools, they must also understand the 2nd Amendment to cover modern rifles like the AR. Under the Constitution, the modern computer is to the old-fashioned printing press as the modern AR is to the old-fashioned musket. One is the modern tool for publishing by the Press. The other is the modern tool for hunting, home defense, national defense by civilians.
The entire attack on the AR platform is political. It is done because the prohibitionists believe they can paint the AR black enough (no pun intended 🙂 )to be unacceptable to a gullible public. From a logical and legal standpoint, their attack makes no sense. They are attacking the modern equivalent to the “Musket” and claiming it is outside of any 2nd Amendment protections. Only someone who is brainwashed into living in the left-wing ivory tower can buy this argument on the AR. Logically and legally, it makes no sense.
Of course, as I observed in an earlier comment, logic has no place in left-wing thought. Leftists are ruled, almost entirely, by their “feelings” which they combine with a ruthless cunning to make the devil’s own “Witches-Brew”.
I agree with everything TN_MAN wrote. Just want to share my own journey from ignorance to enlightenment when it comes to muskets.
I never owned a gun till I was 37. Early on, I thought muskets and blunderbusses were obsolete. I learned muskets were smooth bore firearms, which fired one, round, lead projectile. I learned blunderbusses were the same, but they fired multiple projectiles, maybe even pebbles. Eventually I realized that when I fire slugs out of my smooth bore shotguns, I am firing the modern equivalent of a musket. When I fire buckshot out of my shotguns, that is the modern equivalent of a blunderbuss. Fascinating.
“…I realized that when I fire slugs out of my smooth bore shotguns, I am firing the modern equivalent of a musket. ”
A smooth bore 12-gauge shotgun, loaded with rifle slugs, is the “functional equivalent” of the founding-era musket. However, it is not the “modern equivalent” as you termed it.
I hope that you see my point? A person armed with a modern shotgun, loaded with rifle slugs, is no better off, in terms of range and hit probability, then his musket-firing ancestors. One might be able to load and fire a modern shotgun faster than the old musket, but the functional range and performance is about the same.
Technology has advanced since the founding era. Newspapers are no longer produced with a hand-cranked press that spits out one sheet at a time. News Media companies now use modern, automated, computer-based equipment for such things. Hence, the 1st Amendment protections for the Press must be expanded to include the much more advanced and modern methods of publication.
In the same fashion, armies no longer line up in rows and fire big chunks of lead (from muskets) at each other to be followed by a bayonet charge. Rather, a whole set of advanced weapon systems are used including modern assault rifles.
Thus, the “modern equivalent” of the musket are assault rifles such as the AK, the AR, and various other platforms. Following this line of reasoning, the Modern Sporting Rifles (derived from these military platforms but in semi-auto format for civilian use) are the “modern equivalent” of the civilian musket sold and used during the founding era.
There is a difference between “functional equivalent” and “modern equivalent” weapons. You are conflating the two in your comment above.
Modern Sporting Rifles (MSR) are the modern equivalent of the old-style musket. This is an important point to make because, if it is true, then the claim that the 2nd Amendment does not protect MSR’s cannot be supported under Constitutional Law. All such claims must be invalid which then means that all the recent restrictions, which the prohibitionists are trying to stick onto MSR’s, are patently unconstitutional.
This isn’t hard to understand.
The AR looks like a war machine gun, carried by our troops, so it’s easy to make people believe that they are dangerous, thus easier to ban. One more step toward gun control and disarmament.
Josh Sugarmann, the gun control dude said as much.
Kurt Schlichter has some thoughts on Christmas Presents for this modern age. Mr. Schlichter, as usual for him, is as blunt as the handle of an axe to the head. Maybe that is what is needed in these days of “Low Information Voters” and dumbed-down education systems?
Anyway, I found his views interesting. Here is a link to his latest opinion piece:
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2023/12/21/buy-your-kids-toy-guns-this-christmas-n2632640
Quote of the Day:
Luke 2:14 – “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
Just want to point out that the debates we have show how blessed we are. We debate about what firearms and ammunition are best for this or that. The debate itself is a luxury. It shows we have choices. Most countries don’t allow their subjects to be armed with guns, so most of the people in the world do not have our kinds of discussions.
Imagine a nation that allows its people to own one type of handgun, one type of shotgun and one type of rifle. That would be a great nation. Those people would be very happy to have more freedom than most of the people in the world. LOOK AT ALL THE CHOICES WE HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Imagine a nation that allows its people to own one type of handgun, one type of shotgun and one type of rifle.”
Indeed, some nations are almost that restrictive. Consider the restrictions on civilian firearms ownership in India:
1) Handguns are largely restricted to revolvers or semi-automatics in 22 LR, 32 S&W Long, and 32 ACP calibers. Powerful rounds, like 9mm Luger, 45 ACP, etc. are restricted to police and military units. Regular Citizens are just out-of-luck. How would you like to be restricted to a six shot revolver chambered in 32 S&W Long (Lead Round Nose Ammo is typical) for your best personal defense option? (I guess it still beats throwing rocks! 🙂 )
2) Shotguns are typically available in 12 Gauge. Single, double-barrel, and over/under configurations are available. I don’t think semi-automatics are typically available but pump-actions can be had.
3) Rifles are available in 22LR, 315 (this is the old 8x50R Austrian-Mannlicher round) and 30-06. A bolt-action is typically what you get. Want a MSR? Forget about it!
In India, not only are your choices limited but prices are sky-high because the Government largely has a monopoly on firearms sales and production. Want a six-shot 32 S&W Long revolver? Be prepared to put down the equivalent of $1,018 in rupees (excluding tax) to get it. Want a pump 12 gauge shotgun? That will be another $1,038 (excluding tax) in rupees, please. A mountain of forms and red tape comes with any firearms purchase, of course. After all the India Government is still “A Government”. There is a form for everything and everything has its form!
In India, they don’t debate AR versus Shotgun for home defense. For them, a pump 12-ga shotgun has no rivals! What else would you use? A revolver or pistol in 32 caliber? A bolt action 30-06? Talk about a “No-Brainer”! 🙂
See this link for illustrations of what is typically available to a civilian in India.
https://www.ddpdoo.gov.in/product/products/category/civil-trade—arms-details
P.S. – It is too bad that the Leftists control the UN. How sweet it would be to create an International Treaty that sets up 2nd Amendment Rights for all People, Worldwide. Such a treaty would be really useful unlike that useless “Climate Change” treaty garbage or other crap that the UN typically pushes!
Mr. Schlichter is a bit over the top for my taste, but I guess that’s parody. The antis do somehow miss the historical point that before guns, most of us were literally owned by big strong men with sharp objects who started training when they were boys. Or, hired said big strong men… That sort of society sparked the description of life as “nasty, brutish and short.”*
I expect the antis don’t want to look that far back, but you can get the same result if you look closely at numerous workers paradises of today. Or yesterday.
*I looked the quote up. Seems some folks feel that’s an appropriate name for a law firm:)
I disagree with the MSR moniker, as the Second Amendment is to protect weapons of war. Hiding behind “sport” only serves to weaken our rights. How about volkswaffen?
Some states have a restriction on magazine capacity for hunting game animals. My state limit is 5 rounds in total, magazine of 4 plus one in the chamber. I purchased 5 round magazines from Wilson Combat which work well. However on a recent coyote hunt I was stopped by a DNR officer who gave me a written warning that the state statute is game rifles are limited to 4+1. No exception for varmint hunting.
I use an AR with an FN CHF 20″ Wylde barrel for varmint and coyote. With the proper 223 loads it is very effective. I do not hunt deer but have many friends that do and some who have been cited for magazine capacity in their AR. I do hunt Wapiti and bear and would not do so with an intermediate caliber rifle.
As for an AR as a home defense platform, I believe over penetration is a serious concern. Thus I continue to use a 12 gauge Benelli semi auto with 20″ barrel and #4 buckshot. I find that combination mitigates some over penetration and is effective at “indoor distances.”
So claiming the AR is a hunting platform has challenges in some jurisdictions. Laws can and do change. Some DNR officers I have asked about the 5 versus 4 round magazine topic said, “it depends.” If the hunter is respectful, honest and compliant they tend to only warn and overlook the magazine violation. But, if the hunter is carrying 20 or more rounds in a magazine they cite them 100% of the time.
If anyone has a source for reliable and cost effective 4 round AR magazines please share.
“As for an AR as a home defense platform, I believe over penetration is a serious concern. Thus I continue to use a 12 gauge Benelli semi auto with 20″ barrel and #4 buckshot. I find that combination mitigates some over penetration and is effective at “indoor distances.””
#4 buck is a very good choice with those concerns, but I’d take another look at the .223 overpenetration issue. I’ve got 42 grain frangibles in mine that come out the barrel north of 3000 fps that make a mess out of a gel block without going past 18 inches and would disintegrate on hitting sheetrock or a 2×4. fast-moving .223 will stop faster against building materials than a plugged 9mm or .45 hollowpoint.
“I disagree with the MSR moniker…”
I can see why one would disagree because of the very point you make.
I am of mixed mind on the issue, myself. One does not want to let the 2A be limited by “Sporting” concerns. That is a potential trap of the Left. Yet, a couple of points can be made in favor of the MSR moniker:
1) The American Left (which includes the Firearms-Prohibitionists) love to play games with language. They love to bend and shape the English Language to suit their propaganda purposes. They define terms that give them a debate/propaganda/indoctrination advantage and then work to make those terms commonly accepted. For example:
A) Gun Violence – A “Term of Art” that the leftists created. Simply by using this term, the mind (and the debate) is focused on the “Gun” being the source of “Violence” thereby implying that guns are the problem and must be restricted. In truth, we have a problem with violent people. No gun causes violence on its own. There is always a human finger on the trigger. Yet, this “Term of Art” has become so widely accepted that one cannot even debate the issue without it becoming a debate on “Controlling Gun Violence”. Automatically, the Gun Grabbers have the “Home Field Advantage” when this occurs.
B) Assault Weapon – Another “Term of Art”. As with “Gun Violence”, use of this term ends up suggesting that it is the weapons that are committing assaults. Tell me, how many weapons are serving time in prison of the crime of felony assault? Let me give you a hint. The number is 0.0. Plenty of people serve time for crimes of assault but no firearms do. Yet, the “Word Smiths” of the Left have us focusing upon the tool rather than the person who actually commits the act. Behold the POWER of language.
So, if the Left plays such games with language, maybe we should play such games too? You know, to “fight fire with fire”?
Thus, “Modern Sporting Rifle” is also a “Term of Art” created, by pro-2A folks, to help counter the language games of the Left.
2) It is generally agreed that none of our Rights are unlimited. As the famous saying goes “you cannot scream ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater” just to exercise your 1st Amendment Rights. There had damn well better be a fire. Otherwise, one should face charges for inciting a riot! In a similar fashion, there are limits to the 2nd Amendment.
The question is, where to draw the line? When it was first adopted, the 2nd Amendment was pretty much unlimited. If one wanted to by a wagon load of muskets, that was fine and dandy as long as you had the money. If one wanted to buy a ship and outfit it with cannon, powder and shot, and a crew of stouthearted men, well, that was fine too.
Note that Article I – Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to “declare war, grant Letter of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” In other words, during time of War, Congress has the power to authorize private warships that could be used to attack enemy commerce. The owners of the private warships would be paid off in the “Booty” from the captures they make on the seas.
So, a private person, back in the founding period, could own a fully armed warship IF he had the dollars to pay for it.
Should this still be true? Should a billionaire be able to purchase a fully-armed aircraft carrier if he can afford it? Should he be able to build his own personal nuclear bomb?
I think most people would say “No”. Military firepower has grown to such an extent that allowing private citizens unlimited access to it is unwise. A black powder cannon is one thing. A private citizen can still buy them today. But a jet fighter? a warship? powerful bombs? Perhaps not.
Thus, if the 2nd Amendment is to be limited, where to draw the line? Ah, there’s the rub!
The Gun-Grabbers would draw the line at single shot muskets such as were used 200 years ago. I think everyone who reads this blog would say that this is too extreme.
The SCOTUS seems to indicate that weapons “commonly owned” for sport, defense, and militia use are protected. Thus, making the case that modern semi-automatic rifles are commonly owned for sport (as well as personal/home defense and potential militia use) serves a purpose. It strengthens our claim to 2nd Amendment protection against those who would limit the 2nd Amendment down to oblivion.
I’m not aware of any 4 round AR magazines, but it is possible to cut a spacer (wood/plastic) and insert it under the magazine spring and above the floor plate, thereby allowing only 4 rounds to be inserted into the magazine. This should be easy to do with 5, 10 or 20 round straight aluminum or steel magazines.
Comments are closed.