The majority of your responses are serving to restore my faith in the basic class and taste of Field & Stream's readership.

I have nothing against the AR, but I just don't have anything at all for it, either.

It's simply a novelty, a toy, the flavor of the moment for the faddish and gullible.

The notion that it's the next step in the evolution of the hunting rifle and the savior of us all is just a bull**** marketing campaign put out by (surprise, surprise) the AR industry and its flacks.

I've run into a few AR-toting hunters and without exception they are the physical embodiment of just what you'd expect from a guy who'd choose to deer hunt with an AR: weekend warrior types festooned with tactical gear and big-ass knives strapped to their legs as they walk around play-acting their special ops fantasies while generally screwing up the hunting for everyone else.

They're basically a bunch of gomers who'd be better off sticking to the range and the paintball field.

May be harsh, but as a public-land hunter I call 'em as I see 'em.

If I ever run into an AR15 hunter who seems half-ass normal and not a goofy ba***rd, then maybe I'll change my opinion. Everyone assures me they're out there, but thus far in my experience they occupy the realm of cryptozoology...

I subscribe to F&S and American Hunter and I don't recall which features the multipage ads about the "evolution of the hunting rifle." It winds up with some gizmoid AR style rifle. It's a bulls**t claim that the AR style hunting rifle is an improvement over anything in the past. It's still a semi-auto, and therefore no more mission capable than an M1 Garand or any semiauto hunting rifle made in the last 60 years.

On top of that, most of 'em look like cheap plastic junk, are built to similar standards, and are vastly overpriced considering what you get from them performance wise.

So no. While I AM going to buy a couple more hunting rifles, none of them will be some p.o.s. AR knock off. One of them will be some kind of upgrade bolt gun in .30-06 and likely to cost a pretty penny. The other one will be an Uberti Sharps in .45-70 and also will cost a pretty penny. These days, I want a rifle that has really nice bluing and fine wood, in addition to being able to shoot accurately and reliably.

Someone else once said and I'll repeat it: "Life's too short to hunt with an ugly rifle."

Huntnow, you know what a strawman argument is?

Did I say anything about the ARs military applications? No.

Did I say anything about our service members' use of the AR? No.

Did I even say anything at all about the ARs use as a civilian self-defense/end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it gun? No.

My comments were based solely on my opinion of all the civilian AR fanboys' claims of the AR as the be-all, end-all hunting weapon.

And yes, on that basis I think it's a cheap, plasticy, over-priced toy for Internet bulletin-board experts, soldier-of-fortune wannabes and suburban survivalists, and I cringe when I see it hawked as the sporting arms heir to the throne.

That's my opinion. And if and when you can make a point not based in garden-variety knee-jerk stupidity, I'll respect yours..

@ 'huntenthusiast'

It's not the AR that is the problem. It is the cartridge and ammo choice used by some of the goobers that espouse them that I have an issue with. Some of the AR's chambered in good deer calibers become unbalanced, heavy, noisy affairs.

As for a rifle's DNA; almost every modern rifle is a descendant of a militay weapon with the possible exception of big bore double rifles.

Back to the original question; i can't see myself using my AR as a deer rifle. Too noisy, too many moving parts.

You obviously don't know Jim Zumbo if you think he is narrow minded.

I never intend to use one any bigger than a varmint rifle. Not only are they unnecessary and expensive, they are more dangerous than traditional rifles and next to nobody who has one as a new shooter will ever learn to shoot right.

Steve182, they'll never replace a 12 gauge for home defense. I need to hit/disable/wipe out whatever's right in front of me, not spray multiple shots at long distance.
Mike D, I could not agree more. If I owned one of those butt-ugly things it'd be hidden in a closet where I wouldn't have to look at it. My favorite guns, which still function perfectly well, are the oldest, best looking, and best made in terms of materials and craftsmanship.

Bring on the negative comments, I'm ready for them. If an AR-15 functions the same as a semi-auto browning, then the difference is in appearance. saying that is not supposed to get into a big technical realm where one is recoil operated and one is gas operated.....handguns, shotguns, rifles. An auto is an auto. I still hunt with a winchester model 70, 30.06, a nice bolt action.....

I'm with Bob and PA in the land of no semi-auto big game rifles. Never really had to consider it. Have nothing against ownership of the things, and may own a semi or two that aren't "black rifles". For those who are proponents of AR's for big game hunting. Forget all of it's virtues for self defense and laying down a lot of fire, might I ask why it'd be necessary over a bolt in deer hunting.
I think I'll accept "A grizzly once attacked me while I was approaching a downed deer and I don't want to carry two guns." Otherwise, I just don't see it and I certainly don't see why we all had to be deprived of parts of Mr. Zumbo's writing because he expressed an opinion on the matter. God forbid gun writers have an opinion.
What will we do if Remington or Winchester start boycotting publications because they have a gripe with a particular new pet caliber? I thought those issues were why we read periodicals that review and opine on our gear. Letting the industry pick and choose based on the writers isn't the way to go. The industry should choose who to sponser based on the number of readers in their target audience and then put their best efforts forward.
Any reps from Remington reading? You should be.

I wonder if many of our forefathers, using all those lever actions, felt negative toward "military" style bolt actions a few decades ago. Oops! Time flies - that was more than a few decades ago.

I have no problem with ARs. Nice to have choices. I think they are a better fit for varmint guns, though. I like the heavier barrels, which throws the balance off and makes them awkward for me to carry. What makes a lot of sense to me is that stock bedding is pretty much taken out of the accuracy equation. Can have a lot of fun with all the accessory choices. Petty durable, too. I really don't like cleaning them, though, but that goes for all gas-operated semi-autos.

If someone wants to hunt with an AR with a good deer round. I see it no different than people hunting with other semi-auto rifles.

That, by the way, is why the USMC uses the M40A1 (militarized Remington 700), and despite what Hollywood shows people using for long range shooting in counterterrorist units or whatever, SWAT and other mil tend to base their snipers around the Savage 10 or the Remington.

The one (AR) in my avatar right now is an expensive paper punch. I do like it a lot but after some thought I'd feel better about having a round with more to it. Anyway why would I forsake my beloved Ruger #1? It has punched more deer than my AR has punched targets.....

WaMtnhunter, I will admit to having culled does and hog hunting with an AR. Does that make me fall in the category with the AR & the diesel(although mine's a 2wd no-s#!+ work truck)?

firstly, we use an AR for home defense and trust the .223 or .308 to quickly dispatch danger but we wouldn't use it for a thin skinned whitetail? i fail to see the shortcomings that are so evident to everyone else. both rounds are fast and flat shooting and are used in other firearms. is that not a trait that is desireable in a deer rifle?
second, this is not at all the same as comparing a crossbow to a bow. comparing a rifle to a pistol maybe.
third, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. some like a chevy and others like dodge. if it shoots straight, who cares?

BTW, I have a couple of semi-auto small game rifles, like a ruger 10/22. Banning weapons on appearance(California) is just plain stupid.

huntnow,
Well stated post. Can't argue with any of it.
Old geezers (me) just like our traditions.
Country music, wood stocks-blued barrels, wool socks-leather boots, black campfire coffee, .30-.30 Winchesters (Marlins?)and pick-ups by Ford or Chevy (no Toyotas, RAV-4's, Cadillacs), and the occasional International, Wagoneer(the only 4 wheel drive that had 4 doors) or Willy's Jeep.
Tents were/are canvas, heavy, smelly, and leaky.
Plastics, polymers, or whatever they call it these days aren't in my vocabulary, or arsenal.
I just hope the hunters/outdoorsmen coming up enjoy and respect the game and country. Teach them well.
It's not the shootin', it's the huntin'.

huntnow,
After all I just wrote....
"who knew hunting was such a beauty contest?"
I pulled out my latest copy of American Rifleman and looked again.
I'll apologize in advance, but those AR's still remain butt-ugly in my own personal-know-all opinion.
I don't care how well they shoot. They may well be fun, and great for some purposes, but.
Anyone who brings one of those into deer camp with me will see my tail-lights in the distance.

All . . .

I have several bolt-action rifles in several different chamberings. But I also have a semi-automatic AK-47 made in Russia chambered in, oddly enough, 7.62mm x 51mm NATO (the .308 Winchester is the civilian version of the 7.62mm NATO).

Last year, for a few hours while tracking wild pigs in an incredibly dense swamp-forest, I carried the AK. I did so primarily because I didn't care if it got scratched, beat up and clogged with mud, and also because I was just a little paranoid that some or all of the pigs I was following might attempt to make me a menu item out of me rather than run away or just ignore me. The next day, I dropped a 100 lb. pig with a single heart-lung shot from the AK from about 60 yards.

I am intimately familiar with automatic weapons from my time in the service. But I do not like them and find them to be horribly ugly and completely without style or class. I do not perceive of them as "hunting" rifles for wild game. Although it had been nearly 20 years since I had carried a fully automatic weapon in the woods, I found that I did not like carrying the AK (even in semi-auto configuration) in the woods either. I haven't taken that rifle to the field since that time. I've arrived at the conclusion that I'd rather risk battering and scarring one of my bolt-action rifles (preferably one with a composite stock, I admit) than to take the AK afield ever again.

It just doesn't seem "sporting" to me at all.

TWD

No.

Yes, I would definately hunt with an AR-15. But probably not for deer. I would more likely use it on coyotes and other varmints. I think an AR is really too heavy to be lugging around deer country. But I have NO problem with people useing them on deer, elk and other game. I mean they even make AR's in 308 Win, 450 Bushmaster, and 50 Bewolf. I think any and all of those three cartridges are plenty powerful for deer and elk.

sgaredneck

I dunno. Guess it depends on how you measure up! LMAO

WMH

a toy? try telling that to the thousands of "gomers" with them in the deserts of the middle east right now protecting our rights to sit at our computers and complain about the quality of the rifles they depend on.

It's a moo point (yes, a cow's opinion) here in PA. We aren't permitted semiauto rifles for hunting. -Bob

My buddy hunts with a FAL. .308, but it sucks bu++. he always has to have it loaded when we walk. And it is loud as hell everytime he RACKS in a round. All kinds of just on it too that he doesn't need. UGly as heck and well, it's still his preference.

just to clear the air, i deer hunt with a model 70 in 7mm mag. i do not even own an ar but i have packed them while in the military and often shoot the ones owned by my friends. also, in the original post a gun shop owner states that last fall they could not keep them on the shelves, that was probably true for many firearms last fall. i have a .380 for personal carry that i still can't find ammo for. if we read between the lines in all of the marketing for outdoor applications of ar style rifles, we can see that besides selling guns, the marketing is attempting to get guns in the hands of hunters and make another assault rifle ban less likely in the present administration as they argue that it has no sporting application. by point about hunting with one is simply this; if you like an ar style rifle and can make good shot placement with a round like the .223 why shouldn't you use it to hunt with if you want. who knew hunting was such a beauty contest?

the basic aesthetic difference in the ar and bar is some wood. the difference in an ar and a "wetherby 399" is the action, and probably nation of manufacture. i have followed this post all day and the last comment that i am going to make is that if one man can put down a deer with an ar in .308 and another man can put down a deer with a model 700 in .308, what is the difference here? does the man with the ar have less of a soul because of his gun? is the taste of the game any different? if i hunt with my father's ar that he has had since 1970 does that make it any better? like i said in the beginning, i fail to see all of the evident shortcoming that are so clear to everyone else.

In a heart beat if Ohio regs would let us. Whatever happened to diversity? Many of the posters here are as narrow minded as Zumbo. There are so many ways to let the lead fly, why turn your nose up at something just because it's different? As far as AR's being only for the military, many bolt guns are descendants of the K98 are they not? Beauty IS in the eye... Where's my negative?

It's like camo nowadays It's not a passion it's a fashion

-Bob

I don't know what to think about those folks in PA. Back in 92 I was told by a guide at Niagara Falls every person who went over the falls by accident or on purpose was from Pennsylvania! Perhaps they need to restrict the folks in PA from going any place! LOL! as for the bridge height signs in that State? They can't get that right also, so go figure! PA, NJ and NY O"BROTHER how do they survive is beyond me!

No.

I enjoy shooting ARs at the range. I just won't hunt with one.

Foolish to use an AR for hunting. Guess AR users want to scare their game to death.If you want to emulate the military then use the old sniper rifles, you know-----one shot one kill!

I dont think that a hunter should need a semi-auto rifle, if you cant make a good first shot with a bolt, lever, or single shot, then I think you need to spend some more time at the range.

ar-style rifles just have too many parts for me. i subscribe to the simple take-the-bolt-out-and-shoot-some-RemOil-down-the-bore, then run a bore cleaner through it, and its clean enough- school of gun cleaning. i dont want to read a owners manual thats thicker than most high school algebra books to know how to take the gun apart and clean it. ar rifles were made for the battlefield, not the hunting field. just my 2 cents.