Modern Sporting Rifles?

[TRanger]

I will freely own up to being a curmudgeon. I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th Century; never mind the 21st. My social attitudes are out of date (thank God) and many of my ideas are old fashioned. I have a cell phone only because my wife bought me one and insisted I carry it. I do appreciate the internet, primarily because I can visit many gun-related websites and I can shop on-line which frees me from going to a store. In general, I feel technology beneficial to human beings peaked in 1937 when the Winchester Model 70 hit the market; so that is the perspective this post is coming from.
I find the term "modern sporting rifle" as applied to the AR15-class of weapons somewhat annoying. This term, to my way of thinking, is simply our own version of smoke and mirrors. In short, it is "politically correct;" something I detest. These firearms are not sporting weapons, nor do we need to pretend they are. They exist for the purpose of fighting. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the primary purpose for the existence of firearms and they can stand on their own merits. Why do we need to pretend they are hunting rifles, dress them up in pretty colors, and invent the "MSR" label for them? The AR is not a sporting gun, nor are the M1A, G3, FN FAL, M1, AK, or what have you. I just think it is silly to head into the hunting field looking like an aspirant for the next Rambo film in an effort to "legitimize" these weapons.
I suppose I'll be nominated for the Jim Zumbo award. Understand I am not against military type rifles. I thing everyone should own one. The second amendment exists to protect them. "Sporting purposes" are secondary and frivolous as far as the second amendment is concerned. But I understand where Zumbo was coming from.
Ahh, well; as I said, I'm a curmudgeon. I suppose there were people like me a century ago saying,
" Them newfangled bolt-action thingies don't belong in the hunting field!"

 

[contender]

Yes, the original design was built with the military in mind. But, to use your aged logic, realize that the assault rifle of the American Revolution was a flintlock muzzleloader. It was used as a multi-purpose firearm. It gathered food for the table AND fought for freedom. Many designs of firearms have succeeded just because the military needed something or they needed something designed for sporting purposes. (The Barrett 50 cal is a good example.)

As a NRA instructor, we teach that a firearm is just that, a firearm. It's only a weapon when used as one. No matter the design.

And, as many soldiers found over the years, the AR style was good for many things, and just like the 1911 45 acp, it has been modified for civilian use. It can be used as a sporting rifle, and used to defend freedom.

Just my thoughts from a different angle.

 

[Pat-inCO]

OMG!

You mean you don't want to miss as fast as you can?!

 

[gramps]

TRanger, you are allowed your point of view. I embrace the new technologies somewhat (can't stand what passes for music these days). An iPhone is a constant companion. It coupled with the iPad keep my house secure, while I am away. I love doing research at home instead of a library! I finally broke down and got an AR platform gun ( everyone should have one?). I am comfortable shooting it, but like my Ruger Mk 2, I am not comfortable stripping it down for a real cleaning. Yep, I prefer bolt actions too. Hang in there, all this will pass. You and I need to keep the knowledge of them "old days" alive. (Nothing finer than deer tenderloin in the morning!) Who knows when it will be needed again! :shock:
gramps

 

[Big Old Boy]

I too am not into them sporting rifles,but I hate to pick up brass. If one shot won't do it don't take the shot. Ain't no way don't spray and pray.

 

[Don Lovel]

I just saw a video on the Noreen 30-06 AR.
I want one. A few years ago a buddy bought a Saiga in 30-06, that was as much fun to shoot as my Garand, so I am thinking the Noreen would be a ball to shoot as well.
I got to shoot a Knight 308 last May in Raton, that was fun too.

 

[muzzleloader]

I guess I can agree with much of your post, although being a curmudgeon myself it's difficult. I just think of the MSR label as our own way of enlightening the uninvolved and uninformed. Unfortunately these idiots vote in elections and even become elected! Usually I don't give a tinker's damn if I appear reasonable on a subject or not, but on this one we should try to not scare the horses. I heartily agree technology has taken us a little too far. Why can't I walk in a store and look through a couple of FIXED power scopes? Why am I forced to buy a 3x9x40 and leave it on 3x? :x

 

[TRanger]

Contender, I appreciate your point of view. I must respectfully disagree to a certain extent. There was no "assault rifle" until the 1940s. For most of our history, the hunting rifle and the military rifle were one and the same. They began to diverge in the late 19th century. The sporting rifle trended more and more toward precision and the military rifle toward firepower. Today they are quite distinct classes of weapons.
I, too, am an NRA instructor and know that they abjure the use of the term "weapon" in their approved curriculum. To my mind, this is more PC nonsense; although I respect and comply with their wishes when conducting NRA classes. A hammer is a tool that can be used as a weapon. A firearm is a de facto weapon pure and simple. That is its reason for being. Again, there is nothing wrong with that.
This is my perspective and I am sure we can agree to disagree. I value your thoughts and opinions on many subjects.

 

[TRanger]

Why can't I walk in a store and look through a couple of FIXED power scopes? Why am I forced to buy a 3x9x40 and leave it on 3x? :x

Muzzleloader, glad I am not the only remaining fan of fixed power scopes in the world. :lol:

 

[Jimbo357mag]

The term 'Modern Sporting Rifle' seems to cover the whole spectrum and sounds non-offensive to most. The only other term that covers the whole gamut would be 'Black Rifle' and that just isn't as friendly sounding as the other.

...as far as their purpose, at this point it is so varied they just about cover it all and they do it with dependability and accuracy in all their variations. ...and I don't even like them.

 

[wwb]

I'm not a fan of the AR platform, but you must admit they're versatile.

My son's two deer rifles are a Savage bolt-action .30-06 (for the long shots from a stand) and an ultra lightweight AR in 6.8 SPC (for sneaking through the woods and surprising a deer). He has a 5-round magazine for the 6.8 that fits almost flush with the bottom of the mag well, and it's fitted with a 1-3X Weaver scope. As much as I hate to admit it, it's every bit as good a woods gun as my 96/44.

That said, I'm going to my grave believing in blued steel and walnut.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

Ok, just one person's opinion, probably neither right or wrong:

There's an old saying to the effect that nobody's ever lost a dollar betting against the intelligence of the American public. Distilled, we're faddish, tend to jump on a new trend the instant it rolls by, and grab onto catch phrases like they were gold nuggets flying thru the air. It's not a new phenomenon: De Tocqueville wrote about these "tendencies" in his studies of us nearly 200 years ago...

Having said that, I don't know who to point the finger at about the use of the term "assault weapon." I find it more offensive than the MSR moniker, in the same sense I don't particularly like the constant use of "weapon" in places where "firearm, rifle, pistol" or just "gun" works as well. I guess I prefer a term that assigns less judgmental quality to the terminology when practical. However, it--"assault weapon"--has taken hold to describe an entire class of firearms which may never be used for any greater assault than an attack on a line of empty aluminum cans. Notice I didn't say beer cans? Don't want some uneducated wag mistakenly thinking all those beer cans we blast out in the desert were emptied in any time frame remotely related to that shooting! Yet I'm sure my little group is not the only bunch in the country to use them!

Now, prior to this thread, I was beginning to think I was one of the last three people in this country who neither has an AR-type rifle, or cares to rush out and buy or build one. Other than use of affordable .223 ammo as a temporary replacement for scarce .22 LR ammo, there's nothing I do with MY rifles that can't be done as well or better with another caliber. Yet millions upon millions of rounds of the stuff are fired every year, by civilians, for purely "sporting" purposes: target shooting, varmint hunting, plinking, even some larger game hunting (the jury's still out on that one in my mind: there's both good and bad involved in that usage.) That certainly doesn't seem to be "assault" use to me.

So I can see our shooting community "fighting" back with the term "modern sporting rifle" as a way of taking some of the "scare factor" out of an otherwise common rifle. Let's think back a while to the M1 Garand: in WWII it was a fierce battle rifle. Best one ever built, if General Patton was right? Yet not long after that war was over--might have been sooner except for Korea--it became a civilian favorite. I'm sure some of you can remember them being offered for sale on the backs of magazines for $24.95 plus s/h, and maybe some M1 carbines in the same ad for $19.95? There was nothing scary about them: folks bought 'em for "sporting" purposes and they never seemed to carry that "Oh, that's a horrible weapon!" stigma.

Today, we've got a worse case of "Jump on the bandwagon-itis" than usual, and a less educated public in so many respects than we've had in decades or centuries. It seems we have far more "facts" available to us at the same time we possess less "knowledge." Combine that with the fact that something can happen in a tiny dirt village 500 miles from nowhere and within less than a minute, the world can be hearing about it. We can spread information, both good and bad, to more people, faster, than we've ever been able to in the past: it's a bad combo.

That's the long way around the barn of saying "We've gotta fight back" whenever someone besmirches our sport or the hardware we use thru the use of language. I think it sounds kinda silly, but given the choice of "assault weapon", "black rifle" which morphs into "evil black rifle" rather quickly, or "MSR/modern sporting rifle", I'll take the last one and hope the furor does pass as have all our previous "fads!" Regardless of what we think here, a huge segment of the populace is both ignorant of, and frightened by, firearms. So, like it or not, we end up having to sugar coat our speech to help keep them from bringing us more grief in that ignorance.

Rick C

 

[tom black]

I am also a curmudgeon, and very proud of it. I'm old, fat and out of shape, but at his prime, Jesse Owen couldn't run fast enough to give me one of the synthetic stocked rifles to hunt with.
Tom Black

 

[TRanger]

Wonderful rifles, Tom! You are definitely a fellow curmudgeon!

 

[dougader]

muzzleloader touched on the reason why the MSR moniker came into being: Because idiots are allowed to vote!
It's that simple. Our own side kinda started this mess by calling AR-15 rifles "assault rifles" for way too long.
Despite the fact that these rifles are used to "assault" people or positions virtually never in our country, the
very term "assault rifles" seemed almost tailor made to scare the soccer moms and neutered men.

Whoever coined the term Modern Sporting Rifles did us all a favor. It not only took away a rhetorical weapon
of the socialist wanna-be gun grabbers, if you will look around, you'll see that this term is factually accurate.

AR-15 type rifles are currently this country's most popular rifles. They now number in the many millions in
civilian hands, and I believe this is a great thing. These same rifles have been favorites of many varmint
hunters for quite some time, and they are now the #1 target rifle in competitive matches.

You know, I'm as much a curmudgeon as anyone else, more than many. But maybe this issue is worth looking
at from the strategic point of view. :wink: - DixieBoy

I agree with you on this, DB. Why allow the lame stream media to run the conversation with their perversion of terms like assault rifle, or assault weapon.

 

[WAYNO]

This is a discussion that continues to be divisive even within our shooting community.

I'll bet way back...When folks were hunting with Sharps' rifles, the campfire discussion turned to those new fangled modern bolt action repeaters. Just no way to consider them sporting rifles.

I'm a bolt-action kind've guy when it comes to hunting, but I also know the attributes of a modern pistol-gripped semi-auto can be as handy in the woods as it was in the jungle. And where, or with what style of rifle is the cut-off to where it is no longer considered sporting? Firearms technology and design has grown so much, I just cannot imagine why we have to not accept the use of technology advances. And if ya don't care for a black, pistol-gripped semi auto, ya don't have to own one. But I don't understand condemning the folks who do use and appreciate them.

WAYNO.

 

[maxpress]

Lots of people throughout history owned one or a few guns. What were the conversations when people started carrying there "high capacity ultra fast repeater military lever actions" out for a hunt? I'm sure the frontier was awash with conversations about those "stupid city slickers" who were going to blast away with 30-30's or 38\40's until they saw that they just went out and took 1 good shot and took the game home.

 

[contender]

Many good comments by all.
TRanger, I am glad you didn't take any offense by my comments. I was trying to point out the fact that all firearms are tools. It's the job they do that defines them a little sharper. To use a hammer analogy, you have a hammer, and then you have a framing hammer, a finish hammer, a cobblers hammer etc. It's all in how it's used.
I too do not know who or when the term "assault rifle" was coined. But it has been the term used to blacklist many firearms which are sporting firearms.
By using negative terminology the anti-gun folks have made many people feel bad about owning, carrying, using or even talking about firearms. It wasn't that long ago that many folks around here carried firearms to school to be used to hunt with on the way home. Then firearms became taboo & bad. All because a minority screamed louder than the common sense folks.
Nowadays, more discussion about firearms is going on, and the stigma of being a gun owner is SLOWLY being turned around.
Remember the saying; "The pen is mightier than the sword?" By using negative labels, they have been beating us up. By changing how we speak is using their own tactics against them.

Oh, and as for history, remember the comments made by many back in the 1800's about the Henry rifle? The "gun you could load on Sunday & shoot all week!" A repeating firearm. Used by the Union troops in the War of Northern Aggression. AND they were used after that for sporting purposes.

It's all in how the tool is used as to what it's called.

 

[m657]

Wonder what the various shades of meaning the word "sporting" actually has for those who discuss such matters....is it caliber size, magazine capacity, earth-tone vs solid black?

Blue & wood vs stainless & polymer? Does it extend to 'smokeless' vs the Holy Black?

I think the spirit of the warrior and the spirit of the hunter/gatherer is far more alike than mere tool configuration.

Long ago in a lifetime decades past, close friends would gather in what became known as 'bench racing'.....and while much could be gained from such discussion, 'race day' really was the point of the whole week of that ragged tribe thrown together in their fierce determination 'out of town guys' wouldn't take the trophy at the dirt track that week.
There was an irrational shared pride that somehow WE could prevail over THEM. For the life of me I still can't articulate what it all meant.

But various equipment advantages, changes, 'rules' etc.....all came under the guise of 'Bench Racing"....temporarily whatever reality of the track could be molded into a closely argued line of why this-or-that should be the case when someone else could give ample reason of something else being so instead.

I -think- I understand the EBR/MSR aspects of this discussion. Without being able to solve the conundrum, what I can do, is prepare to go to the range as soon as possible.

 

[RugerHound]

I never felt the need for ARs until the past few years when it began to look like the entire load of cheese was about to slide off this big American cracker! I broke down & bought a Ranch Rifle some good years ago, but up 'till then I mostly kept single shot or bolt action for most of my life... I don't hunt anymore, and wouldn't use an AR for hunting if I did.

However...

The ARs offer a petty universal platform. These days I consider them part of my firearms diversification program.., Sorta the same way you diversify in your financial portfolio. It's good to have money in many different markets. Same way with firearms IMO.

God forbid... If the SHTF, those who have a lot of options are probably gonna do better. A fella doesn't wanna get caught flat footed these days!

 

[Ruger Packer]

I have an AR-15 platform black rifle. It stays loaded and stashed in a secret place in the house ready for when I need it. I don't care if it gets banged around and/or scratched up. But when I head to the deer woods I reach for my tang safety Ruger 77 in either .243 or .270 when hunting open country or from a stand. Or, my Ruger .44 Semi-auto Carbine when hunting the thick woods and swamps.

Guess that makes me an old curmudgeon... wait a minute.... a curmudgeon is a bad tempered person...... being as I am not bad tempered I guess my choice of firearms makes me old fashioned. 8)

 

[exavid]

The only assault rifle I've ever owned was my old 1903 Springfield. Heck, the '03 was a lot more powerful than an AR, had a bayonet lug and I had a bayonet for it. My 5.56mm rifle doesn't even compare to the damage the old '03 could do and it could reach out and touch someone a lot farther away as well. I look at my AR as a target rifle. Of course it could be used for other purposes if needed.

I confess I still think a proper rifle is made of steel and wood.

 

[Bayouhunter]

A lot of good comments and thoughts here!

Right or wrong. I've never believed in the term assault weapon either. In fact I believe the last few decades has defined the term assault weapon for the purpose of confiscation. Like many here I never owned a higher capacity centerfire rife until I thought my own government representative may betray me and say I could not own one. With today's numerous home invasions, threats of society breaking down, criminals better armed than myself, I have a certain need to protect my family in the most efficient way. My maple stocked.50 cal. Early Virginia flintlock and 54 cal. Hawken will not do everything I need them to. So I have several types of rifles and shotguns that will do the job. Are they assault weapons? No but they are what our Country's Founders thought they were just more modern.

What I use to fill my need to hunt with is not same tool I use for protection, it may do so if it's the tool I have in hand at the moment but I prefer more efficient and reliable tools for that.

I also use two Stihl chain saws and a hydraulic wood splitter, an ax, a couple of hatchets, and one machete, a Tractor, with tiller, post hole digger, brush hog attachments, a shovel, and rake. Which one I use for a specific task is the more efficient tool. Just about every tool including my pen and pencils that I own can be used as a weapon or could be used to assault someone.

The media, and the anti-gun crowd are the ones that use the term assault weapon for their own agendas.

I shoot and hunt for enjoyment but I also shoot to maintain my skill with certain tools I may need for a specific task.

 

[Paul B]

"Having said that, I don't know who to point the finger at about the use of the term "assault weapon." I find it more offensive than the MSR moniker, in the same sense I don't particularly like the constant use of "weapon" in places where "firearm, rifle, pistol" or just "gun" works as well."

I agree. Quite a few years back I posted on several sites where weapon had predominance over firearm or gun that maybe it would be a good idea to use a substitute for weapon when talking say deer rifles or elk rifles as examples. The cussing out I got via E-mails and PM's was such that, well I got pretty damn well PO'd myself. One E-mail started out with you S.O.B. (words spelled out) and after that just about every other word started with "F". My response was to invite him to say it to my face with either a smile of be packin'.

As far as using an AR type for anything, I guess I'm like Matthew Quigley. I don't have much use for one but I do know how to use them. Personally I'd rather hunt with one of my Ruger #1's but as the ranch I hunt doesn't allow single loaders I'll use one of my Mausers. I prefer them to the vaunted Pre-64 M70s any day. I can say that because I've owned them, including a .308 Featherweight, a .264 Win. Mag. and a .375 H&H Mag., nice rifles all. I just prefer the Mauser action.
And yes, I'm a grumpy old politically incorrect curmudgeon who loves offending liberals. :wink: Just ask my wife.
Paul B.

 

[Tensaw]

There is another purpose for rifles, regardless of the design. And that is to shoot targets. I have a couple of rifles that I only use for the challenge of shooting the best I can at targets. There are several regulars at my local shooting range that do the same, whether they are shooting AR style, semi-auto, bolt action, scoped, iron sights or muzzle loaders.

 

[Mobuck]

I didn't carry an M-16(I was in the M-14 group but mostly carried a bolt rifle for my work). I really didn't care for them all that much until I started tinkering with them as a service for my customers. Now, very few days go by I don't have an AR 15 in my hands. Through the winter, I carry one daily and shoot often. I don't consider the MSR as odd but more as a correction for those who feel the platform is a "killers' WEAPON". It's NOT A WEAPON until it's used as such--the same as a hammer or butcher knife. I can do pretty well with an AR but I certainly know it's limitations and don't push the envelope regarding size of target and range. I have plenty of more suitable rifles for long range/big game and choose them as needed. On the other hand, a collapsible stock 16" AR carbine is quite handy in the field, pickup, or ATV and they stand up to that sort of handling better than full sized rifles.
The idea that "you can't miss fast enough" is not always true. I've made hits on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or ?? if the target was still in range and there's often a chance at a double on varmints around here. Although I made a double on coyotes last month with a bolt action, it's quite possible I could have made a triple if I'd had 12-15 shots rather than 3.
If I could "go back" to the late 1970's to coyote hunt with a suppressed AR, I think I could have really cleaned them up.

 

[muzzleloader]

[/quote]

Nice brace of squirrel, color me green. :mrgreen:

 

[willk]

TRanger, I see what you are trying to say, but consider this. The Mauser Model 98 was the most advanced military firearm of its day. Now it is the basis for almost every modern bolt action rifle with the exception of the Remington 700 pattern, which still owes a lot to the Mauser. The Henry lever action was originally presented to the Military for use in the Civil War

So, the AR is a military rifle. Most modern sporting developments were originally a military development. How is the AR different?

 

[TRanger]

So, the AR is a military rifle. Most modern sporting developments were originally a military development. How is the AR different?

Bolt and lever action rifles were embraced as sporting weapons almost as soon as they were introduced. Autoloading sporting rifles have been in common use since the early 20th century. The AR is different because it has been with us for nigh on 60 years and has never been considered a sporting rifle until very recently; and then only as a public relations effort, not because it represented new and improved technology.
It should be clear from my original post that I am not against these weapons. Far from it. I simply think it is silly to pretend they are hunting rifles and actually think seeing people roaming the woods during deer season with them hurts, rather than helps, public perception.
These rifles have a purpose; one which is more legitimate than any frivolous "sporting use." Why make believe otherwise?

 

[RonEgg]

Many states don't allow the standard round to be used for deer sized animals, as a result it is not used in the hunting "sport." I also have a POF in .308 and regardless of the faint of heart, makes a fine, accurate hunting rifle.